PDA

View Full Version : QOD: Could Johnson Be Long-Term Answer At Point?



Raskolnikov
04-11-2006, 03:19 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html


<TABLE borderColor=#003366 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=90 align=left bgColor=#ffcc00 border=2><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>http://www.nba.com/media/pacers/conrad_brunner.jpg QUESTION
OF THE DAY
Conrad Brunner</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Q. Is Anthony Johnson an option as starting point guard for the Pacers long-term? In light of his improved individual play this season as a starter and with the inconsistency and injuries to Jamaal Tinsley, would the Pacers consider this going forward? Although not as creative as a passer as Jamaal, A.J. appears to be a better defender, better shooter, and not as turnover prone. The offense seems to flow better when he is at the point. If not, what more does he need to do to prove himself and do you think the Pacers will try and trade for or draft a point guard for next season? (From Neil in Indianapolis)
A. This isn't just the question of the day. It just might be the question of the year, this season and next. There was a great deal of curiosity and concern about how things would shake out at point guard entering the season. The signing of Sarunas Jasikevicius, the injury problems plaguing Tinsley and the solid performance of Johnson as the fill-in starter created quite a bit of intrigue. Though a full season has passed, I'm not sure we've learned enough to draw conclusions about the present or future of the position.

Jasikevicius has played very well at times and poorly at others. He has to be an extremely effective offensive player to compensate for his defensive deficiencies. Tinsley has missed a huge chunk of the season, again, with injuries, strengthening the case for those who believe him physically incapable of providing the long-term answer. And Johnson has been his usual reliable self, putting together a second straight career year.

The question isn't which of these three has played the best to this point. The question is whether any of the three have the ability to guide this team to the elite level of the NBA. Tinsley has talent but lacks durability and all too often plays with a disinterested demeanor that has a negative impact on the team. Jasikevicius has plenty of fire and playmaking ability but has been a disappointingly erratic shooter and must find a way to fill the holes in his defensive game. Johnson is solid but unspectacular. He doesn't make many mistakes, but neither is he a creator. He's the best defender of the three but isn't a stopper.

As much as I respect what he's done here the past two years, I'd have to be convinced Johnson has the skill set necessary to direct a contending team on a full-time basis, though he could certainly help a team win a ring as a backup. If you could somehow combine Tinsley's creativity, Jasikevicius' fire and Johnson's consistency, you'd have the answer. Separately, however, the questions remain.

Unclebuck
04-11-2006, 03:26 PM
The question isn't which of these three has played the best to this point. The question is whether any of the three have the ability to guide this team to the elite level of the NBA. Tinsley has talent but lacks durability and all too often plays with a disinterested demeanor that has a negative impact on the team. Jasikevicius has plenty of fire and playmaking ability but has been a disappointingly erratic shooter and must find a way to fill the holes in his defensive game. Johnson is solid but unspectacular. He doesn't make many mistakes, but neither is he a creator. He's the best defender of the three but isn't a stopper.

As much as I respect what he's done here the past two years, I'd have to be convinced Johnson has the skill set necessary to direct a contending team on a full-time basis, though he could certainly help a team win a ring as a backup. If you could somehow combine Tinsley's creativity, Jasikevicius' fire and Johnson's consistency, you'd have the answer. Separately, however, the questions remain.
[/SIZE]



I think we all can agree 100% wqith every word

Ragnar
04-11-2006, 03:35 PM
I have to question the sanity of the person asking this if he is serious when he says the offense seems to flow better with AJ at the point.

AJ has had good games horrible games and tollerable games. I would not say he has been consistent. One night we get a guy who looks like a real pg the next night we get a guy who looks like he could not pass to his own team to save his life. One night we get a tollerable defender the next night he cant guard Rick Brunson. The only thing that has been consistent is that he has been played over a better pg more often than not.

Doug in CO
04-11-2006, 03:42 PM
we could live with AJ if we had a good 2 guard instead of some lunatic who is better suited at 3.... what am I talking about - not sure what he is suited for other than a straight jacket.

bulletproof
04-11-2006, 04:00 PM
I have to question the sanity of the person asking this if he is serious when he says the offense seems to flow better with AJ at the point.

Maybe "Neil in Indianapolis" is really AJ or Bird and they just wanted to float the question out there to get some feelers.

Slick Pinkham
04-11-2006, 04:09 PM
short answer stripped of all PC-related praise:

AJ and Saras might be decent backups or 3rd stringers on a good team. JT is capable of a lot more, but hasn't had the durability, mental discipline, or attitude necessary to be that either. So... NO!!!! We do NOT have a long-term answer at PG currently among ANYONE on the current Pacer roster, assuming that the goal is to contend for an NBA title.

ChicagoJ
04-11-2006, 04:12 PM
Cold Johnson be the Long-Term Answer at Point?

Yes. If you like 35-win seasons.


The only problem with our PGs is that our best one just can't stay healthy. Well, and we've got one backup PG too many.

SoupIsGood
04-11-2006, 04:12 PM
NO

Major Cold
04-12-2006, 11:19 AM
Was our expecations of AJ when we signed him to be the starter? Has he developed into a starter?


The answer to both of these questions is no. We need a floor general. When Tinsley was healthy (physically and mentally) he was good. When we had Jackson we tasted success. We need a player that can lead this team. Maybe we can bring in a promising young gun and then get Sam Cassell to start for this team for the next two years.

Unclebuck
04-12-2006, 11:26 AM
I have to question the sanity of the person asking this if he is serious when he says the offense seems to flow better with AJ at the point.



I don't know if it "flows" better, but the ball movement is better

Jermaniac
04-12-2006, 11:37 AM
How could the ball movement be better when Anthony Johnson is a ballhog. He misses wide open players over and over and over again. Ball movement is much better with Tins in the game.

If we count on Anthony Johnson to be the long term answer at PG, I have a problem with the people in our front office.

Unclebuck
04-12-2006, 11:55 AM
How could the ball movement be better when Anthony Johnson is a ballhog. He misses wide open players over and over and over again. Ball movement is much better with Tins in the game.




Tinsley dominates the ball more than AJ does. Certainly JT is a much better passer and he sees things that AJ simply cannot, but the ball movement is better when AJ is in there. AJ is more willing to make the non-scoring pass

Shade
04-12-2006, 11:56 AM
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Shade
04-12-2006, 11:57 AM
Tinsley dominates the ball more than AJ does. Certainly JT is a much better passer and he sees things that AJ simply cannot, but the ball movement is better when AJ is in there. AJ is more willing to make the non-scoring pass

Yeah, except at the end of quarters...

...or with the game on the line...

...or on the fast break...

...or... :sigh:

Miller4ever
04-12-2006, 12:06 PM
conrad stinks... he dont even mention eddie gill :(

Unclebuck
04-12-2006, 12:11 PM
Yeah, except at the end of quarters...

...or with the game on the line...

...or on the fast break...

...or... :sigh:



End of quarters are plays that Rick calls.

if you are talking about last plays of the games, those are usually iso's.

Fast break AJ is horrible at running a FB



I'm talking about within the halfcourt offense

Spicoli
04-12-2006, 01:10 PM
There is no way this can be the question of the year, AJ will never be good enough to be the starting PG on a team that contends for a title. That's just a fact. And I like AJ. I would love him to stick around and back-up the right PG.

Simply put, there is not a PG on our roster that can lead this team during a championship run. We are going to have to acquire that PG through a trade or in the draft.

Finding a championship-caliber PG should be our number 1 priority right now. We are not winning anything with this current group of guards. The main issue is that there is no obvious candidate to be that guy. TPTB have their work cut out for them.

Major Cold
04-13-2006, 09:19 AM
What about Sam Cassell? He is a FA.

RWB
04-13-2006, 09:43 AM
What about Sam Cassell? He is a FA.

Only if Jackson is gone as well. There have been a few columns over the years that say the Alien maybe from the same Jackson/Artest/Rasheed/Bonzi mold.