PDA

View Full Version : Pacers looking for a backup combo guard?



Seed
06-28-2006, 06:28 AM
I just ran into a quote from Jason Levine, the agent of Yotam Halperin (Israely PG-SG, potential for 2nd round draft pick). The agent was quoted saying the Pacers are very interested in a back-up PG who can play SG as well.

Really confusing.

indygeezer
06-28-2006, 08:35 AM
Smokescreens aaaaaaalllll over dee world!

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 11:17 AM
Well, hell.

We've tried Freddie in that role, he failed.

We've tried Saras in the role, he failed.

We've tried AJ in that role, but Tinsley can't stay healthy so he spends too much time at PG, which is not his best position.

We need a combo guard. Especially if the Pacers are entertaining any thoughts of dealing AJ when his stock is at an all-time high.

Young
06-28-2006, 11:19 AM
Randy Foye.....one can only wish.

CableKC
06-28-2006, 11:47 AM
I'm not saying that its good or anything.....but if this is true....I wouldn't be surprised if Bird is thinking ( in the dark corners of his mind ) about talking to McHale about acquiring Marko Jaric.

He has a long-term contract and has injury concerns........has the length and is more of a SG that a PG ....but most of all....he's another EURO player.

:zip:

Kaufman
06-28-2006, 11:56 AM
My information would tell me that they are looking for such a type of player as well, but I am only talking draft... I don't know what they are looking for free agent wise or Europe wise outside of the draft.

Doug
06-28-2006, 12:03 PM
I hate combo guards.

Too short (or too bad a shoot) to play the 2.
Too bad a ball handler to play the 1.

Tell me again why we need one? I'd like to get rid of the ones we've got.

Jermaniac
06-28-2006, 12:05 PM
I hate combo guards.

Too short (or too bad a shoot) to play the 2.
Too bad a ball handler to play the 1.

Tell me again why we need one? I'd like to get rid of the ones we've got.
That DWade sure does suck.

Steve McQueen
06-28-2006, 12:07 PM
You know, if the Pacers let Fred walk and Benders contract comes off the books due to his injury, the chances of them using their MLE are pretty high. I wonder if that'd be enough to get Mike James?

Doug
06-28-2006, 12:12 PM
That DWade sure does suck.

I knew somebody would bring that up. Obviously, Wade *CAN* shoot and *CAN* handle the ball. But clearly he's the exception rather than the rule.

CableKC
06-28-2006, 12:18 PM
You know, if the Pacers let Fred walk and Benders contract comes off the books due to his injury, the chances of them using their MLE are pretty high. I wonder if that'd be enough to get Mike James?

After all the things I have read about Mike James and his comments here and there to the media after the end of the season.....I would prefer to stay away from him.

Not only does he think he is going to be expensive......I don't like his attitude.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 01:49 PM
I hate combo guards.

Too short (or too bad a shoot) to play the 2.
Too bad a ball handler to play the 1.

Tell me again why we need one? I'd like to get rid of the ones we've got.


You need a combo guard so that you can have a three-guard rotation.

Otherwise, you risk giving your bench players too many minutes in the playoffs (not enough minutes for your starting guards.)

Pig Nash
06-28-2006, 01:55 PM
You need a combo guard so that you can have a three-guard rotation.

Otherwise, you risk giving your bench players too many minutes in the playoffs (not enough minutes for your starting guards.)

Explain to me how a three guard rotation is the right thing to do again? Why kill your guards when you don't have one really good one?

Doug
06-28-2006, 02:09 PM
This might be the root of my bias against combo guards:

For the past N years, we seem to always have players that are good, but not quite good enough. And we seem to be very deep, and the bench players aren't much worse than the starters. So, it seems we are a bit "average" in talent, almost across the board. I'll even use the 'M' word, mediocre. And to me, a combo guard is almost always mediocre - average at more than a couple of things but not outstanding at anything.

Anthem
06-28-2006, 02:10 PM
Explain to me how a three guard rotation is the right thing to do again? Why kill your guards when you don't have one really good one?
The whole point is to GET a good one.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 04:24 PM
Joe Dumars was the combo guard for the Pistons. Was he mediocre?

Pig Nash
06-28-2006, 04:26 PM
The whole point is to GET a good one.

No, what I'm saying is that since we don't have a really good SG or PG, we don't need to be in the market for a backup to both.

Doug
06-28-2006, 04:27 PM
Joe Dumars was the combo guard for the Pistons. Was he mediocre?

Exception, not the rule.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 04:28 PM
Explain to me how a three guard rotation is the right thing to do again? Why kill your guards when you don't have one really good one?

Even if you're allegedly deep, what that really means is that your starters aren't much better than your bench. In the playoffs, the opponenent's starters are likely to be better than your bench. Over an 82-game regular season, there might be some valid reasons to give your players more rest.

During the playoffs, if you are playing your bench (even they are fresh) against your opponent's starters (even if they've played heavier minutes), you are at a disadvantage. Depth almost never beats strength in a 7-game series, as the Pacers have proved year after year in the DW-era.

Mourning
06-28-2006, 04:29 PM
I rather get a specialist from one position in the draft and then in the summer get a FA who may not be all that, but atleast knows his limitations by experience, so we don't have to find that out with our rookie (like we did with Fred at the point).

Such a player shouldn't be too expensive either. I would guess there would be quite some running around.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 04:31 PM
Exception, not the rule.

Okay, but there are a handful of good combo guards in the NBA (and, it seems, in this draft). It doesn't take a HoF caliber combo guard to make it work.

I'll give you that the Pacers have done it all wrong in recent years. What you want is an all-round skilled guard that can distribute, penetrate, hit open shots and defend. It doesn't work to take a SG that is too short and try to convert him. Or a PG that is too slow and try to convert him. You just need an all-around do-everything guard and if he's a "tweener" in size then that is a bonus.

Pig Nash
06-28-2006, 04:31 PM
Even if you're allegedly deep, what that really means is that your starters aren't much better than your bench. In the playoffs, the opponenent's starters are likely to be better than your bench. Over an 82-game regular season, there might be some valid reasons to give your players more rest.

During the playoffs, if you are playing your bench (even they are fresh) against your opponent's starters (even if they've played heavier minutes), you are at a disadvantage. Depth almost never beats strength in a 7-game series, as the Pacers have proved year after year in the DW-era.


I understand that. What I'm saying is that we've got the combo guard part of the equation covered. We need the Starter quality starters.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 04:34 PM
I understand that. What I'm saying is that we've got the combo guard part of the equation covered. We need the Starter quality starters.

AJ?

I generally agree - but I think he might be trade bait. For two reasons - 1) his stock is at an all-time high; and 2) he might be the type of 'sweetner' needed to entice someone to take SJax or one of our other problem-children off our hands.

I don't disagree with your comment. I think the Pacers need to replace every single one of their guards.

Doug
06-28-2006, 04:36 PM
We need the Starter quality starters.

This is where I'm coming from, too. We don't need depth or better backups.

We need better starters.

Granted, that might be hard to do at #17.

So, I'm looking for a backup that does one or two things really, really well - shoot or play defense or something. I'd rather have that than a "complete" player that's average in all things. We've got that covered.

For example: Give me a dead-eye shooter that I can bring off the bench and use to make them change their defense. Or a long, quick defender who I can use to pressure the ball and disrupt their offense. Sure the fact that the shooter is slow of foot means I might have some match-up problems or the fact that the defender can't shoot a lick means the defense doesn't have to cover him.

I guess I just don't want to use the bench just to "hold on until the starters get back". I want to use my subs to make the other team adjust somehow. Put them on there heals a bit, make the react. Anything. We could do something like that with Fred and his slashing ability, we just don't seem to take advantage of it very well.

I'm all for packaging #17 and trying to move up and get a better starter - Roy in particular.

waxman
06-28-2006, 06:26 PM
If by... backup combo guard.... they actually mean starting shooting guard.... i agree we need a new one.

larry
06-28-2006, 06:37 PM
Well, hell.

We've tried Freddie in that role, he failed.

We've tried Saras in the role, he failed.

We've tried AJ in that role, but Tinsley can't stay healthy so he spends too much time at PG, which is not his best position.

We need a combo guard. Especially if the Pacers are entertaining any thoughts of dealing AJ when his stock is at an all-time high.

I wouldn't deal AJ!! He had that big scoring night against the Nets, but he has been a really good scorer for a while. In Reggie's final year he single handedly willed us to a win on the final regular season game against the Bulls. That was the day Reggie was honored. He was basically the 3rd option and 1 of the biggest reasons we got hot down the strecth that year. He looked good and I've been preaching about his play long before that 40+ performance. He isn't making alot of money and we can't get anything near as good as he is for the money. He doesn't look like he is as good as he is. He's been underated for the last year and a half. I agree you have to look at every deal out there, but he would have to be the icing on the cake in the scheme of a much larger deal that is going to land us a true star. I also said he's a 3rd option, but really he is greater than Jacko.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 06:50 PM
As a SG, okay. As a PG, nobody in the league shuts down JO like Anthony Johnson can/ does.

Robertmto
06-28-2006, 06:53 PM
What about Mardy Collins? He's damn good as a combo guard and will be available at 17.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2006, 06:55 PM
I'm okay with him, and I'd like to trade up/down/whatever you want to call it to get him with NJ's picks (and a second player that we're already considering at #17 that will still be available.)

MagicRat
06-28-2006, 08:03 PM
As a SG, okay. As a PG, nobody in the league shuts down JO like Anthony Johnson can/ does.

(On Anthony Johnson) "We understand when Anthony is scoring like he was tonight, that it is taking away from Jermaine and some of their other guys. And when they need them late in the game, they might not be in their offensive rhythm in order to produce." - Richard Jefferson