PDA

View Full Version : Q.O.D. for 9/18/06



Peck
09-18-2006, 12:44 AM
Ok, sorry gang I was away at a conferance for four days & I just wasn't able to get a Q.O.D. put together. Actually I'm having to throw this one together in a hurry so it may be disjointed.

I think a lot of us were hoping that the line up would offer us Danny Al-Jermaine, however lately I've been seeing more & more the idea of Foster being inserted instead of Danny.

I know some like that idea & some don't.

However, & here is the question, does anybody think Danny would suffer from either of the following.

1. Being thrown into the starting lineup for an entire season without more experiance.

2. Being benched but being the 6th man & getting almost 30 min. a game?

I'm not asking your preferance, I'm asking if you think either scenario would hurt Danny development?

Also, & yes I know this will lead to you pref. again but what the h#ll, do you think either scenario would hurt the Pacers?

Arcadian
09-18-2006, 01:02 AM
I don't think it will hurt Granger either way so long as he gets minutes.

What I bothers me is not wanting Jeff to play more than 20 or so minutes and not wanting JO play center too much. The way the roster is set up one of those things will happen. (No, I did not forget David.)

Bball
09-18-2006, 01:12 AM
If we don't go Al-JO-Danny then I think getting Al was a waste under most scenarios.

IMHO...
Granger needs to start unquestionably, and the "JO at center, Al at PF" part is the question mark that needs answered (to see if that gives us a new dynamic and re-energizes the team and fans).

I'm not seeing the scenario that has Foster needing to start. I think I'd rather start Harrison if we're looking to play Al and JO at the forward spots. That puts us squarely into developmental mode but at least we'd have a new dynamic and something other teams would have to deal with (big lineup). It probably negates a faster paced offense, but then Carlisle himself will probably negate a faster paced offense anyway.

But from my perspective if getting Al means we cut Granger's role and/or keep Foster where he's always been, then we just spun our wheels. I think Granger can thrive somewhat either way and in either role (as long as he gets plenty of minutes) but it's the thing him starting would mean to the rest of the team and the subsequent reshuffling of the deck that could pay dividends.

Tell JO to STFU and play center. It doesn't matter what Reb says his position is anyway, his role in the offense isn't going to change much...if at all.. no matter what we call it.

-Bball

Jose Slaughter
09-18-2006, 01:52 AM
I don't think either option listed above would hamper Granger's developement.

I would rather have him getting about 30 minutes off the bench. The downside to that is, Harrington plays the 3 when I think he would do better at the 4. The plus side is Harrison should start at center. Harrison, O'Neal & Harrington as the starting front line along with Granger getting starters minutes. Foster & Baston can fill in the gaps.

As far as hurting the Pacers, as long as Granger gets his minutes & Harrison gets a chance to play a larger role this season, I can live with it.

Naptown_Seth
09-18-2006, 02:01 AM
However, & here is the question, does anybody think Danny would suffer from either of the following.

1. Being thrown into the starting lineup for an entire season without more experiance.

2. Being benched but being the 6th man & getting almost 30 min. a game?
IMO, neither would be a problem assuming the team remains as is. He would not be required to be the main guy, and in fact he would be the least "critical" of the starting 5, much like Prince was. That allows him to have the opportunities but without the pressure.

6th man carries more pressure to be "the man" when you come on, but it is against weaker competition and you are still going to be paired with another starter at all times typically. Plus a bench guy is allowed to be up and down, it comes with the territory. There is always another bench guy to turn to if its not your night...or the starters can come back in the game.

You don't get the pressure to meet the expectations of starter either.


As for playing improvement, I think 6th man has the benefit of allowing a player to gain success against lesser players, which is good. But a 5th man starter has the benefit of working off of the 4 best players the team can put out there, guys that can help you and make everything easier despite you catching a tough assignment on half the nights.

2 different paths that both have plenty to offer a 2nd year player in terms of development.

Hicks
09-18-2006, 06:47 AM
Ok, sorry gang I was away at a conferance for four days & I just wasn't able to get a Q.O.D. put together. Actually I'm having to throw this one together in a hurry so it may be disjointed.

I think a lot of us were hoping that the line up would offer us Danny Al-Jermaine, however lately I've been seeing more & more the idea of Foster being inserted instead of Danny.

I know some like that idea & some don't.

However, & here is the question, does anybody think Danny would suffer from either of the following.

1. Being thrown into the starting lineup for an entire season without more experiance.

2. Being benched but being the 6th man & getting almost 30 min. a game?

I'm not asking your preferance, I'm asking if you think either scenario would hurt Danny development?

Also, & yes I know this will lead to you pref. again but what the h#ll, do you think either scenario would hurt the Pacers?

Honestly, I don't think either of those scenarios would or will hurt Danny Granger. He's too mentally tough to let starting bother him, and he's still getting 30 (I'll go one further and say 30+) minutes per game if he's the 6th man, so he's still getting plenty of experience and playing time.

Now, if we assume for the moment he improves his game this year, by year 3 I will be more upset that he's not starting if they put Jeff in there again because by then, it will be time for him to start. I don't want another Al Harrington situation where he starts to feel he's being held down and requests a trade. I know that wasn't until Al's 6th year, but it was only his 4th with a big role in the team.

Hicks
09-18-2006, 06:49 AM
I don't think either option listed above would hamper Granger's developement.

I would rather have him getting about 30 minutes off the bench. The downside to that is, Harrington plays the 3 when I think he would do better at the 4. The plus side is Harrison should start at center. Harrison, O'Neal & Harrington as the starting front line along with Granger getting starters minutes. Foster & Baston can fill in the gaps.

As far as hurting the Pacers, as long as Granger gets his minutes & Harrison gets a chance to play a larger role this season, I can live with it.

I wouldn't be so sure they have Harrison inked to start if Danny doesn't. I think this is going to be another case of too much love and admiration for Jeff Foster. Scot Pollard referred to this problem once IIRC.

DisplacedKnick
09-18-2006, 06:53 AM
Danny Granger has the potential to be a very, very good player IMO. But he doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who'll demand touches and look for his own shot ahead of other players.

At some point to really reach his potential he was going to have to be pushed into stepping up and taking over.

It won't happen now - he'll be the 3rd or 4th option on this team instead of 2 or 2A. It's probably actually better if he's 6th man because then he may be expected to step up on the 2nd unit but there's no way to get around JO, Al and Jackson all being veteran players who'll want shots. And in the case of Al and JO, players who are signed for a long time. I'll assume at this point that the Pacers want to move Jackson.

Skaut_Ech
09-18-2006, 09:29 AM
You beat me to it, DK.

I was going to say the same thing. As a starter, I think Danny has a big chance to be lost in the shuffle. As option 3 or 4 on offense, he can't build a consistant offensive game. Matter of fact, I think he could fall into the trap that Foster fell into, of sorts.

Jeff was forced into being a rebounding role player to fill a gap. As the years went by, the offensive game he had in college disappeared. I wonder if Danny might not suffer a bit of the same fate, being forced to cover the any "gaps" in our starting unit.

I think starting would hinder him. Being a sixth man would benefit him.

BillS
09-18-2006, 09:57 AM
I said in an earlier lineup thread that I think Danny would do just fine as 6th man. I think the idea that if a player isn't starting by their second year they are somehow wasted or ruined is a little ludicrous.

Unclebuck
09-18-2006, 09:59 AM
DK and SE you make some interesting points and something I haven't considered. So I don't know what is best for the team.

let me throw something else into the discussion. I think it depends a little on who starts at shooting guard. If Jax starts then I tend to agree that maybe Granger should come off the bench (he's going to get 30 plus minutes regardless). If Daniels starts then I think I would be more inclined to start Granger.

But I could see JO, AL, Granger and Jax as just too many players who want to finish plays, and players who need the ball.

I don't want to hi-jack this thread. But is there anyone else out there who wishes AJ and Daniels were are starting backcourt.

Los Angeles
09-18-2006, 10:02 AM
The 2 worst things that could happen to Danny are playing out of position (loo late) and serious injury.

Danny's right on track and a 6th man role not unlike the role Al had in 03/04 would suit him.

If the lineup is Tins/Jack/Al/ONeal/Foster and that lineup is coached by Rick, I don't see how in the hell we are going to have that "faster, uptempo" offense that's been hyped up all summer.

A plodding offense could potentially hurt Danny more than the two things I listed above.

grace
09-18-2006, 11:24 AM
I don't think it matters either way. Foster won't get a ton of minutes because if he does he'll end up getting hurt anyway.

From a marketing standpoint it has to be Danny Al-Jermaine. ;)

thunderbird1245
09-18-2006, 11:32 AM
Once again, I must voice the opinion that this question is mostly irrevelant. I know there is an obsession among fans, and sometimes players themselves about who "starts" a game, but I can tell you again from a coaches perspective that who FINISHES the game is much more important.

Among Colts fans for instance, Im sure that there are a bunch of those who are clamoring for Joseph Addai to start over Dominic Rhodes....but ask yourself, does it really matter? As long as Addai (if you think he is the better player) gets the most carries and is fresh at the end of the game and the end of the year, does who plays the first snap or first series really matter that much? Ive never thought so....

I imagine next season, due to injuries, coaching decisions, matchups, and a whole host of other factors, that sometimes Granger will start and sometimes he won't.....but that 99% of the time he will be playing in the 4th quarter with the game on the line, and thats what we should be worried about, not who starts.

To answer the thread question, unless it becomes a mental thing or a distraction for some reason, I think whatever lineup RC chooses to start a particular game with is fine.

The only addition Id add to that statement is that I hope by the end of January the decision is made one way or the other, and everyone can sort of settle into whatever comfort zone and role they earn and RC gives them.

JMO

Bball
09-18-2006, 11:44 AM
It matters who starts... Always has, always will.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
09-18-2006, 11:46 AM
As long as Granger is getting minutes, he'll develop. I'm not worried about that.

But if anybody thinks Al is a starting SF - that scares me. He is not a perimeter player anymore, and hasn't been since his ACL tear.

I can see Danny-JO-Jeff/David before Al-JO-Jeff/David.

ChicagoJ
09-18-2006, 11:48 AM
It matters who starts... Always has, always will.

-Bball

I think if your "starters" and "finishers" aren't the same then you need a super, super, super, super strong personality as coach or your team is going to have an identity problem.

In general, your best lineup is your best lineup, and you should start, finish, and play long stretches in the middle with that lineup.

That doesn't necessarily mean your best lineup is your five best players, of course. Or your best players at each of the five positions. But it can be.

3rdStrike
09-18-2006, 12:05 PM
Granger proved at the end of last year that is ready to step into a starting role. He has to start. Foster only does one thing: rebound. He isn't a part of the offense, isn't good defensively and can't get a block to save his life.


This team can't afford any liabilities on either side of the ball.

imawhat
09-18-2006, 12:50 PM
Foster only does one thing: rebound. He isn't a part of the offense, isn't good defensively and can't get a block to save his life.

Not true. By not demanding the ball he does a lot for the offense. The biggest liability that Jeff gives the offense is not setting great picks. Other than that he's great for a group of players that demand the ball.

He's also the best man-to-man frontcourt defender on the team (maybe 'was' now, but not in the past). And honestly, blocks aren't as important as they seem, nor is Foster in a position to get as many as O'Neal.

Unclebuck
09-18-2006, 01:03 PM
I think if your "starters" and "finishers" aren't the same then you need a super, super, super, super strong personality as coach or your team is going to have an identity problem.

In general, your best lineup is your best lineup, and you should start, finish, and play long stretches in the middle with that lineup.

That doesn't necessarily mean your best lineup is your five best players, of course. Or your best players at each of the five positions. But it can be.


I agree 100% with this. With very few exceptions, the really good teams have a definite best lineup.

imawhat
09-18-2006, 01:12 PM
I agree with that too. It's a valid point.

SoupIsGood
09-18-2006, 01:17 PM
I read this thread and find myself wondering why the heck Jax is still on this team

thunderbird1245
09-18-2006, 01:36 PM
I think if your "starters" and "finishers" aren't the same then you need a super, super, super, super strong personality as coach or your team is going to have an identity problem.

In general, your best lineup is your best lineup, and you should start, finish, and play long stretches in the middle with that lineup.

That doesn't necessarily mean your best lineup is your five best players, of course. Or your best players at each of the five positions. But it can be.


We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this one point mostly, but just for the sake of my argument, here are some examples off the top of my head:

1. Kevin McHale didnt always start for the old Celtics championship teams of the 1980's...as a matter of fact he usually came off the bench...but he was generally in the game with it on the line.

2. John Havlicek was the original 6th man, and almost never started. However he played on championship teams his entire career and almost always was in the game in the 4th quarter.

3. In our Pacers strong years in the 90's, Rik Smits always started, but depending on the situation was taken out for Antonio Davis often during those years.

4. Mark Jackson normally started games for Larry Bird's tenure, but Travis Best almost always played the 4th quarter.

5. Michael Cooper didnt always start for the Lakers in the 80's, Dennis Rodman didnt always start for Detroit in the early 90's (I think anyway), Mike Miller doesnt start for Memphis now but is always in the game in the last few minutes....and there are hundreds of other examples.

6. Rawle Marshall started 9 games last year for Dallas even.....anyone want to tell me he is one of their best 5 guys, or shouldve been playing with the game on the line?

JMO

imawhat
09-18-2006, 01:59 PM
You're not disagreeing at all.


1.Bill Fitch/K.C. Jones
2.Red Auerbach
3.Larry Brown
4.Larry Bird
5.Pat Riley
6.Avery Johnson

ChicagoJ
09-18-2006, 02:03 PM
We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this one point mostly, but just for the sake of my argument, here are some examples off the top of my head:

1. Kevin McHale didnt always start for the old Celtics championship teams of the 1980's...as a matter of fact he usually came off the bench...but he was generally in the game with it on the line.

Based on my comments below, Red Auerbach laid the groundwork within this franchise for this with Havlicek. Or, this is the exception and not the rule.


2. John Havlicek was the original 6th man, and almost never started. However he played on championship teams his entire career and almost always was in the game in the 4th quarter.

Red Auerbach = super, super, super, super strong personality as coach. He could get the players to buy into their roles.


3. In our Pacers strong years in the 90's, Rik Smits always started, but depending on the situation was taken out for Antonio Davis often during those years.

Larry Brown = super, super, super, super strong personality as coach. He could get the players to buy into their roles.


4. Mark Jackson normally started games for Larry Bird's tenure, but Travis Best almost always played the 4th quarter.

Larry Bird = super, super, super, super strong personality as coach. He could get the players to buy into their roles.


5. Michael Cooper didnt always start for the Lakers in the 80's, Dennis Rodman didnt always start for Detroit in the early 90's (I think anyway),

Pat Riley and Chuck Daly = super, super, super, super strong personality as coach. They could get the players to buy into their roles.


Mike Miller doesnt start for Memphis now but is always in the game in the last few minutes....and there are hundreds of other examples.

Fratello and Hubie Brown...


6. Rawle Marshall started 9 games last year for Dallas even.....anyone want to tell me he is one of their best 5 guys, or shouldve been playing with the game on the line?

Wasn't that due to injury? I don't know. Regardless, this was an expiriment that didn't stick.

So we've identified (a) some of the best sixth men in NBA History plus Mike Miller; and (b) some of the strongest coaches in NBA History.

I don't think the Pacers have either (1) a clear-cut candidate for taking one of their starting five "on paper" and turning him into a sixth man; or (2) the type of coach that can command credibility by doing this.

This has become a cliche, almost like the "you need a guy that totally sucks on offense like Foster to make your offense better" (I know that's not really what some of you are trying to say, but it is what you are saying.)

And every coach thinks they can pull it off. And very, very few can.

Just like Foster - yes its good for the other four that he doesn't demand the ball. But if he did demand it, they'd just laugh at him. You're (not T-bird, just a generic "you") trying to describe a player that's willing to sacrifice his individual offense for the betterment of the team. That's not Foster. He has no individual offense to sacrifice. He's not deferring. You've got to be all-time-great at defense and rebounding to pull that off, like Ben Wallace and Rodman, who were better at every aspect of the game (defense, rebounding, and yes, even offense altough Ben's FTs are pretty brutal) than Foster.

imawhat
09-18-2006, 02:17 PM
He's not deferring, but the point I'm trying to make is that he helps the offense by default, just with his mentality.

I don't think he sucks on offense at all. His strengths far outweigh his weaknesses, even if some of them are glaring.

Bball
09-18-2006, 02:41 PM
I read this thread and find myself wondering why the heck Jax is still on this team

Business...
He costs too much to trade away for a worse contract/player just to be rid of him... let alone outright cutting him.

And the team is probably overvaluing him a bit and not willing to trade for a percieved lesser player that many of us would be fine with.

So they hold onto him in hopes he comes around or a better offer creeps up.

I'm still unsure if a player can so lose the fanbase as Sjax did and yet still be able to regain even a portion of it (or if the rehab process would even be worth it).

-Bball

ChicagoJ
09-18-2006, 02:57 PM
You're not disagreeing at all.


1.Bill Fitch/K.C. Jones
2.Red Auerbach
3.Larry Brown
4.Larry Bird
5.Pat Riley
6.Avery Johnson

I'm-a-what,

You're a what?? :confused:

Just who do you think you are, summarizing my rambling post so eloquently in just seven lines.

You're right - You're a "what."

;)

Will Galen
09-18-2006, 03:12 PM
However, & here is the question, does anybody think Danny would suffer from either of the following.

1. Being thrown into the starting lineup for an entire season without more experiance.

2. Being benched but being the 6th man & getting almost 30 min. a game?

I'm not asking your preferance, I'm asking if you think either scenario would hurt Danny development?


I could see #2 hurting Danny under one condition. Whereas starters almost always get around the same number of minutes that's not so for reserves even the 6th man. Thus if say Al starts at SF and Daniels or someone else that can play SF gets hot what happens to Danny's minutes? Daniels or someone else would take most of them I'm sure.

However I want Danny out there even when not playing particularly well because you learn more when things are tough. So I could see it hurting Danny's development a bit.

Bball
09-18-2006, 03:16 PM
Thus if say Al starts at SF and Daniels or someone else that can play SF gets hot what happens to Danny's minutes?


Once the eggtimer is readied for the season it would be like pulling teeth to get it changed. Therefore, Danny's minutes won't be affected by a hothand because Carlisle rarely (if ever) rides the hothand. It's against the commandments of the eggtimer gods.

-Bball

imawhat
09-18-2006, 04:27 PM
I'm-a-what,

You're a what?? :confused:

Just who do you think you are, summarizing my rambling post so eloquently in just seven lines.

You're right - You're a "what."

;)

Your post had details; I'd take those over names any day. I'm just lazy.

imawhat
09-18-2006, 04:29 PM
Once the eggtimer is readied for the season it would be like pulling teeth to get it changed. Therefore, Danny's minutes won't be affected by a hothand because Carlisle rarely (if ever) rides the hothand. It's against the commandments of the eggtimer gods.

-Bball


That's a very good and frustrating point.

ABADays
09-18-2006, 08:35 PM
As long as Granger gets his minutes he will be fine. He isn't going to demand a starting position. Besides, if he did, we just got someone on the team recently that can tell him about those pitfalls. ;)