PDA

View Full Version : Pacers-Nuggets Reaction



D-BONE
03-16-2006, 09:37 AM
Don't see this yet. What's the skinny? That next to last possession superiso for Jack had me cringing.

owl
03-16-2006, 09:54 AM
By the way, welcome back PD. Another sad loss last night. The Pacers
have to get a real shooting guard. SJ just is not good enough. That is
the biggest issue and then point guard after that. Keep this up and the
Pacers will fulfill my prediction of missing the playoffs.


owl

#31
03-16-2006, 10:55 AM
Finally Peja got the chanse to shoot that last shot, even tho he missed, it was so close tho!! Im still happy tho, as long as i know that the BEST shooter/player in the team took that last shot... then i will know that we had our best chanse but the ball just didnt went in.

Still i have to say it was a ****ed up game, Denver diserved this game, they literrally KILLED us.

D-BONE
03-16-2006, 12:11 PM
By the way, welcome back PD. Another sad loss last night. The Pacers
have to get a real shooting guard. SJ just is not good enough. That is
the biggest issue and then point guard after that. Keep this up and the
Pacers will fulfill my prediction of missing the playoffs.


owl

Good point on the PG issue. I was just thinking along those lines with a post over on the Saras thread. I am now beginning to feel reasonably secure with the idea that none of the current options is a viable long-term solution.

Kind of like some thoughts I proposed about the overall talent level of our team. High number of solid, role-type players, but very limited number of true difference makers. Same goes for the PGs. I think all are, best case, 2nd-tier.

I hope the return of JO will show this line of thinking to be wrong and that his presence will be a catalyst that raises others' level of play. However, I'm not sure that will be the case. Only time will tell.

able
03-16-2006, 12:16 PM
Please list those 10 better (at least it was you used I believe) then Tins?

Of course we are remaining under your "when healthy" guidelines and not use injury time outs.

D-BONE
03-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Please list those 10 better (at least it was you used I believe) then Tins?

Of course we are remaining under your "when healthy" guidelines and not use injury time outs.

1) This group I believe to be definitvely better: Kidd, Arenas, Billups, Nash, Iverson, Bibby, A. Miller, Parker, M. James, Paul

2) This group I believe to be marginally similar to marginally better: D. Fisher, D. West, Hinrich, Cassell, Knight, Terry, Ridnour

Of course these are completely based on my subjective value assessed for each and in no specific order. I leave off Francis, Marbury, and Davis from a personal standpoint because, while extremely talented, I would not be particularly interested in them.

Since86
03-16-2006, 01:44 PM
1) This group I believe to be definitvely better: Kidd, Arenas, Billups, Nash, Iverson, Bibby, A. Miller, Parker, M. James, Paul

2) This group I believe to be marginally similar to marginally better: D. Fisher, D. West, Hinrich, Cassell, Knight, Terry, Ridnour

Of course these are completely based on my subjective value assessed for each and in no specific order. I leave off Francis, Marbury, and Davis from a personal standpoint because, while extremely talented, I would not be particularly interested in them.


You really shot yourself in the foor with the entire 2nd group. I'm no Tinsley fan to begin with, and all those players you listed aren't even to Tinsley's shoulders let alone similiar or even better.....

M. James and Paul are suspect as well. Paul eventually will be, but not at this time.

It's just weird that you leave off those three, when talent wise they are better.

sixthman
03-16-2006, 01:47 PM
Please list those 10 better (at least it was you used I believe) then Tins?

able, if you are talking about the Tinsley who played last night against Andre Miller, for my money the list is long. AJ played better, and he didn't play well.

D-BONE
03-16-2006, 02:04 PM
You really shot yourself in the foor with the entire 2nd group. I'm no Tinsley fan to begin with, and all those players you listed aren't even to Tinsley's shoulders let alone similiar or even better.....

M. James and Paul are suspect as well. Paul eventually will be, but not at this time.

It's just weird that you leave off those three, when talent wise they are better.

The original request was to list ten better, which I did. I would much rather have James or Paul as my starting PG than Tinsley right now and/or going forward.

The second group is just to show the approximate tier of PGs I would loosely group Tinsley with. The three I left off are 1st group talent but I wouldn't want them b/c some type of problems always seem to follow them around and they seem incapable given their time to really lead a team successfully. Again, completely subjective as I noted.

If one thinks Tinsley to be markedly better than those I list in group two, I'd like to know based on what? Potential? Potential when he's healthy? Has JT really done it at a high level over time?

Even in 2004, his lone outstanding season IMO, he wasn't a wire-to-wire starter. Flashed it last year briefly after the suspensions only to be curtailed by injuires. The guys I put in group two at least have a couple decent years consecutively being on the court and producuing.

Seems to me the difference in assessment criteria is do we want to go by actual performance or do we want to go by perceived talent or potential to perform. At this point, I am beginning to lose patience with waiting on talent and potential to actually get on the court and deliver. This coming from someone who at one point was a major Tinsley supporter. He has the remainder of the season to sway me back in that direction I suppose.

NugzFan
03-16-2006, 02:16 PM
good game guys.

exciting finish.

Since86
03-16-2006, 02:17 PM
The original request was to list ten better, which I did. I would much rather have James or Paul as my starting PG than Tinsley right now and/or going forward.

The second group is just to show the approximate tier of PGs I would loosely group Tinsley with. The three I left off are 1st group talent but I wouldn't want them b/c some type of problems always seem to follow them around and they seem incapable given their time to really lead a team successfully. Again, completely subjective as I noted.

If one thinks Tinsley to be markedly better than those I list in group two, I'd like to know based on what? Potential? Potential when he's healthy? Has JT really done it at a high level over time?

Even in 2004, his lone outstanding season IMO, he wasn't a wire-to-wire starter. Flashed it last year briefly after the suspensions only to be curtailed by injuires. The guys I put in group two at least have a couple decent years consecutively being on the court and producuing.

Seems to me the difference in assessment criteria is do we want to go by actual performance or do we want to go by perceived talent or potential to perform. At this point, I am beginning to lose patience with waiting on talent and potential to actually get on the court and deliver. This coming from someone who at one point was a major Tinsley supporter. He has the remainder of the season to sway me back in that direction I suppose.


If you think Tinsley is on the same level as the second group, then there really isn't any point in discussing the PG situation.

When someone's opinion is THAT low, the middle ground is even too low too see eye-to-eye.

Paul isn't anywhere near ready to be considered a top-tier PG. Yes, he's good. Yes, he will be there. But not now.

You've also listed Mike James on par with Billups. James wasn't even the main backup for him. He split time with another player.....

A good player on a bad team makes reality blurry. They're on a bad team for a reason, and because it's a bad team they have a bigger role then what they should.

Again, I'm not even a fan of Tinsley. When healthy, which was what the question described, Tinsley is a top 10 PG.

owl
03-16-2006, 02:41 PM
I like Jamal but with his injuries and his baby attitude sometimes I really
grow weary of his game. I will give him the rest of the season but I am not
hopeful. This team needs to be purged of the attitudes and some speed needs to be added in the back court.


owl

Unclebuck
03-16-2006, 05:08 PM
If I had to choice right now, I'd keep AJ over Tinsley. Everything considered, (injuries) I don't know how you could choose otherwise

Doug
03-16-2006, 05:13 PM
If I had to choice right now, I'd keep AJ over Tinsley. Everything considered, (injuries) I don't know how you could choose otherwise

Except that TPTB seem to think that Tinsley is *not* injury-prone, that he's been the victim of a couple of fluke injuries.

AJ's played great. (Well, mostly great. He's developed some Jackson-esqe 1-on-4 tendencies.) He'll have trade value over the summer and I expect to him to be a valuable (not filler) part of a trade then.

Unclebuck
03-16-2006, 05:25 PM
Except that TPTB seem to think that Tinsley is *not* injury-prone, that he's been the victim of a couple of fluke injuries.

AJ's played great. (Well, mostly great. He's developed some Jackson-esqe 1-on-4 tendencies.) He'll have trade value over the summer and I expect to him to be a valuable (not filler) part of a trade then.

The fact if the matter is this summer the Pacers need to acquire a starting point guard once and for all. TPTB need to decide which of Tinsley, AJ, Saras is their backup point gaurd of the future.

That is the approach that needs to be taken,

owl
03-16-2006, 05:32 PM
Of those 3 I would keep Saras and trade the rest and get a starting point
guard with some quickness and scoring ability to take over. I would somehow
get a shooting guard via trade or draft.


owl

Moses
03-16-2006, 05:53 PM
I'm not sure what to say..I think Tinsley is a much better PG then AJ in terms of distributing the ball well but AJ is a better mid-range shooter.

I now feel that Stephen Jackson has got to go. He may be streaky and he may be a fantastic shooter when he's on, but I can't live with him missing every 4th quarter shot he takes. At one point or another, he has got to be dealt. I also am under the impression that we still need a slashing shooting guard as well as one that can consistently score.

#31
03-16-2006, 06:13 PM
I'm not sure what to say..I think Tinsley is a much better PG then AJ in terms of distributing the ball well but AJ is a better mid-range shooter.

I now feel that Stephen Jackson has got to go. He may be streaky and he may be a fantastic shooter when he's on, but I can't live with him missing every 4th quarter shot he takes. At one point or another, he has got to be dealt. I also am under the impression that we still need a slashing shooting guard as well as one that can consistently score.

IN BASKETBALL LANGUAGE:
"streaky player", thats another word for being BAD...
When you are a "consistant player" then you are GOOD...

It doesnt matter if you sometimes start hitting 10 3PTs in a row, thats called LUCK. Because SJAX averages 30% from 3PT line, he will next game make 0 of 20 3PT shots to fix his real shooting Percentage of 30%. Its like a proof that he is not a PURE SHOOTER and Consistant.

Because SJAX is not consistant, dont care if he shoots 30% from 3PT line, thats not bad at all! But if he could just be GOOD and stay consistant and shoot 1 of 3 3PTs or 3 of 10 3PTs every night then he would be Consistant and he would be GOOD and he would all the time Help this team to Victory.

Everybody now say after me! Consistancy = GOOD... Streaky = BAD

Understand? :)

How to make yourself Consistant is easy, its called work ethics, its called practice (watch Reggie). If you are not consistant after this, than its LACK of Talent.. just not being born to be a Pure Shooter even tho u want it so bad! (thats an example of SJAX in my eyes).

D-BONE
03-16-2006, 06:29 PM
IN BASKETBALL LANGUAGE:
"streaky player", thats another word for being BAD...
When you are a "consistant player" then you are GOOD...

It doesnt matter if you sometimes start hitting 10 3PTs in a row, thats called LUCK. Because SJAX averages 30% from 3PT line, he will next game make 0 of 20 3PT shots to fix his real shooting Percentage of 30%. Its like a proof that he is not a PURE SHOOTER and Consistant.

Because SJAX is not consistant, dont care if he shoots 30% from 3PT line, thats not bad at all! But if he could just be GOOD and stay consistant and shoot 1 of 3 3PTs or 3 of 10 3PTs every night then he would be Consistant and he would be GOOD and he would all the time Help this team to Victory.

Everybody now say after me! Consistancy = GOOD... Streaky = BAD

Understand? :)

How to make yourself Consistant is easy, its called work ethics, its called practice (watch Reggie). If you are not consistant after this, than its LACK of Talent.. just not being born to be a Pure Shooter even tho u want it so bad! (thats an example of SJAX in my eyes).

The idea that lots of people on here want Jack gone is no hot news flash. Can't say I disagree with that sentiment. However, I do think it's safe to say that A) nobody ever advertised him as a pure shooter and B) do you have evidence to back up the insinuation about his poor work/practice habits?

Following up on the PG discussion, I'm not sure our PG situation is all to much better than the often-criticized and bemoaned SG situation, all due respect to AJ for his good work this season aside.

Pacersfan46
03-16-2006, 06:41 PM
Paul eventually will be, but not at this time.

Have you watched the kid? He should have been an All-Star. He is better than Tinsley right this second. That's not even an issue that one should debate.

Let's compare Chris Pauls number at this point, to Tinsley's career high averages in stats regardless of what year in his career they were reached.

Paul -

16.3 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 8.0 apg, 43% FG, 2.2 spg, 2.4 turnovers

Tinsley -

15.4 ppg (04-05), 4.0 rpg (04-05), 8.1 apg (01-02), 42% FG (05-06), 1.7 spg (04-05), 2.1 turnovers (03-04)

Even if you try to CREATE a career year for Tinsley by using his career highs in every category, it still doesn't equal Chris Paul right this second, and that doesn't even include the effect Paul has had on New Orleans win total. The ultimate stat.

I don't see how anyone could even make an argument for Tinsley being better than Paul at any point in his career. Even if Tinsley hadn't missed a game in his career, and you tried to offer to trade him for Paul straight up, you'd be laughed right out of your own office.

D-BONE
03-16-2006, 06:58 PM
Have you watched the kid? He should have been an All-Star. He is better than Tinsley right this second. That's not even an issue that one should debate.

Let's compare Chris Pauls number at this point, to Tinsley's career high averages in stats regardless of what year in his career they were reached.

Paul -

16.3 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 8.0 apg, 43% FG, 2.2 spg, 2.4 turnovers

Tinsley -

15.4 ppg (04-05), 4.0 rpg (04-05), 8.1 apg (01-02), 42% FG (05-06), 1.7 spg (04-05), 2.1 turnovers (03-04)

Even if you try to CREATE a career year for Tinsley by using his career highs in every category, it still doesn't equal Chris Paul right this second, and that doesn't even include the effect Paul has had on New Orleans win total. The ultimate stat.

I don't see how anyone could even make an argument for Tinsley being better than Paul at any point in his career. Even if Tinsley hadn't missed a game in his career, and you tried to offer to trade him for Paul straight up, you'd be laughed right out of your own office.

Exactly!

D-BONE
03-16-2006, 07:01 PM
No talk about David Harrison.

I was very dis-satisfied with his emotional control, or lack there of.

Couldn't agree with you more. Yes, he's young. Blah, blah, blah, blah. At some point he's gotta stop these meltdowns. Even if he's got reason somewhere along the line those outbursts could really cost us.

Eindar
03-16-2006, 07:31 PM
Couldn't agree with you more. Yes, he's young. Blah, blah, blah, blah. At some point he's gotta stop these meltdowns. Even if he's got reason somewhere along the line those outbursts could really cost us.

I was OK with the outburst last night. He clearly got jobbed, and on top of it, got hit in the face so hard that he had a member of the medical staff trying to take care of a cut on his face. Now, he went way overboard when he had to be restrained, and that's the sort of crap that landed him as the last pick of the first round. I guess I didn't mind the technical, I hated the stuff that followed.

Will Galen
03-16-2006, 07:52 PM
The original request was to list ten better, which I did.

Better to list ten points that you would trade Tinsley for.

I think the Pacers need a whole new starting backcourt, but getting better starters isn't that easy. Jax would actually be perfect if he could control himself and not shoot more than ten times a game unless he's shooting over .500. He needs to realize there is a reason the crowd boos him when he misses a shot. So who's out there that is most like Jax, but has some sense?

As for a point guard I would love a young Kidd or Payton, but of course they were all NBA when at the top of their games. Who's out there that's most like them?

Will Galen
03-16-2006, 07:55 PM
Have you watched the kid? He should have been an All-Star. He is better than Tinsley right this second. That's not even an issue that one should debate.

Let's compare Chris Pauls number at this point, to Tinsley's career high averages in stats regardless of what year in his career they were reached.

Paul -

16.3 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 8.0 apg, 43% FG, 2.2 spg, 2.4 turnovers

Tinsley -

15.4 ppg (04-05), 4.0 rpg (04-05), 8.1 apg (01-02), 42% FG (05-06), 1.7 spg (04-05), 2.1 turnovers (03-04)

Even if you try to CREATE a career year for Tinsley by using his career highs in every category, it still doesn't equal Chris Paul right this second, and that doesn't even include the effect Paul has had on New Orleans win total. The ultimate stat.

I don't see how anyone could even make an argument for Tinsley being better than Paul at any point in his career. Even if Tinsley hadn't missed a game in his career, and you tried to offer to trade him for Paul straight up, you'd be laughed right out of your own office.

WOW! Talk about proving a point!

Will Galen
03-16-2006, 08:10 PM
We just got rid of one cancer, we dont need another "one we do not speak of".

Oh baloney! Just as a 'Rose by any other name is still a rose,' Ron Artest is still Ron Artest! People need to say what they mean. It's hard enough to understand people on the Internet without this type of stuff!

Sorry VA, I've read that one to many times! I agree with what you said, just not the way you said it.

Jermaniac
03-16-2006, 08:19 PM
lmao @ The Hulk, yesterday I thought he would run over and kill the ref or Melo. Almost turned green I thought.

able
03-16-2006, 08:52 PM
Darn, really, why some of you are "pacers fans" is a God's wonder to me, but heck if I care.

1: Tinsley; fits easily in the first row, sorry, but until Paul proves it next year, we are not even discussing him other then a maybe. To add that second row.... well as someone already said, no reasons left to even start a discussion.

2: Jax, streaky or bad, both are wrong words, he grew into a wrong situation, we need someone to right that.

3: Hulk; ever more appropriate a nick, to bad they got him of the court that quick, for what it's worth, I was hoping, praying and begging for him to go out and deck Carmelo, just so that everyone in the league knows once and for all: F with me and you ARE gonna get it.
It would have been soooooooo worth the 3 games suspension.

Now everyone knows what happened anyway and laugh and are ready, willing and able to do the same thing, knowing that A: David gets benched and B: they get away with it.

Sorry, but where are the days of the "enforcers" the "guards of the guards"?

somehow these kind of moments in a players career are as defining as naming him "Sue"

able
03-16-2006, 08:52 PM
Darn, really, why some of you are "pacers fans" is a God's wonder to me, but heck if I care.

1: Tinsley; fits easily in the first row, sorry, but until Paul proves it next year, we are not even discussing him other then a maybe. To add that second row.... well as someone already said, no reasons left to even start a discussion.

2: Jax, streaky or bad, both are wrong words, he grew into a wrong situation, we need someone to right that.

3: Hulk; ever more appropriate a nick, to bad they got him of the court that quick, for what it's worth, I was hoping, praying and begging for him to go out and deck Carmelo, just so that everyone in the league knows once and for all: F with me and you ARE gonna get it.
It would have been soooooooo worth the 3 games suspension.

Now everyone knows what happened anyway and laugh and are ready, willing and able to do the same thing, knowing that A: David gets benched and B: they get away with it.

Sorry, but where are the days of the "enforcers" the "guards of the guards"?

somehow these kind of moments in a players career are as defining as naming him "Sue"

Shade
03-16-2006, 08:55 PM
I thought I had missed the game, but when I saw that we lost on a last-second shot and Jack shot 6-21, I realized that I had already seen the game many times before.

SoupIsGood
03-16-2006, 09:02 PM
I didn't see this game and may not see another til the 24 th :(

Hulk better smash the pistons, ill be there

Ragnar
03-16-2006, 09:41 PM
If I had to choice right now, I'd keep AJ over Tinsley. Everything considered, (injuries) I don't know how you could choose otherwise

This is probably the most insane thing I have ever read from you:-o:-o:-o:-o

Look at the last few games. He leaves Tins in we win he leaves AJ in we lose. AJ can fill in for spots but if you think for a second we could get away with AJ as the starting pg for an entire season and the playoffs (considering once Tins has gone down we have been bounced out of the playoffs so fast it makes my head spin) you have completely lost your Travis Best loving mind.

Pacersfan46
03-16-2006, 11:38 PM
To say that Paul isn't better than Tinsley is just simply one of the least intelligent things I've ever heard in any sports discussion, ever.

efx
03-17-2006, 12:35 AM
Anyone who needs to go out and deck other players in order to prove anything does not belong in this leauge.

CableKC
03-17-2006, 01:09 AM
The 1st half sucked.....but I will say that I was impressed by the 2nd half...on the defensive end.

1st half :

Nuggets - 61 pts
Pacers - 47 pts

2nd half :

Nuggest - 40 pts
Pacers - 52 pts

We may have lost...but our defense beared down on them for 23 minutes. The only time the defense didnt work was in the last minute.

PacerMan
03-17-2006, 01:14 AM
1) This group I believe to be definitvely better: Kidd, Arenas, Billups, Nash, Iverson, Bibby, A. Miller, Parker, M. James, Paul

2) This group I believe to be marginally similar to marginally better: D. Fisher, D. West, Hinrich, Cassell, Knight, Terry, Ridnour

Of course these are completely based on my subjective value assessed for each and in no specific order. I leave off Francis, Marbury, and Davis from a personal standpoint because, while extremely talented, I would not be particularly interested in them.


That second group is closer to AJ than Tinsley.

Fireball Kid
03-17-2006, 02:06 AM
Well this is my opinion. Tinsley-lovers, dont bash me, please, just let me say this.

Jamaal Tinsley is not at the level Chris Paul is at. In terms of pure point guards, he is arguabley one of the top-4 along with Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups and Jason Kidd. Again, thats just my own opinion. I mean just look at the stats, they dont lie.

Now in terms of overall point guards, he's still top 10. Heck you could make a case that in his rookie year, he might be one of the best 15 overall guards in the entire NBA.

I would trade Tinsley for CP3 in a heart beat! That kid has superstar written all over him! Tinsley is simply not at that level, i'm sorry.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
03-17-2006, 02:08 AM
If I had to choice right now, I'd keep AJ over Tinsley. Everything considered, (injuries) I don't know how you could choose otherwise

I agree completely. The fact is, AJ is a better at being a backup point guard than Tinsley is at being a starting pg. Id rather keep AJ as a back up and package Tinsley away for a better starting calibre point guard, than trade AJ, one of the best backup PGs in the league.

And saying Tinsley is better than Chris Paul is just crazy imo. Paul is already one of the top PGs in the league in his rookie season.

Mordecaii
03-17-2006, 08:26 AM
This thread is making my head hurt... AJ a better keep than Tinsley???? A. Miller and M. James better than Tinsley??!!! And I thought I was going insane! There's a reason M. James has been passed around to a bunch of different teams over the years and why he was a backup to Chauncey. As far as Andre Miller, he's very streaky. I've seen games where he was great and games where he was terrible... But I don't think he's anywhere near the passer or slasher that Tinsley is, and neither of them are really that great of a shooter.

For all those saying "Trade Tinsley, get someone better...", I'm sorry that that just doesn't work. Trade Tinsley and magically get a better player eh? So tell me, who would you trade for and who could you realistically expect to get? Of all the list of the supposed "better players" mentioned earlier in the thread, the only one remotely possible is A. Miller and the only reason I consider him as a possible improvement is because he hasn't gotten injured recently.

Now same question for SJax, if we get rid of him then who do we get? Anyone can say "Let's trade this player and get someone better!", but if you actually want to make a point and make it worthwhile to read your post, say who you would get. I'm not a fan of SJax, but I honestly don't know who we could get. If anything, I'd rather keep him and keep him to 10-15 shots max a game, but I don't see that happening.

So as I said, back up your claims. Anyone can throw out a trade demand, but it doesn't mean anything if you can't say who you think the Pacers could get that would be a better fit. And if you throw in multiple people such as "Tinsley and SJax for _______", then you'd better say who our new starting SG and PG would be because we'd be losing 2 decent players.

D-BONE
03-17-2006, 08:53 AM
Mordecaii,

I think your rationale makes my point about the top 10 point guards for me. What Pacersfan 46 stated about the Paul-Tinsley thing (correctly IMO), is applicable to the idea of trading JT for any of the 10 guys I listed in group 1.

I don't think anybody would even entertain 1 for 1 trade talks. That shows you what JT's value in the league is right now. I honestly can't believe anybody would go so far as to suggest JT on the level of those ten guys.

I don't know if the Jack/JT for Andre Miller + filler rumor ever had any "reality" to it, but I found it pretty tempting.

You are correct that SG would have to be addressed elsewhere, but if an up-tempo offense is truly sought, Miller would be an excellent guy to run it as evidenced by his continuously speeding by us on the break Wed. evening. I think he is as adept a passer and scoring penetrator the Tins or better.

The second group I proposed I think is more in synch with the value JT probably currently has around the league. And if the same goes for AJ, well, that just indicates the severity of our PG situation.