PDA

View Full Version : When we got Stephen Jackson...



Major Cold
03-09-2006, 02:36 PM
Was he suppose to be the number one scoring option? The answer was and still is no. When he got here he was suppose to come off the bench behind Reggie. Then Artest happened. When he came back from suspension was he the number 2 option in offenses?

This year Artest happened and JO had his annual injury. Since he has been here Sjax is doing things that we never intended him to do. He should be the third option in our offense when JO and Tinsley returns. And when he is in the game and Hulk has an advantage Sjax is still not the number one option. Let me ask this question because I didn't watch yesterdays game. Who took the last shot last night? Who passed him the ball? Was it an open jumper? Could the passer had a better shot?

Major Cold
03-09-2006, 06:12 PM
thanks for the input

Mr.ThunderMakeR
03-09-2006, 06:17 PM
I didnt see last game either so I cant help you there....

BUT, Jax plays worse the farther down he moves on the scoring ladder and eventually just disappears.. If he isnt at least 2nd option its like hes not even on the court. Remember how worthless he was at the beginning of hte season when Ron and JO were both playing? There was a Jax interview posted here when Ron sat out and Jax said he was playing better because he got to dominate the ball more. So basically imo, Jax doesnt want to play hard unless he is one of the main options.

8.9_seconds
03-09-2006, 06:18 PM
I Like jax better at the 3 last year, actually. Maybe, that was because I didn't like when he started over Reggie, I don't know. I know that would mean Danny would play less though.....so scratch that.


Wait,what was I saying....:sigh:, oh well.

CableKC
03-09-2006, 06:32 PM
Let me ask this question because I didn't watch yesterdays game. Who took the last shot last night? Who passed him the ball? Was it an open jumper? Could the passer had a better shot?
Technically.......the last shot of the game was a 3pt shot taken by Sarunas....but it didn't matter at that point since we were already down by 4 points with seconds left. The damage was done by the lack of scoring on the last 9 Field Goal Attempts with Peja making the only layup during that span. Everyone messed up......not just SJax this time.

Below is the relavent play-by-play of what the Pacers did ( minus what Houston did ) from ESPN from the 2:31 second mark ( when the game was tied at 97-97 after an Indy Timeout ):

2:31 Stephen Jackson misses 22-foot jumper 97-98
2:30 Indiana defensive rebound 97-98
1:43 Anthony Johnson misses 17-foot jumper 97-98
1:09 Stephen Jackson misses 25-foot three point jumper 97-98
1:07 Jeff Foster offensive rebound 97-98
1:05 Anthony Johnson misses 25-foot three point jumper 97-98
1:02 Anthony Johnson offensive rebound 97-98
1:00 Anthony Johnson misses 23-foot jumper 97-98
0:59 Jeff Foster offensive rebound 97-98
0:59 Stromile Swift blocks Jeff Foster's layup 97-98
0:59 Indiana offensive rebound 97-98
0:58 Peja Stojakovic makes layup (Stephen Jackson assists) 99-98
0:35 Peja Stojakovic misses 7-foot running jumper 99-98
0:32 Yao Ming blocks Jeff Foster's layup 99-98
0:32 Jeff Foster offensive rebound 99-98
0:28 Jeff Foster misses layup 99-98
0:28 Jeff Foster offensive rebound 99-98
0:25 Indiana full timeout
0:25 Sarunas Jasikevicius enters the game for Scot Pollard 99-100
0:14 Stephen Jackson misses 27-foot three point jumper 99-100
0:12 Anthony Johnson personal foul (Luther Head draws the foul) 99-100
0:12 Scot Pollard misses free throw 1 of 2 99-100
0:12 Scot Pollard enters the game for Sarunas Jasikevicius 99-100
0:12 Indiana 20 Sec. timeout
0:12 Sarunas Jasikevicius enters the game for Scot Pollard 99-101
0:58 Houston full timeout
0:05 Anthony Johnson misses 13-foot jumper 99-101
0:03 Sarunas Jasikevicius personal foul (Keith Bogans draws the foul) 99-101
0:00 Sarunas Jasikevicius misses 26-foot three point jumper 99-103
0:00 End of the 4th Quarter
0:00 Indiana offensive rebound 99-103

As you can see....there is too much "red" out there...and not enough "green". No one could hit the side of a barn.....Foster couldn't make 2 layups.......Peja couldn't.....and SJax and AJ couldn't just missed shot after shot.

bulldog
03-10-2006, 01:48 PM
I didn't see the game...why was AJ taking a 13 foot jumper with 5 seconds left and us down by three?

Lord almighty, what the hell are we doing at crunch time?

edit: never mind, went and read some of the post-game ranting that I had been trying to avoid. The question stands, but now its just rhetorical.

Suaveness
03-10-2006, 03:19 PM
He was never supposed to be one. Jermaine and Ron were the first options.

Since86
03-10-2006, 04:28 PM
I didn't see the game...why was AJ taking a 13 foot jumper with 5 seconds left and us down by three?

Lord almighty, what the hell are we doing at crunch time?

edit: never mind, went and read some of the post-game ranting that I had been trying to avoid. The question stands, but now its just rhetorical.


That, and 101 minus 99 is two, not three. ;)

pacerwaala
03-10-2006, 08:47 PM
Bird and Walsh were drunk.

D-BONE
03-11-2006, 09:44 AM
As far as the original rationale for Jack's acquisition, you are all correct he certianly was not envisioned as a primary scoring option. These things I think were known about him: solid defender, decent scorer (not pure shooter though). Then you have to think about the Mike Brown factor in the decision. I have to think that a big attraction for the TPTB was the idea of JO, Ron-Ron, and Jack as a defensive combination on the floor. Plus, the obvious parallel between his intended 6th-man role here and the one he played on the Spurs championship team. Not to mention having championship-run experience. While the turn of events the last two years has blown those ideas up in our face to a great degree, I don't think you can argue the fact that, with the currenty guys we've got to work with, we need Jack as a top two scoring option. JO's return would obviously move him to an offensive priority more in line with what he was originally pegged as.

bulldog
03-11-2006, 11:46 AM
That, and 101 minus 99 is two, not three. ;)

I swear to god it said 102 before. Someone changed it :D