PDA

View Full Version : I do have one question



Unclebuck
02-16-2006, 09:23 AM
For at least 3 years now an argument has been made by many of you fine Pacer Digest folks about how Foster's lack of offense hurt the team. In fact how many times have we read posts about Foster being benched for the 2004 ECF against the Pistons because Foster just couldn't score.

The theory was the Pacers needed 5 offensive threats on the floor at all times, or at almost all times.

So that leads me to this question. How come the Pacers have played their best basketball during the past two seasons when they had not just one but two players who were not threats offensively.

I'm talking about last March and April when Jeff and Dale were starting and the Pacers went 15-8. And now when Pollard and Foster are starting the Pacers are 5-1.

So do you need 5 offensive threats on the court or not.

CHINAPACERS418
02-16-2006, 09:50 AM
emm,in pistons,ben wallace has little offense as well. ;)

sixthman
02-16-2006, 10:18 AM
The Pacers are getting scoring out of the bigs, even though none of the bigs are considered scoring threats. While the numbers have not been JO like, our bigs are often contributing to the offensive effort, not only with points, but with offensive rebounding that leads to second chance points.

Maybe Harrison, Pollard and Foster aren't as clueless on the offensive end as we thought?

Bottom line: Each of the five players have to contribute to the offense, if you want to be successful. But, points are not the only indicator of a player's value at the offensive end: rebounding, screening, making possible second chance points, and passing all are factors to evaluate when you look at a player's contributions at the offensive end.

ChicagoJ
02-16-2006, 10:56 AM
Pollard will never have plays drawn for him, but he's not really a risk to f*** it up.

We're never saying we need five high-octane scorers on the floor.

But we need five guys capable of playing offense (will burn the other team if their man leaves them to double-team.)

Pollard *is* capable of making 'garbage plays.' Jeff seems to be improving in this, whereas at times in the past he couldn't even make 'garbage plays.'


Bottom line: Each of the five players have to contribute to the offense, if you want to be successful. But, points are not the only indicator of a player's value at the offensive end: rebounding, screening, making possible second chance points, and passing all are factors to evaluate when you look at a player's contributions at the offensive end.

Excellent points.

Evan_The_Dude
02-16-2006, 10:58 AM
UB, in both cases - Dale/Jeff and Pollard/Jeff - ball movement is what made it work. I think ball movement and a few extra chances to make a shot (offensive rebounding) makes up for lack of the 2 other offensive threats. I do after all consider an offensive rebounder an offensive threat as well ;)

Anthem
02-16-2006, 11:18 AM
I continue to believe that Foster was benched in 2004 because our guards couldn't score, not because Foster couldn't.

Unclebuck
02-16-2006, 11:29 AM
I continue to believe that Foster was benched in 2004 because our guards couldn't score, not because Foster couldn't.


I agree with that 100%, and made that point several times over the past almost two years. But that is not the prevailing thought

BillS
02-16-2006, 11:41 AM
The posts so far sum up my opinion: Jeff is a roleplayer, and roleplayers are effective only when their role is effective. As long as scoring is coming from somewhere else, having rebound focus in the middle works. If scoring is not coming from somewhere else, the middle needs to contribute. The only problem with the roleplayer is that as soon as you sub out, it becomes obvious what you're doing and the defense can adjust accordingly.

waxman
02-16-2006, 11:44 AM
I continue to believe that Foster was benched in 2004 because our guards couldn't score, not because Foster couldn't.

Yup

Croshere was our only other shooter and we weren't about to pull JO or Artesticle off the floor.

RWB
02-16-2006, 11:50 AM
)

Sorry to get off track folks, just had a question for Ev_eezy.

Your O rly sig, is that part of the infamous Thumb collection?

http://www.oentertainment.com/OClips/Thumb/thumbclips.htm#null

Major Cold
02-16-2006, 11:53 AM
look at our rebounding. When we get those O rebounds it also helps out our D. Limits fast break oppurtunities and allows us to get another fga. Foster is the starter from now on, unless he is injured again.

Pacerized
02-16-2006, 11:58 AM
Any team I've ever played on had role players. IMO this should apply to any level of basketball. People who see themselves as scorers just aren't happy in the long term if they're forced to focus primarily on defense, or rebounding. I can't think of any championship team that started 5 major scorers. I like keeping a role player like Foster, or Pollard on the floor.

Frank Slade
02-16-2006, 11:59 AM
UB, in both cases - Dale/Jeff and Pollard/Jeff - ball movement is what made it work. I think ball movement and a few extra chances to make a shot (offensive rebounding) makes up for lack of the 2 other offensive threats. I do after all consider an offensive rebounder an offensive threat as well ;)

Yes you read my mind on that one... It's so much easier for quick put back or layup or pass out to the perimeter for a high quality shot , right after you have ripped down an offensive rebound. That adds countless dimensions to this team when we do that successfully.

Lithfan
02-16-2006, 03:12 PM
So do you need 5 offensive threats on the court or not.


Of course not!

No sucessfull team had 5 offensive threats on court.

Best teams have at least one good role player, usually blocker/rebounder. Since somebody has to do dirty work. Good examle of bad teams with excellent players (5 offencive threats) are last two dream teams.

beast23
02-16-2006, 04:06 PM
Foster will never be a scoring machine, but he will always be a decent facilitator, especially in a motion offense.

Just like some PGs do not score much and instead facilitate their teams' offenses, Foster facilitates the Pacer offense. He just does it in a different manner than a PG.

He has a knack for getting offensive rebounds, and he facilitates the ability of other players to get open by willingly setting screens.

And I believe that the players that cut around screens to receive the ball, by virtue of doing so, make it a little easier for Foster to get to the boards as his defender steps out to help on the cutter. With more motion, you have more cutters... with more cutters, I then think you have Foster coming off the screen and getting to the boards more often, and without his defender in tow.

canyoufeelit
02-16-2006, 04:50 PM
It doesn't really matter. In fact, if you look all across the league, most teams are playing 4 (or worse) on 5.

Unclebuck
02-16-2006, 05:07 PM
I agree with what you are all saying, I'm just suprised that everyone is in agreement

N8R
02-16-2006, 06:23 PM
I think it helps to have people who are not looking to score. When everyone wants to be the scoring threat, some forget about defense. When you have people out on the floor like Foster he isnt thinking: "Alright I'm getting 20 points tonight." He is thinking "What do I have to do for this team to win." Right now that is rebound and provide solid defense.

I prefer having at least one big man who doesnt care about numbers and just wants to play defense that way he is out there getting you rebounds, defensive stops and he gets the garbage points (ie putbacks, offense rebs, the occasional dunk or layup).

Rodman was this type of player. He went out and got you 15 boards a game and 9 points a game, but no offensive players were ever run for him, he got his points from doing the dirty work and he is one of the best to play the game.

Los Angeles
02-16-2006, 06:44 PM
I'm talking about last March and April when Jeff and Dale were starting and the Pacers went 15-8. And now when Pollard and Foster are starting the Pacers are 5-1.

So do you need 5 offensive threats on the court or not.
No way do you need 5 offensive threats. You need 5 people playing their natural position to the best of their abilities. That's what we saw during the 15-8 period last season, and it is what we are seeing now. A game plan based on talent and ability and natural position.

Now, regarding substituting Croshere for Foster: I think that it was nothing more than a gimmick. I don't think it was about offensive threats at all, it was about "spreading the floor" to keep the Pistons from outright punishing JO. If I recall correctly, the Pistons stuck with punishing JO every time he got the ball anyway. Croshere hit a few open looks in the first game he started, which was part of why we won, but he missed them in the second game.

It could be my fuzzy memory, but I didn't see much adjustment to the Pistons' game plan at all. Their #1, #2 and #3 priorities were all to contain Jermaine O'Neal.

What use is an offensive threat if he doesn't hit his shots? We didn't need another Reggie standing out on the perimeter. We needed a real center the whole time, to get the buzzards off of JO's corpse.

When JO comes back this season, we truly do have a dilemma. Suddenly Foster or Croshere will be a third string PF. At least one of them had better be. If either of those guys plays center, it will be confirmation that playing up-tempo when JO comes back was all BS from the beginning.

Peck
02-16-2006, 06:53 PM
For at least 3 years now an argument has been made by many of you fine Pacer Digest folks about how Foster's lack of offense hurt the team. In fact how many times have we read posts about Foster being benched for the 2004 ECF against the Pistons because Foster just couldn't score.

The theory was the Pacers needed 5 offensive threats on the floor at all times, or at almost all times.

So that leads me to this question. How come the Pacers have played their best basketball during the past two seasons when they had not just one but two players who were not threats offensively.

I'm talking about last March and April when Jeff and Dale were starting and the Pacers went 15-8. And now when Pollard and Foster are starting the Pacers are 5-1.

So do you need 5 offensive threats on the court or not.

I'm loath to mention this because I don't want to make to big a deal of it.

But since you mentioned it & well you asked let me reply.

Why have the Pacers playd thier best ball since (I will go one step further than you & say since the 00 season) when Jeff has been on with either Dale or Pollard?

Have you noticed that there is another common denomonator here? What two other players were not playing during this time frame?

This is why I have disagreed with you so much over the years that Foster is a good match with J.O. Because when you have Jermaine on the floor you must have your other players able to pick up the slack when teams double or even triple team him.

When your offense can go anywhere that means that there are very few times that you will see a double team.

Also I will point this out as well. When Jeff plays with Scot or even when he played with Dale he played as the power forward, not the center.

Jeff Foster played an almost perfect game of basketball last night btw, heck he even had a blocked shot.

I'm sorry to bring this up but it just can't be over looked when attempting to address your question. But the fact that J.O. & Ron aren't there/here changes our entire offensive scheme.

I was also happy to see you admit that this is the best ball they have played.:)

Unclebuck
02-16-2006, 08:56 PM
I'm loath to mention this because I don't want to make to big a deal of it.

But since you mentioned it & well you asked let me reply.

Why have the Pacers playd thier best ball since (I will go one step further than you & say since the 00 season) when Jeff has been on with either Dale or Pollard?

Have you noticed that there is another common denomonator here? What two other players were not playing during this time frame?

This is why I have disagreed with you so much over the years that Foster is a good match with J.O. Because when you have Jermaine on the floor you must have your other players able to pick up the slack when teams double or even triple team him.

When your offense can go anywhere that means that there are very few times that you will see a double team.

Also I will point this out as well. When Jeff plays with Scot or even when he played with Dale he played as the power forward, not the center.

Jeff Foster played an almost perfect game of basketball last night btw, heck he even had a blocked shot.

I'm sorry to bring this up but it just can't be over looked when attempting to address your question. But the fact that J.O. & Ron aren't there/here changes our entire offensive scheme.

I was also happy to see you admit that this is the best ball they have played.:)


Oh you're good.


Certainly not having J.O. and Ron changes the whole offensive scheme.

You did notice I suggested that Pollard should continue to start once J.O. comes back . But I just don't see how the Pacers can find minutes for DG and Cro. Peck, I'm guessing you want Pollard and DH to play all the Pacers center minutes. Then how can Cro , Jeff and DG all find enough minutes backing up J.O.

Los Angeles
02-16-2006, 10:00 PM
Oh you're good.


Certainly not having J.O. and Ron changes the whole offensive scheme.

You did notice I suggested that Pollard should continue to start once J.O. comes back . But I just don't see how the Pacers can find minutes for DG and Cro. Peck, I'm guessing you want Pollard and DH to play all the Pacers center minutes. Then how can Cro , Jeff and DG all find enough minutes backing up J.O.
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. ;)

They don't. And that's problem #1 with talent stacking and overpaying reserves.

Peck
02-16-2006, 11:34 PM
Oh you're good.


Certainly not having J.O. and Ron changes the whole offensive scheme.

You did notice I suggested that Pollard should continue to start once J.O. comes back . But I just don't see how the Pacers can find minutes for DG and Cro. Peck, I'm guessing you want Pollard and DH to play all the Pacers center minutes. Then how can Cro , Jeff and DG all find enough minutes backing up J.O.


Simple answer, they can't.

Something is going to have to give. My preferance would be that Granger never play a min. at the powerforward spot but I understand that sometimes it will happen.

How do we determine who get's the min. between Cro & Foster? Your going to be suprised by my answer.

Both, the reason I say both is that I bet you see Pollard return to limited playing time once J.O. returns. & thus you will see Harrison & Croshere coming off of the bench. Yes, my guess is that Jeff starts again. I don't like it, in fact I hate Foster with O'Neal. But I am of the belief that we will go right back to the way it was within 7 games of J.O.'s return.

Anthem
02-17-2006, 12:22 AM
They don't. And that's problem #1 with talent stacking and overpaying reserves.
Exactly.

You guys think we can get anything at all for Croshere and Tinsley? I like both guys, but I'd trade them for picks, projects, and cap relief just to get our team to the point where the pieces fit together.

ChicagoJ
02-17-2006, 12:31 AM
I still argue you need a starting PG if you trade Tinsley.

AJ and Saras are NOT starters on a good NBA team. They're doing a fine job of filling in for Tinsley, but neither of them are the "answer" come playoff time.

Los Angeles
02-17-2006, 12:54 AM
I still argue you need a starting PG if you trade Tinsley.

AJ and Saras are NOT starters on a good NBA team. They're doing a fine job of filling in for Tinsley, but neither of them are the "answer" come playoff time.
Have to disagree with you - or at least split hairs. AJ has shown 2 year in a row that he is starting material on a good team. The post trade pacers are a great team so far and AJ's doing a great job.

Now, if you want to argue if he's starting material on a championship team, I can see where you're coming from.

sixthman
02-17-2006, 12:55 AM
Way to premature to say this is the best ball the Pacers have played since 2000. Most fan friendly, maybe. But all these games have been played at home with plenty of rest between games in front of a friendly crowd. Take the show out on the road and be almost as successful, then I'll buy into the premise. 18 games in March, I think. If the Pacers win 13 or 14 of them, then I will get excited.

Arcadian
02-17-2006, 12:59 AM
I've always thought we lost to Detriot because of guard play.

I certainly don't believe that you have five people able to score but you do need all 5 involved (picks, movement, going for O rebounds) in the offense which with the iso-get-back-on-D mentality took away.

CableKC
02-17-2006, 01:07 AM
The way I look at it.....the less touches from the Center simply means more touches for the rest lineup. Consistent scoring Centers that can put up more then 8 points a game are few and far between.....if all the Center does is rebound, block out, block a shot or two and properly defends the paint......as far as I am concerned......any scoring from the Center is icing on the cake.

Anthem
02-17-2006, 01:14 AM
I still argue you need a starting PG if you trade Tinsley.

AJ and Saras are NOT starters on a good NBA team. They're doing a fine job of filling in for Tinsley, but neither of them are the "answer" come playoff time.
Come playoff time, we'd need a new PG anyway.

Suaveness
02-17-2006, 01:33 AM
Is Andre Miller to be had?

Peck
02-17-2006, 02:19 AM
As stupid as this sounds & trust me it even sounds stupid to me.

But with J.O. & the iso ball that we have run for the past three years you really need the other four players on court to be able to shoot the ball.

With the motion offense you really only need the big guys to be able to stick an occasional jumper & be able to get lots of garbage from around the rim.

I know I know it makes no sense but for some reason it works this way.

Using the Croshere game vs the Pistons is a good example of this because he litterally changed that game. But let's not forget that the very next game he didn't hit a thing & therefor was not a factor.

I'm not explaining this very well but here is another attempt.

When J.O. finds out that he can't get a shot off for whatever reason he needs to be able to dump it to about anybody who then can stick a shot.

Jeff does not fit that need. Croshere does.

However when we are running this type of offense it is vital that our big men not hang out at the three point line. Cro sometimes gets to caught up with hanging out at the line.

Bball
02-17-2006, 03:05 AM
Come playoff time, we'd need a new PG anyway.

We can just keep Tinsley in bubblewrap while he heals and keep him in it on the bench until the playoffs. Then, if AJ and Sarunas aren't cutting it for the playoffs, Carlisle can cut the bubblewrap off Tinsley and put him in the game. OTOH, if AJ and Sarunas are doing fine, Tinsley can remain the disaster PG and sit patiently on the bench in his bubblewrap.

That seems the perfect solution to me... :D

-Bball

CableKC
02-17-2006, 03:12 AM
We can just keep Tinsley in bubblewrap while he heals and keep him in it on the bench until the playoffs. Then, if AJ and Sarunas aren't cutting it for the playoffs, Carlisle can cut the bubblewrap off Tinsley and put him in the game. OTOH, if AJ and Sarunas are doing fine, Tinsley can remain the disaster PG and sit patiently on the bench in his bubblewrap.

That seems the perfect solution to me... :D

-Bball
We should do the same with JONeal.....:rolleyes:

D-BONE
02-17-2006, 07:59 AM
I'm not a big fan of the Foster-JO combo either. I also hope Pollard and DH get the majority of C minutes. Foster is backup 4, Granger is backup 3. Cro is odd man out unless we're really struggling for O. Then maybe he gets a look. I love Cro for his effort and commitment, but I really don't see him as superior to any of the front line guys I've mentioned so far and obviously Peja either. Maybe Rick sneaks in a few minutes for him, but he could be on the receiving end of some DNP-CDs I think. Anthem, love to move him and Tins but I don't know how likely that is.

Unclebuck
02-17-2006, 08:29 AM
Peck, that actually is not a bad explanation.

RWB
02-17-2006, 08:53 AM
I'm not a big fan of the Foster-JO combo either. I also hope Pollard and DH get the majority of C minutes. Foster is backup 4, Granger is backup 3. Cro is odd man out unless we're really struggling for O.

I agree with D-Bone here. Hopefully Rick can get over the idea each one of these guys can play 3 or 4 different positions. Seems we do better when instead of trying to fit the square peg in the round hole we actually go with a backup who plays the position.