PDA

View Full Version : I'm fed up with Stephen Jackson



Pacers#1Fan
03-13-2006, 10:03 PM
I am officially fed up with Stephen Jackson. He was 1-8 from the field in 27+ minutes of work. He will have a good game here and there but he is MUCH too streaky for my liking. I hope he is gone during the off season. He is a very good defender but his streaky shooting and passing ability (or lack there of) are killing me. I say trade him for a draft pick and maybe a solid backup. Besides, I am comfortable with our lineup without him

C Jeff Foster, David Harrison, Scot Pollard
PF Jermaine O'Neal, Danny Granger, Scot Pollard, Austin Croshere
SF Danny Granger, Peja, Austin Croshere
SG Peja, Fred Jones, Sarunas
PG Jamaal Tinsley, Sarunas, AJ

Add in whatever we get in the draft or trade and , healthy, that is a contending team.

Roaming Gnome
03-13-2006, 10:08 PM
:deadhorse: Woah....That is news...someone fed up with Jax! :2deadhors

:3deadhors

Shade
03-13-2006, 10:10 PM
I agree about Jack, but...

Peja at the 2?

Cro at the 3?

Put out your hand... :nono:

Anthem
03-13-2006, 10:10 PM
Not sure I like Peja at SG.

Scratch that. I'm sure I don't like Peja at SG.

Pacers#1Fan
03-13-2006, 10:10 PM
:deadhorse: Woah....That is news...someone fed up with Jax! :2deadhors


:3deadhors
I liked Jax, it just took tonight for me to realize how wrong he is for our team.

Unclebuck
03-13-2006, 10:11 PM
I give him a pass tonight. He's been playing through a lot of injuries and he was physically exhausted. The schedule caught up with him tonight

Anthem
03-13-2006, 10:12 PM
Cro at the 3?
Wow, missed that. Plus it's not a given we get Pollard back.

There's no doubt about it, we're really going to have to shuffle the deck this summer.

Shade
03-13-2006, 10:13 PM
I give him a pass tonight. He's been playing through a lot of injuries and he was physically exhausted. The schedule caught up with him tonight

What about the other 23874257984984651646789 times?

D-BONE
03-13-2006, 10:14 PM
I am officially fed up with Stephen Jackson. He was 1-8 from the field in 27+ minutes of work. He will have a good game here and there but he is MUCH too streaky for my liking. I hope he is gone during the off season. He is a very good defender but his streaky shooting and passing ability (or lack there of) are killing me. I say trade him for a draft pick and maybe a solid backup. Besides, I am comfortable with our lineup without him

C Jeff Foster, David Harrison, Scot Pollard
PF Jermaine O'Neal, Danny Granger, Scot Pollard, Austin Croshere
SF Danny Granger, Peja, Austin Croshere
SG Peja, Fred Jones, Sarunas
PG Jamaal Tinsley, Sarunas, AJ

Add in whatever we get in the draft or trade and , healthy, that is a contending team.

The good thing tonight is that RC didn't leave him on the floor when it was evident he was off. Now he may be injured since I think he's been playing hurt. Either way it worked to our benefit tonight. Trade him as long as we get something that helps us. Now as far as your contending line-up. Foster can play C if necessary but I think he's a PF. Also, I'm sorry but I just don't agree with this idea that Peja can succesfully play SG. He'll get torched on D. And I don't think playing he and DG simultaneously helps with the idea that DG will play the opposing 2 defensively. Granger is too good around the hoop to have running around the perimeter even thought I'll grant you he could do a decent job out there on D. This line of thinking leads me to believe Peja may be expendable. Seems to me if we're going to make moves including Jack we need to get some reinforcements at the 2. I also think our PG spot is far from resovled due to JT's chronic fragility. AJ may be able to offer some minutes at 2 like he did tonight. Fred is a good player but I can't forsee him as anything more than a top 6th man candidate.

Fireball Kid
03-13-2006, 10:17 PM
You read my mind, D-BONE.

Didnt someone say that its not a good idea to play Jermaine O'Neal and Jeff Foster at the same time? Jeff's been playing pretty good at PF. IMO, Scott or Harrison should be the starting C. Sadly, Austin would be the odd man out.

Unclebuck
03-13-2006, 10:18 PM
What about the other 23874257984984651646789 times?


As I said I'm giving him a pass tonight

Anthem
03-13-2006, 10:26 PM
You read my mind, D-BONE.

Didnt someone say that its not a good idea to play Jermaine O'Neal and Jeff Foster at the same time? Jeff's been playing pretty good at PF. IMO, Scott or Harrison should be the starting C. Sadly, Austin would be the odd man out.
We have several odd men out. Austin will be pretty tradable, so that's not a problem. If Saras can improve any by next year, then AJ might also be the odd man out.

Let's say we re-sign Pollard and Jones but not Peja. We still need a third-string center and a backup SF.

SoupIsGood
03-13-2006, 10:30 PM
I am too but we're pretty much stuck with him right now.

He's so rigid, he's not very fluid at all for a SG.

Shade
03-13-2006, 10:38 PM
As I said I'm giving him a pass tonight

Does that pass work like a "get out of jail free" card? :whistle:

Shade
03-13-2006, 10:38 PM
I am too but we're pretty much stuck with him right now.

He's so rigid, he's not very fluid at all for a SG.

He's better as a SF, honestly.

Unclebuck
03-13-2006, 10:41 PM
Does that pass work like a "get out of jail free" card? :whistle:


It is more like a library pass in high school.

Shade
03-13-2006, 10:46 PM
It is more like a library pass in high school.

I really hope that Jack didn't go 1-for-8 in book reading, too.

SoupIsGood
03-13-2006, 10:48 PM
He's better as a SF, honestly.

I agree. He played pretty well when matched up against Prince last year in the DET series.

His saving grace with me is that he does well in the playoffs.

D-BONE
03-13-2006, 10:56 PM
I will reiterate about Jack that TPTB had to know what they were getting with him as far as his streaky scorer modus operandi. I mean I was aware what type of player he was. Unfortunately, he's been thrust into a position where that is front and center. I don't know the status of his sitting the second half. Any info on that? I suspect it was injury-related. Anyway, he appeared to be highly vocal encouraging the team down the stretch. This is what I find redeeming amongst his drawbacks. I honestly think he really plays hard and is generally well received by his teammates. In a sixth man or 3rd or 4th option role, assuming he'd go along with it, he would likely be much more tolerable to the general PD populace. How feasible is it we can move him? And for something of value to us?

Pacesetter
03-13-2006, 11:15 PM
As long as Rick Carlisle is Coach of the Pacers get used to mediocrity. If he were such a great coach why did Detroit let him walk?

I normally would never think twice about anything Ron Artest had to say, but when he said that practices with Carlisle were soft, I wondered if that might be the reason why guys walk up the court and are two steps slow.

Steve is a streaky scorer, but I think he would fare better in a different system!

pacerwaala
03-13-2006, 11:20 PM
What about the other 23874257984984651646789 times?


thats what I am talking about!

Fireball Kid
03-13-2006, 11:20 PM
Steve is a streaky scorer, but I think he would fare better in a different system!

:-o

SoupIsGood
03-13-2006, 11:21 PM
Steve is a streaky scorer, but I think he would fare better in a different system!

How so? I don't see any system fitting him any better. He has free reign to jack shots all over the place here.

Shade
03-13-2006, 11:24 PM
As long as Rick Carlisle is Coach of the Pacers get used to mediocrity. If he were such a great coach why did Detroit let him walk?

I normally would never think twice about anything Ron Artest had to say, but when he said that practices with Carlisle were soft, I wondered if that might be the reason why guys walk up the court and are two steps slow.

Steve is a streaky scorer, but I think he would fare better in a different system!

Stephen Jackson has been a streaky shooter in multiple systems for multiple teams.

Methinks you just have a penchant for guards who shoot 40%. ;)

Pacesetter
03-13-2006, 11:25 PM
How so? I don't see any system fitting him any better. He has free reign to jack shots all over the place here.

I don't think so. I think if you look at how tightly Rick is wound up it's hard for any of the Pacers to have a free for all on shooting, but yeah, Jack is Jacking them up from everywhere. That's not what Jackson needs imo. He needs a west coast offense and come off the bench. He won't ever get 30 a game, but he could put up a solid 15 ppg if he came in off the bench where his mission was to bomb them in from deep. In fact, his best FG% was his second year in SA when he put up 28 mpg.

Shade
03-13-2006, 11:26 PM
wow, a increase in trolling tonight.

Sad that people can get such a strong reaction just from a coach not playing a favorite player and a pointless streak.

As for Jax, like UB I will give him a pass tonight. He was hurting yesterday, and today he just didnt look right.

It's not as much an increase in quantity as an increase in intensity.

But, yeah, the whole 60-game streak thing gave me quite a chuckle. Preferring a player to get injured in garbage time to keep a meaningless streak alive, one which the player himself probably doesn't even give a damn about? Wow. :eek:

Pacesetter
03-13-2006, 11:26 PM
Methinks you just have a penchant for guards who shoot 40%. ;)

har har .... ;)

SoupIsGood
03-13-2006, 11:28 PM
I don't think so. I think if you look at how tightly Rick is wound up it's hard for any of the Pacers to have a free for all on shooting, but yeah, Jack is Jacking them up from everywhere. That's not what Jackson needs imo. He needs a west coast offense and come off the bench. He won't ever get 30 a game, but he could put up a solid 15 ppg if he came in off the bench where his mission was to bomb them in from deep. In fact, his best FG% was his second year in SA when he put up 28 mpg.

OK, so Jax isn't a starting quality player. I think I agree.

Shade
03-13-2006, 11:28 PM
I don't think so. I think if you look at how tightly Rick is wound up it's hard for any of the Pacers to have a free for all on shooting, but yeah, Jack is Jacking them up from everywhere. That's not what Jackson needs imo. He needs a west coast offense and come off the bench. He won't ever get 30 a game, but he could put up a solid 15 ppg if he came in off the bench where his mission was to bomb them in from deep. In fact, his best FG% was his second year in SA when he put up 28 mpg.

So, we should move Jack to the bench and start Fred?

And EVERYBODY'S stats improve in a "west coast offense." Including those of the opposing team.

Shade
03-13-2006, 11:35 PM
NO!!!!

Gosh :censored: Shade, did you not see my previous post.

We trade him.

For Timmy D and Tony P.

No, they wouldn't do that unless we throw in Gill. No deal. We need to fill those 40 seconds per game or we're screwed.

Besides, maybe it would be better to start Runi at the 2. Or so I'm told. My head hurts. :headache:

Pacesetter
03-13-2006, 11:35 PM
OK, so Jax isn't a starting quality player. I think I agree.

Thanks for atleast taking the time to read the comment and state your opinion without any unnecessary barbs thrown in. It's a nice reprieve from the standard MO around these parts!! :)

This place could use a few more like you!

As for Jackson. I like him, but like any player, they have to be utilized in a certain way in order for them to be productive and meet their potential. Jackson isn't happy with himself right now, and neither are a great deal of fans. However, if he were used the right way, even in Rick's system, I think he'd be better for it.

Shade
03-13-2006, 11:37 PM
Thanks for atleast taking the time to read the comment and state your opinion without any unnecessary barbs thrown in. It's a nice reprieve from the standard MO around these parts!! :)

This place could use a few more like you!

As for Jackson. I like him, but like any player, they have to be utilized in a certain way in order for them to be productive and meet their potential. Jackson isn't happy with himself right now, and neither are a great deal of fans. However, if he were used the right way, even in Rick's system, I think he'd be better for it.

Barbs, eh? :chin:

Who's better? Runi or Hulk?

:lurk: :devil:

SoupIsGood
03-13-2006, 11:48 PM
Barbs, eh? :chin:

Who's better? Runi or Hulk?

:lurk: :devil:

:kicknuts:

McKeyFan
03-14-2006, 12:04 AM
I will reiterate about Jack that TPTB had to know what they were getting with him as far as his streaky scorer modus operandi. I mean I was aware what type of player he was. Unfortunately, he's been thrust into a position where that is front and center. I don't know the status of his sitting the second half. Any info on that? I suspect it was injury-related. Anyway, he appeared to be highly vocal encouraging the team down the stretch. This is what I find redeeming amongst his drawbacks. I honestly think he really plays hard and is generally well received by his teammates. In a sixth man or 3rd or 4th option role, assuming he'd go along with it, he would likely be much more tolerable to the general PD populace. How feasible is it we can move him? And for something of value to us?

D-Bone, I'd read more of your posts if you added the paragraph weapon to your arsenal. For instance:

I will reiterate about Jack that TPTB had to know what they were getting with him as far as his streaky scorer modus operandi. I mean I was aware what type of player he was. Unfortunately, he's been thrust into a position where that is front and center.

I don't know the status of his sitting the second half. Any info on that? I suspect it was injury-related.

Anyway, he appeared to be highly vocal encouraging the team down the stretch. This is what I find redeeming amongst his drawbacks. I honestly think he really plays hard and is generally well received by his teammates.

In a sixth man or 3rd or 4th option role, assuming he'd go along with it, he would likely be much more tolerable to the general PD populace. How feasible is it we can move him? And for something of value to us?

bulletproof
03-14-2006, 12:15 AM
D-Bone, I'd read more of your posts if you added the paragraph weapon to your arsenal. For instance:

I will reiterate about Jack that TPTB had to know what they were getting with him as far as his streaky scorer modus operandi. I mean I was aware what type of player he was. Unfortunately, he's been thrust into a position where that is front and center.

I don't know the status of his sitting the second half. Any info on that? I suspect it was injury-related.

Anyway, he appeared to be highly vocal encouraging the team down the stretch. This is what I find redeeming amongst his drawbacks. I honestly think he really plays hard and is generally well received by his teammates.

In a sixth man or 3rd or 4th option role, assuming he'd go along with it, he would likely be much more tolerable to the general PD populace. How feasible is it we can move him? And for something of value to us?

Amen.

D-BONE
03-14-2006, 12:42 AM
D-Bone, I'd read more of your posts if you added the paragraph weapon to your arsenal.


Gentlemen,

Thank you for the good advice. I will try to comply with your request assuming I can remember to be vigilant. I realize this is just arguing semantics, but what I write I refer to as a paragraph. What you ask me to write I refer to as bullet points. Of course, it is really of no consequence since what you can look forward to will be, most importantly, text much more gentle on the ol peepers! :)

McKeyFan
03-14-2006, 01:56 AM
Gentlemen,

Thank you for the good advice. I will try to comply with your request assuming I can remember to be vigilant. I realize this is just arguing semantics, but what I write I refer to as a paragraph. What you ask me to write I refer to as bullet points. Of course, it is really of no consequence since what you can look forward to will be, most importantly, text much more gentle on the ol peepers! :)

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the good advice.

I will try to comply with your request assuming I can remember to be vigilant.

I realize this is just arguing semantics, but what I write I refer to as a paragraph. What you ask me to write I refer to as bullet points.

Of course, it is really of no consequence since what you can look forward to will be, most importantly, text much more gentle on the ol peepers!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist, D-Bone. I really do appreciate the content of your posts.)

;)

D-BONE
03-14-2006, 08:01 AM
Gentlemen,

Thank you for the good advice.

I will try to comply with your request assuming I can remember to be vigilant.

I realize this is just arguing semantics, but what I write I refer to as a paragraph. What you ask me to write I refer to as bullet points.

Of course, it is really of no consequence since what you can look forward to will be, most importantly, text much more gentle on the ol peepers!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist, D-Bone. I really do appreciate the content of your posts.)

;)

McKeyFan,

No way! This is good. I was actually at the point of doing that in another post immediately after just to be funny except I was tired and my internet connection seemed suddenly painstakingly slow. So I finally gave up the ghost. Great minds think alike? :laugh: