PDA

View Full Version : Question: Have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they even tried



Unclebuck
05-17-2006, 09:49 AM
I'm stealing this from one of Jay's posts and I thought it was worthy of its own thread. I don't know specifically what Jay is referring to, so instead of putting words in his mouth, I'll let him explain.

But I ask all of you, have the Pacers ever built the team around JO, have they ever tried.

I disagree with Jay's point and I think every move TPTB made since 2003 was to build the team around JO and Ron. Trading AL for Jax was clearly a move to get more perimeter scoring to help Ron and JO inside.

The Pacers entire offense was geared towards JO and Ron, 90% of the play went through those two guys.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 10:03 AM
I think there's a huge difference between "building a team around JO and Ron" and "building a team around JO."

I don't dispute your history. But I don't think Ron was a good compliment for JO on the court - the spacing was bad. We still don't have a team that creates good space for JO to operate without constant double- and triple- teams.

I'd even agree with something bball has hinted at, that the team (at least on the court) was more built around complimenting Ron's skill set than JO's skill set. JO complimented Ron (better than Ron complimented JO) because when Ron would move from the perimeter to the paint (something he was very good at), the double-team couldn't come from JO so the opponents were generally sending a "small guy" for the double team. The spacing problems worked to Ron's benefit, and JO's detriment.

Yes - that was the most successful version of the Pacers we've seen since 2000. If Ron were mentally stable and coachable, and JO wasn't already deemed the team's "franchise player" that would have been a good foundation.

But we saw last year that when JO and Ron were out and DD was re-signed, that the team was indeed still built around Reggie's skill set. And when JO was out this season and Peja was playing in Reggie's role offensively was when the team appeared to be best playing to thier potential.

If JO is the "franchise player" then TPTB need to commit themselves to building a team that compliments JO as a low post player. Frankly, I'd like to see a team built like the 94/95 Rockets were built around Hakeem - those types of complimentary players.

Except we don't need a nutcase like Maxwell - been there; done that.

Gotta run - I'll check back in here later.

Skaut_Ech
05-17-2006, 10:29 AM
If JO is the "franchise player" then TPTB need to commit themselves to building a team that compliments JO as a low post player. Frankly, I'd like to see a team built like the 94/95 Rockets were built around Hakeem - those types of complimentary players.


Thing is, and I've said this in another post, addressed directly to a comparision to the Rockets with Hakeem, JO doesn't have nearly enough moves to warrant "building" a team around him that way.

The Rocket's worked because Hakeem would be unstoppable. He just needed some spot up shooters to punish the D for collapsing on him.

I think the Wolves tried to follow the same model, but didn't have quite the right personell.

I'd build a team of complimetary players around a guy like Kobe, or LeBron, etc, not Jermaine.

To me, Jermaine is Scottie Pippen. He needs a Jordan to play off. Not to say Ron is Jordan-like, but I think that's how this team was "built". I think it was built around a game changing guy who can freelance (Ron), and a guy who can play off his moves.

Jermaine is not a guy you build around, any more than a Marcus Camby, Pau Gasol or Troy Murphy.

What I think Jermaine needs is a Jason Richardson/Gilbert Arenas type dynamic players to break the setup of a low post D, which would open things up for JO.

Matter of fact, I'll agree with you in the sense that we could build around Jermaine if we modeled ourselves on Hakeem paired with Drexler. But who could we get to play the role of Clyde......?

Unclebuck
05-17-2006, 10:32 AM
Jay, with the new rules that allow teams to play different defenses, a team cannot be successfully built like the Rockets of 1994, 1995. it wouldn't be successful in todays NBA.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 11:05 AM
Explain.

Great offense beats great defense. What does the defense do today that can't be overcome by a combination of a dominant post player, excellent outside shooting, and competent dribble penetration.

+ + + + + + + + +

Skaut, I think JO is better than you give him credit for. Is he as good as Hakeem in the paint? Of course not. In particular, he's not a dominant post scorer at his current weight against a double or triple team. Maybe at ten pounds lighter he'll re-gain some quickness/ exlposiveness that he's sacrificed over the past two season.

On the other hand, if the Pacers would construct a team in which opponents dreaded double-teaming JO, JO is very difficult to stop against single coverage.

Sure, you can go to a zone (as UB implies) - that's why we need at least three or four good jumpshooters (and they don't necessarily have to stand at the three point line, Brad Miller's FT-line jumper is a fine example) and three or four guys capable of forcing the defense to collapse with dribble penetration. Then spread the floor and a zone defense will break down against that, too. Then you're back to JO facing single-coverage in the paint.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 11:09 AM
On second thought... just scratch the Rockets comment.

That's not the direction this thread should go; there's plenty of other stuff to kick around and discuss in there with or without that comparison.

beast23
05-17-2006, 12:02 PM
Without Brad what we've had are perimeter jumpshooters. What we have needed the last 2-3 years was a complementary player at center capable of consistently hitting a 10-12 foot shot.

That way, JO would be able to not just look for perimeter guys, he could also dump the SHORT pass to the complementary player and make the opponent pay for double-teaming him.

He has been able to do this on a few occassions with Jeff and David, but they just are not consistent enough. Peja has also gone into the paint to take the pass, but is a perimeter player. Pollard was thought to be this player, but unfortunately has not been healthy enough to fill the role.

With the interior player, we would then have perimeter players capable of hitting shots, as well as an interior big man that can score as well.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 12:28 PM
Beast, do we really have perimeter players right now that are capable of hitting shots (other than Peja, of course)?

Perimeter players not named Peja:
SJax - not consistently.
Fred - I don't trust that shot of his, but it seems to be going in somewhat reguarly
AJ - not really.
Tinsley - I don't trust his shot and for good reason.
Saras - we all know now that he's not a shooter.
Granger - I like Danny's midrange game but I don't want him settling for many jumpers. He can get better shots.
Foster - :laugh:
Croshere - Inconsistent/ who knows? But I don't like him settling for three's either.
Gill - :rolleyes:
David - if he's ever shooting face-up jumpers I might strangle the coach.
Pollard - :shudder:

beast23
05-17-2006, 01:13 PM
Beast, do we really have perimeter players right now that are capable of hitting shots (other than Peja, of course)?
No. I totally agree with what you are saying. We've only had one true perimeter shooter at a time. Reggie, then Peja.

I would say that we need a minimum of two consistent perimeter shooters in the game with Jermaine. But I also believe that an interior partner that can hit the short to mid-range shot consistently is necessary if the offense is to be at its best.

There are many occassions when a double-teamed player just does not see the open perimeter player. But he does see the player across the lane whose man left him to form the double-team.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 02:40 PM
No. I totally agree with what you are saying. We've only had one true perimeter shooter at a time. Reggie, then Peja.

I would say that we need a minimum of two consistent perimeter shooters in the game with Jermaine. But I also believe that an interior partner that can hit the short to mid-range shot consistently is necessary if the offense is to be at its best.

There are many occassions when a double-teamed player just does not see the open perimeter player. But he does see the player across the lane whose man left him to form the double-team.

I agree 100%. Just wanted to clarify because I thought you might've said that we did have the right perimeter players around JO.

As for the perimeter, I think you could survive with two spot up shooters and one guy that's equally good at a spot-up shot or dribble penetration. But by dribble penetration I don't mean a guy that only uses his left (off) hand two or three times per season.

Bball
05-17-2006, 05:05 PM
I agree 100%. Just wanted to clarify because I thought you might've said that we did have the right perimeter players around JO.

As for the perimeter, I think you could survive with two spot up shooters and one guy that's equally good at a spot-up shot or dribble penetration. But by dribble penetration I don't mean a guy that only uses his left (off) hand two or three times per season.

If you are saying Freddie used his left hand 2, maybe 3 times, this season then wouldn't that be doubling or tripling his his attempts from last year?

Twice to three times as many times.... That sounds like progress! How much do you expect???


;)
-Bball

vapacersfan
05-18-2006, 04:32 PM
Sorry for the late post, but I will say I agree with this post.

Jay, I really dont think anyone is undervaluing JO. I do think he is a good player, but I would like to think that is we are to just build around "him".

I am not sure I like the "Pippen" like label for him, cause I do think he can be the main and number one option.

The real test is going to be if we can get a player that has no problem being 1B behind JO's 1A option. Of course, JO would have to agree with that.

I think we had that for a while with Ron and JO, where both had no problem defering to the other, and they were confident that the other would pick up the slack the other one left behind (see the Miami series where JO really opened things up for Ron) Granted, winning makes getting along easy.

Not sure if that made sense, Ill try to elaborate if anyone doesnt quite understand what I am trying to say.

bulldog
05-18-2006, 07:38 PM
Building around Jermaine does not necessarily mean pounding the ball into him ever time, it just means surrounding him with complementary players that account for the style he prefers . For example, Dallas has a few scorers that can take some offensive pressure off of Nowitzki, cause he's not a full-time creator the way Kobe or T-Mac are; big long help-side defenders that can account for his poor perimeter defense; and big gaurds that can crash the boards, taking advantage of the mis-matches he creates.

I don't know exactly what would work with JO, but it doesn't necessarily have to involve four spot-up shooters that stand around watching him work his magic. It's just means he's the first option on offense, and we expect him to perform in crunch time.

Now, I don't think a team where JO is the primary scorer and go-to guy will ever win anything because I don't think he's that good. Some people will disagree, and it's up to TPTB to determine if they think he is. I agree that the team has never really been built around JO, and that may be a result of TPTB agreeing with me, or maybe they just haven't had the chance.

ChicagoJ
05-18-2006, 07:54 PM
They gave him a max contract, but never built around him.

Hard to reach any conclusions about what TPTB think of JO, with a confusing "vision statement" like that one.