PDA

View Full Version : Should we worry about shooting?



Horseman872
07-24-2006, 10:21 PM
I said this earlier on one of the threads, but I'll say it again. It seems to me that everyone is worried about perimeter shooting, and I can understand why. On the one hand it would make us a more balanced team and better, but is it feasible to bring in a shooter who could actually win the starting job and/or see significant playing time? The guys that are good shooters who are on the floor often are normally all-stars. Also, if we don't get a shooter, would it be the end of the world? Yes a shooter does open up the middle, and yes it is a luxury to have. But is it truly necessary? With the switch to athleticism and versatility, I can see this team truly out-powering/going right through their opponents. With Jackson, Daniels, and White at SG, each at 6'6 they can all post up their man or overpower him to the rim. Therefore, teams will most likely play zone and double-team the guy with the ball, but so what? If we play smart, whoever's getting doubled should look for the open cutter for the easy bucket. And with guys like Granger at 6'8, 6'9, Harrington at 6'9, and JO at 6'11, they all can power their way into the lane as cutters for easy layups or whatnot. Not to mention, Tinsley is pretty quick and can use his speed for an easy cut + layup. And if the cutting lanes are gone, JO, Granger, and Harrington are all money within 15 feet. This is all assuming that the SG is initiating the offense. And if not, it doesn't matter because the same system can be implemented at any position (other than PG, but that doesn't matter because Tinsley's job is to get the ball into the hands of whoever is starting the offense). If you talk to any Mavs fans or watched the Mavs games, they won by using mismatches. Dirk is a 7-footer who can shoot over anyone, and too quick for taller defenders. Jason Terry was a good enough shooter to run the pick and pop with Dirk/Howard. Howard could use his strength/quickness to get in the lane and lay it up. Etc.

While having a shooter would help, I don't think its necessary but an added benefit. If we MUST get a shooter, I think Kareem Rush is the guy.

Jay Ohh
07-24-2006, 10:27 PM
I've been wanting Kareem Rush since he got waived. We need shooters for a couple simple reasons.

-We're down three and there's two seconds left, what do you do?
-They can heat up and help bring us back from large deficits
-To spread the floor so there aren't five guys on both JO and Al

Those reasons are enough for me.

Bball
07-24-2006, 10:34 PM
I read the title and thought this was about the sniper incidents...

-Bball

Horseman872
07-24-2006, 10:37 PM
I've been wanting Kareem Rush since he got waived. We need shooters for a couple simple reasons.

-We're down three and there's two seconds left, what do you do?
-They can heat up and help bring us back from large deficits
-To spread the floor so there aren't five guys on both JO and Al

Those reasons are enough for me.

I understand where you're coming from, but you have to ask yourself, "Will the shooter be on the court long enough to heat up and be effective?" Most shooters are SGs/SFs. At SG we already have White, Marquis, and Jackson, and at SF we got Granger/Harrington. Unless we trade Jackson (and I really hope we do), I have to believe that the guys on the court when the game is on the line will be: Daniels/Tinsley, Jackson, Granger, Al, JO. Not much room there for the shooter. Not to mention, even if we do trade Jackson, the lineup will probably be: Tinsley, Daniels, Granger, Al, JO.
The only way for this shooter guy to get out on the court is if we trade away Jack + Tins, which is extremely difficult and we would be at a loss for any PG (assuming Tinsley can stay healthy). And even if we got a PG in return, I highly doubt he'll be an effective shooter cause no team is willing to give up a good shooting PG who can pass. Seems to me that there are too many IFs for this to actually happen. Therefore, should we really go after a shooter when he probably won't even play in those situations you listed?

purdue101
07-24-2006, 10:37 PM
we have to have at least have one consistent 3 pt threat on the floor at all times. saras is fine for the second unit, but i see no one on the first unit. jax is too streaky.

if we don't get a shooter teams will lay off the perimeter and sag around the paint. marquis, tins, and DG will have a hard time taking their guy off the dribble and jo and al are gonna get swarmed in the post, and the last thing we need is jo getting hurt again.

trading jax for a perimeter shooter deserving of 20-25 mins a night is possibly. turkgolu, crawford, and korver are possibilities that come to mind.

the only other scenario would be to use the MLE on a perimeter player like bonzi wells, and then try and package tinsely & jax for a sharp shooting PG.

BlueNGold
07-24-2006, 10:38 PM
Usually the better teams have at least a couple solid 3pt shooters. Miami is the exception with a freakish player like Wade and the behemoth in the middle....and a cast of all-star players. ...so, yes, I think it is a concern.

Unless future trades address this issue, I think we will have have problems. Unfortunately, it might take the playoffs to learn just how important it is.

Horseman872
07-24-2006, 10:40 PM
we have to have at least have one consistent 3 pt threat on the floor at all times. saras is fine for the second unit, but i see no one on the first unit. jax is too streaky.

if we don't get a shooter teams will lay off the perimeter and sag around the paint. marquis, tins, and DG will have a hard time taking their guy off the dribble and jo and al are gonna get swarmed in the post, and the last thing we need is jo getting hurt again.

trading jax for a perimeter shooter deserving of 20-25 mins a night is possibly. turkgolu, crawford, and korver are possibilities that come to mind.

the only other scenario would be to use the MLE on a perimeter player like bonzi wells, and then try and package tinsely & jax for a sharp shooting PG.

I'm not so sure if they'll have any trouble. Against smaller guys, Marquis and DG can just shoot over them. Against bigger guys, they should be quicker/quick enough to get by them.

Eindar
07-24-2006, 10:42 PM
Well, we're not going to contend for a title w/o a solid, consistent 3pt shooter, but then again, that wasn't in the plans anyways.

Kegboy
07-24-2006, 10:44 PM
Well said Purdue, except Bonzi's not a perimeter player.

As presently constructed, our team is so easy to defend, Rick must be pulling his hair out.

Fireball Kid
07-24-2006, 10:47 PM
Yes. We should be very concerned about our shooting.

Eindar
07-24-2006, 10:48 PM
Well said Purdue, except Bonzi's not a perimeter player.

As presently constructed, our team is so easy to defend, Rick must be pulling his hair out.

I dunno. The Pistons teams the last couple years had some 3pt shooting, but they weren't exactly tearing it up, that I recall. They did a lot more shooting of long jumpshots, which is something that this Pacers team can do very well. I'm not putting us in that same league, we're a far inferior 3pt shooting team than the Pistons are as currently constructed, but I think they proved you don't have to be lights out from 3 to win a championship.

bulletproof
07-24-2006, 10:51 PM
As presently constructed, our team is so easy to defend, Rick must be pulling his hair out.

No. Rick, like anyone with half a brain, knows that it's still early in the off-season and that there are most likely more changes on the way.

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 10:52 PM
trading jax for a perimeter shooter deserving of 20-25 mins a night is possibly. turkgolu, crawford, and korver are possibilities that come to mind.


Healthy TinMan
Jamal Crawford
The Gift
Baby Al
JO

with Marquis, Hulk, Foster, Sarunas, Shawne, Flight and Darrell Armstron on the bench

:fireworks


WOW....Now that's a squad

Kegboy
07-24-2006, 10:52 PM
They did a lot more shooting of long jumpshots, which is something that this Pacers team can do very well.

I keep hearing that, but I don't remember very many 18-20 footers from these guys. 10-15 footers, yeah, too god damn many.

purdue101
07-24-2006, 10:55 PM
I dunno. The Pistons teams the last couple years had some 3pt shooting, but they weren't exactly tearing it up, that I recall. They did a lot more shooting of long jumpshots, which is something that this Pacers team can do very well. I'm not putting us in that same league, we're a far inferior 3pt shooting team than the Pistons are as currently constructed, but I think they proved you don't have to be lights out from 3 to win a championship.

you don't have to be lights out, but you have to have players who can hit it consistently to keep the D honest.

the pistons had rip, chauncey, and wallace.....who are all solid from deep. tay isn't that bad either.

miami had posey, walker, & williams.
----------------------------------------------------------

Healthy TinMan
Jamal Crawford
The Gift
Baby Al
JO

with Marquis, Hulk, Foster, Sarunas, Shawne, Flight and Darrell Armstron on the bench

:fireworks


WOW....Now that's a squad

funny thing is isiah is probably stupid enough to pull off that deal.

they are overloaded with combo guards and a little thin at SF. jax would probably start for them. i don't see crawford getting more than 25 mins behind francis, marbury, and robinson.

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 11:10 PM
funny thing is isiah is probably stupid enough to pull off that deal.

they are overloaded with combo guards and a little thin at SF. jax would probably start for them. i don't see crawford getting more than 25 mins behind francis, marbury, and robinson.

And moreso than him being stupid, I think he almost has to trade Jamal at this point. He's supposedly the "least" talented of the combo guards they have and Zeke has literally about until the All Star break to get this ship righted or he is out of the NBA FOREVER.

Marbury and Francis have to get their minutes or all hell is gonna break loose in the NY newspapers and on the court and all that nonsense. Then you have Jalen, Q, and Nate all fighting for minutes. Jalen is probably the best guy they have to actually run the offense through because he makes better decisions than Marbury or Francis. When I watched last year, they played best when the PG brought it up and dished to Jalen who set up the half-court game. Then Marbury/Francis would be the scorers and Eddy Curry/Frye were the post threats.

There really is just no room for Crawford on that roster. Unfortunately, we have very litte outside of Foster that they would want/need. (although it is the Knicks so they may trade us Jamal for a Three Muskateers bar and a future 2017 2nd Round pick. Who knows with this guy really.)

Horseman872
07-24-2006, 11:20 PM
I would be happy with either Crawford or Rush. Preferably Crawford because he's be in the game late, but maybe Rush cause he's a lot cheaper.

Unclebuck
07-24-2006, 11:26 PM
I read the title and thought this was about the sniper incidents...

-Bball



That is what I thought.


One thing to keep in mind. It does no good to add a good shooter if he's not going to play . Kareem Rush is a good shooter, but he's not good at anything else so I don't see him playing any

rel
07-24-2006, 11:38 PM
i wouldn't mind Turkoglu

i've always seen him as a poorman's Peja

Stephen jackson for Hedo Turkoglu works salary wise

purdue101
07-24-2006, 11:40 PM
i wouldn't mind Turkoglu

i've always seen him as a poorman's Peja

Stephen jackson for Hedo Turkoglu works salary wise

a perimeter of turkoglu, reddik, and jameer is swiss cheese on defense. i can't imagine he's not available for a SG/SF who can play some decent D.

rel
07-24-2006, 11:45 PM
a perimeter of turkoglu, reddik, and jameer is swiss cheese on defense. i can't imagine he's not available for a SG/SF who can play some decent D.

there...we're set...DO IT LARRY

the problem is he can't play SG

Tins / HEDO?? / Granger / Al / JO
i guess he could come off the bench


but i dont see why Orlando wouldn't do it

Nelson / Redick / Jackson / Milicic / Howard

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 12:09 AM
No. Rick, like anyone with half a brain, knows that it's still early in the off-season and that there are most likely more changes on the way.


QFT

Will Galen
07-25-2006, 01:12 AM
I read the title and thought this was about the sniper incidents...

-Bball

That was my first thought.
----------------------------------------------------------

Yes. We should be very concerned about our shooting.

Not yet, need to see what happens during the rest of the Summer.

We went into the off season needing perimeter defense and outside shooting. We now have several players that can play perimeter defense.

Now all we need to do is sign Scott and pick up a shooter.

Danny could be one. He hit .563 in the playoffs from three point range. And if we keep Jax and get Al I could see Danny being our three point shooter because he would be open a lot.

Naptown_Seth
07-25-2006, 01:13 AM
Well said Purdue, except Bonzi's not a perimeter player.

As presently constructed, our team is so easy to defend, Rick must be pulling his hair out.
:wtf:

More capable of moving with the ball and taking players off the dribble, better about getting closer looks and creating defensive movement closer to the rim. That's easier to defend?

Because here is what is easy to defend. Dump to post, 4 guys stand and wait for the 3. Two years ago my rant after every game was that the ball never went 3 feet inside the arc without JO on the court. Seriously, not hyperbole. Every set a guy would dribble in a little, rotate to the next guy standing on the arc, ala NCAA ball.

Eventually someone would shoot a 3. With JO it was the same thing except that sometimes they could actually get him the ball, but would still stand around waiting for a 3.

The stats prove this out as their 3PAs went throught the roof after the brawl. People thought it was post play slowing things down, but it was the lack of movement without the ball, the inability to move much with the ball, and the predisposition to wait for an open 3 that ground the offense to a halt.

And contrary to some belief, its not that hard to scheme a good double team rotation plan for a post/kick out offense. If done plain jane with no dribble drive players (good ones) most NBA teams destroy this. That's what ATL and CHA did to the Pacers last year, they hawked the passing lanes for steals because there was little threat of being taken off the dribble.

You don't have to go AI to have effectiveness with the dribble, just do stuff like Wade and Terry do, dribble off picks and use screens to get mid-range open 2s. Terry almost never had to shoot a contested 2, just using 1 basic pick effectively.

And use this same skill to ATTACK rotations and burn them for running over to you, go blasting past them and force secondary help rotations that get you open looks 2 feet from the hoop instead of 22 feet.


And the rate of fouls on deep 2PA and all 3PA is crap. Virtually nothing. To draw fouls you have to work the ball into the paint, and getting there off dribble is the best way to draw those fouls.


I'm all for a 3P ace, don't get me wrong. But the 3 should just be supplemental to most game plans, not the core of the attack. If you hold your attempts to 14-16 a game then shooting the 3 at 34% is acceptable and effective at keeping defenses a little honest.


(edit - "is should just be" :wtf: ??? fixed, and defneses too)

ChicagoJ
07-25-2006, 12:11 PM
I'm all for a 3P ace, don't get me wrong. But a 3 is should just be supplemental to most game plans, not the core of the attack. If you hold your attempts to 14-16 a game then shooting the 3 at 34% is acceptable and effective at keeping defneses a little honest.

I generally agree with everything you said (and this is starting to scare me ;) ) but 14-16 per game is way too many.

In the Chuck & Reggie hayday of shooting three's we still didn't shoot 14-16 per game very often.

3pt FGAs needs to be in single digits, especially with the roster as currently constructed.

vapacersfan
07-25-2006, 12:50 PM
I just want a team that will show up in the playoffs.

Granted that will require us to make the playoffs...

JayRedd
07-25-2006, 12:54 PM
a perimeter of turkoglu, reddik, and jameer is swiss cheese on defense. i can't imagine he's not available for a SG/SF who can play some decent D.

That rules out Stevie Jax then

Naptown_Seth
07-26-2006, 12:54 AM
I generally agree with everything you said (and this is starting to scare me ;) ) but 14-16 per game is way too many.

In the Chuck & Reggie hayday of shooting three's we still didn't shoot 14-16 per game very often.

3pt FGAs needs to be in single digits, especially with the roster as currently constructed.
14-16 is a massive improvement over the near 20 they got into the last 2 seasons at times, especially when JO was out. GD that :censored: got frustrating.

18.7 last year (18th in %)
JO out in Feb - 19.5 3PA, JO out half of Jan - 19.4 3PA, JO out half of March - 18.7

19.2 04-05 (24th in %) same increases without JO as last year
15.6 03-04 (9th in %)
13.6 02-03 (20th in %)

If you don't do something well, maybe try not relying on it to win games so much.

Every game they fell behind in 04-05 you could see Jack, REGGIE (yep), AC, Fred, JJ all trying to "save the game" by going into 3 ball mode in the 4th. Instead of working the space, moving the ball in and grinding their way back in they started trying to shoot their way back in...and on most nights it just made it a lot worse.

That 3pt crap is why I dispute the whole "slog ball" view. The team got ugly and slow, but typically it was when they stopped moving and started chucking.

Because JO caught so much crap I started watching the time on his post possession during game reviews. Turns out he made decisions and moves within 1-3 seconds most of the time. Where the ball got held for 5-6 seconds was out on the perimeter with the guards, shot fakes, jab steps, looking, looking, looking...yes, Reggie too (and people overlooked his dreadful 3P% that year).

Catch and move ASAP, always. If you didn't have the shot and don't have it in a couple of dribbles, then you are done, move the ball. IMO this is the style they are trying to go to considering the people that have joined the team.

For example, Daniels will NOT be hawking the 3pt line at his 3PA rate (almost never shoots it).

#31
07-26-2006, 05:01 AM
we have to have at least have one consistent 3 pt threat on the floor at all times. saras is fine for the second unit, but i see no one on the first unit. jax is too streaky.

if we don't get a shooter teams will lay off the perimeter and sag around the paint. marquis, tins, and DG will have a hard time taking their guy off the dribble and jo and al are gonna get swarmed in the post, and the last thing we need is jo getting hurt again.

trading jax for a perimeter shooter deserving of 20-25 mins a night is possibly. turkgolu, crawford, and korver are possibilities that come to mind.

the only other scenario would be to use the MLE on a perimeter player like bonzi wells, and then try and package tinsely & jax for a sharp PG.

This is how i thought to, Im with this guy, he is correct.

FrenchConnection
07-26-2006, 09:30 AM
I generally agree with everything you said (and this is starting to scare me ;) ) but 14-16 per game is way too many.

In the Chuck & Reggie hayday of shooting three's we still didn't shoot 14-16 per game very often.

3pt FGAs needs to be in single digits, especially with the roster as currently constructed.

This is correct. The mid-range shot is as effective at keeping a defense honest as the 3pt shot. Danny is money from 18 feet in, and defenses will not be able to leave him alone to double JO or Al.

We just got so used to having an excellent 3pt shooters as the focus of our offense that we see this as the model for building a team. But, it is better to get higher percentage shots. In fact, as I understand it, the point of offensive schemes in basketball is to get easy baskets. And defenses are trying to stop these easy baskets. For the most part, a 3pt attempt is a victory for the defense.

In any case, I am sure that we will pick up a shooter later this offseason, but I don't think that it will make that much difference.

DisplacedKnick
07-26-2006, 09:39 AM
This is correct. The mid-range shot is as effective at keeping a defense honest as the 3pt shot. Danny is money from 18 feet in, and defenses will not be able to leave him alone to double JO or Al.


Er, not completely. The mid-range shot CAN be very effective at exploiting doubleteams, just like cutters, high post screens for cutters, baseline screens, etc. are. Unfortunately, the man being doubled needs to be a good enough passer to take advantage of that. While JO's passing has improved drastically, when I've seen him pass out of doubles it's almost always been to an open man outside the 3 pt line - not to hit someone cutting to the basket like Shaq, Yao or Vlade do/did.

The mid-range shot doesn't keep defenses from packing into the paint or playing zone which I see as being the primary defensive strategy for the Pacers. If I'm defending you as the team's presently constructed I zone, zone, zone. I don't automatically double JO though I may if he really gets on a roll and I don't have a good post defender.

I'll make it so you have to hit 3's before my guys give you room to do anything inside.

Putnam
07-26-2006, 10:06 AM
The mid-range shot is as effective at keeping a defense honest as the 3pt shot.

Is this really true?

When Peja stands out behind the arc and spots up, the guy defending him knows he's going for 3. So he has to get out there at least 20 feet from the basket to be making any kind of defense. By contrast, the guy guarding Granger rarely needs to go that far out. In the first place, you need to stay off Granger because he is at least as likely to move with the ball as he is to pop it, and if he is taking a mid-range jumper he is only 15 or so feet away.

So, it seems to me that Peja draws the defender 20 feet from the basket, while Granger seldom will do that. This is not a criticism of the Gift -- I'm delighted that he's our starting small forward. But it seems to me that the one-dimensional shooter does pull defenders farther from the basket than the more complete players with the combination of mid-ranger and driving ability. See what I mean? The one-dimensional quality of guys like Peja is what lures the defenders out there.




Danny is money from 18 feet in, and defenses will not be able to leave him alone to double JO or Al.

They will if they can be sure of bottling him up so he can't make a good pass out. Fair or not, that has been a criticism of JO for quite a while.


I agree with French Connection and Jay and the others who say not to worry about our lack of the three-point artist. We've definitely taken too many three point attempts in the past couple of years.

All I'm suggesting here is that the Pacers are going to have to be a lot better at moving the ball in and out and across court in order to compensate for the lack of a bomber on the wing. The "quickness" of the new offense probably won't be fast breaks up the court, but rather faster ball movement in the half court. It should be fun to watch.

Maybe, under these circumstances, the Pacers can find a lot of minutes for a guy who can't dribble much but specializes in pinpoint passing. Know of anybody like that?

ChicagoJ
07-26-2006, 11:43 AM
This is correct. The mid-range shot is as effective at keeping a defense honest as the 3pt shot. Danny is money from 18 feet in, and defenses will not be able to leave him alone to double JO or Al.

We just got so used to having an excellent 3pt shooters as the focus of our offense that we see this as the model for building a team. But, it is better to get higher percentage shots. In fact, as I understand it, the point of offensive schemes in basketball is to get easy baskets. And defenses are trying to stop these easy baskets. For the most part, a 3pt attempt is a victory for the defense.

In any case, I am sure that we will pick up a shooter later this offseason, but I don't think that it will make that much difference.

:teacher:

I agree 100%.

And, frankly, a good defensive strategy is to "lure" your opponent into taking too many long jumpers (3-pointers) early in the shotclock. Pack it in and dare them to shoot is often a better idea than super lock-down defense that far out (which can open up the lane for a backdoor cut and a high percentage shot if the defender overplays the passing lane.)

The Hustler
07-26-2006, 11:53 AM
:teacher:

I agree 100%.

And, frankly, a good defensive strategy is to "lure" your opponent into taking too many long jumpers (3-pointers) early in the shotclock. Pack it in and dare them to shoot is often a better idea than super lock-down defense that far out (which can open up the lane for a backdoor cut and a high percentage shot if the defender overplays the passing lane.)

Yes iagree in part but if you have a shooter that Defensivly people get out on then that opens the back door for cutter and getting into the lane. at the moment i think its to easy for teams to force us into low percentage shots as there is even less risk involved in leaving some at 25 ft ... having said this we have taken tooo many 3 pt shots recently and could do with cutting down! i jsut prefere the idea of having that option to help spread defense .... but then again there was only one Mr Clutch!