PDA

View Full Version : Ric Already Considering a Lineup Change?



TheDon
11-04-2006, 12:22 PM
One loss and he already thinks we're in trouble? says on pacers.com he's thinking of moving danny to the bench to bring in Jeff to play at center so Jermaine can play at PF and Al can play at SF...I don't think it's a bad idea but I think he might be making a big deal out of nothing.

PacersFan83
11-04-2006, 12:28 PM
Well, we were out rebounded by 19 last night. If we just get outrebounded by 10, we probably win the game. So it makes it does make sense to start the guy who lead the entire league in rebounds-per-48 minutes last year. Still, as long as they both play their normal ammount of minutes (Granger 30ish, Jeff 25ish), I don't see what the big deal is, besides wanting to start off strong on the boards from the get go. Another thing is, it helps with the scoring off the bench. With JO, Al, and Stephen in the starting lineup, there's enough scorers. Bringing Danny off the bench gives us a great second string scoring attack with he, Quis, and D.A, and even Saras and Hulk on the nights when they dont suck/actually play.

avoidingtheclowns
11-04-2006, 01:15 PM
thats probably the lineup change i would make. at least to me it makes the most sense. as much as DA has become my hero we need that spark off the bench. and danny, while i love him, hasn't been productive offensively the first two games (albeit more than Al). i think foster will do the same dirty work that danny will except on bigger players, allowing Al to show whether or not he was a throw-in. with danny, quis and DA coming off the bench that could be quite an amazing second string. then adding hulk and rawle or sarunas... im not sure if this move helps the lack of ball movement in the starting lineup but i'm not sure what move would be made to improve that - its not like rick isn't going to start JT or SJ.

Arcadian
11-04-2006, 01:24 PM
While I like both players, I don't like Al and JO starting together. Bring Al off the bench like we used him before he left.

Jaydawg2270
11-04-2006, 01:43 PM
While I like both players, I don't like Al and JO starting together. Bring Al off the bench like we used him before he left.

i think J.O and Al starting together is fine, Rick just needs to play Al in his normal position and have danny come off the bench to provide a spark

PacerFan31
11-04-2006, 02:02 PM
I don't think it's a bad change, but if these guys had a little longer than 2 games to play together, I think things will work out.

RamBo_Lamar
11-04-2006, 02:18 PM
One loss and he already thinks we're in trouble? says on pacers.com he's thinking of moving danny to the bench to bring in Jeff to play at center so Jermaine can play at PF and Al can play at SF...I don't think it's a bad idea but I think he might be making a big deal out of nothing.

No, I don't think RC would consider us in trouble right now. He might after
an extended losing streak (which we hopefully won't see).

Like the players, RC and the coaching staff are doing alot of learning right
now too. They are trying to get themselves dialed-in too. Experimenting
with line-up changes should be expected.

With all the different factors to consider, this whole "restoration" process
is alot more complex than most folks realize I think. To me, it is actually
quite fascinating to see how these changes affect team dynamics, and
their results - positive or negative.

This is not a science where everything is set in stone; it really is more of
an art form. All we can do is trust in RC's intuition right now to keep things
headed in the right direction. Even if it's just one little baby step at a
time.

Trader Joe
11-04-2006, 02:28 PM
I'll say what I said in Jay's thread and that is I think to already be fiddling with the lineups is a dumb idea. Why intentionally do to yourself what injuries have been doing to us for the past two years? Here we are TWO games into the season and we actually have all 5 starters healthy and ready to go and Rick wants to go and mess with it after ONE bad game? PLEASE, that just makes no sense to me. You should AT LEAST give this frontcourt 15 games to see if they can gel.

avoidingtheclowns
11-04-2006, 02:50 PM
well the team has a lot of new pieces and the starting lineup has already been an experiment. so i don't think its because of panic that we're adjusting. its only been two games, most teams take a while to find a great starting lineup, its okay. phoenix last night started barbosa instead of diaw - and i would say PHX has a much more solid team than we do right now. now if the lineup shifting continues for a while (larry brown-esque) without injuries then we know there is a chemistry issue. i don't think its a bad thing to experiment in the few bunch of games.

Unclebuck
11-04-2006, 03:16 PM
Everyone has assumed that Rick plans on changing the frontcourt. Maybe he plans on changing the backcourt starting lineup.

Kegboy
11-04-2006, 03:19 PM
I think Rick was never a fan of Danny Al-Jermaine and has been ready to make a change at the first opportunity. I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm sure I'll disagree with his solution.

Kegboy
11-04-2006, 03:20 PM
Everyone has assumed that Rick plans on changing the frontcourt. Maybe he plans on changing the backcourt starting lineup.

Eddie G.., oh wait. Crap.

grace
11-04-2006, 03:40 PM
Eddie G.., oh wait. Crap.

I hear Jay Williams is available.

Mourning
11-04-2006, 04:19 PM
Foster instead of Granger is likely to give us more rebounds, but can Al defend the SF position well enough against the elite SF's of the league? I dunno.

Also I think we run a serious risk with regards to the offense if this is what will happen. We all know that Tinsley is a liability with regards to shooting from downtown, we also know that Quis can't shoot from downtown either (IF he were to start) and that Stephen is VERY inconsistent from long range. Those are good players, but long range shooting is NOT their niche. I think we can all aggree on that.

Now we put in Jeff who will up our rebound count, but isn't exactly a skilled finisher, so we in effect would have on the floor no serious and consistent long-range threat (unless you consider Stephen to be that) and one of our frontcourt players has a lot of trouble scoring, so ... who are going to space the floor for us again, so JO and Al can work inside effectively or rack up assists after getting double teamed? Dishing off to Jeff not finishing well or Tinsley not hitting the three or Jax throwing it up aren't exactly nice alternatives. And our opponents will know that and guard JO and Al heavier in those circumstances.

Now Stephen will go off once every 3 or 4 games and be decent in the other games, while Tinsley will also be effective scoring sometimes, but atrocious at other times.

But, we NEED JO and Al to be our main scoring threats. And when they are beying double teamed, because of what I described above, then it is going to be hard for them to be efficient scoring threats.

Sure penetrating guards will help a lot, but we need someone who can hurt the opposition from a far. Now I know Danny isn't a specialist, but I am buying what some of you said during summer, namely that he's a reliable and good 3pt shooter, so I am not exactly willing to let him sit down so that we don't have any real outside threat and to see every team packing it in the middle.

I want to stick to the team we have now and I want our players to get more adjusted to each other and to focus more on rebounding and boxing out. You can change all the players you want, but you will only be moving the problem to the second unit. I want to have it fixed. The players simply will have to adjust and focus more on rebounding.

After atleast 15 games I want to make an assessment, not now. It's way too early. Line up changes are ok, but they need to make sense and this wouldn't make sense to me and is too early.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

TheDon
11-04-2006, 04:43 PM
I think Rick was never a fan of Danny Al-Jermaine and has been ready to make a change at the first opportunity. I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm sure I'll disagree with his solution.


That was exactly my first thought as well after reading that article on pacers.com. I am more comfortable with Rick trying it now and shaking things up than I will be 15-20 games into the season and not know what our rotation is going to be.

I was thinking with how versatile we are supposedly is it too far out to think that in some games we go with what our best match up would be whether it's danny-al-JO in the front court or Al-JO-Foster? I think we could still build the desired chemistry in this situation the difference only being Danny or Jeff off the bench cause we know JO can play PF and we know Al can play SF. I think Rick is great at coming up with a gameplan against other teams, his in game adjustments just aren't the greatest in the world is my only problem with him and those aren't that bad.

CableKC
11-04-2006, 05:01 PM
Why not make everyone happy and just go with a lineup of Tinsley/Granger/Harrington/JONeal/Foster.

We would be covered on the rebounding end, SJax would be given the keys to shoot as the 6th Man ( but with equal minutes with Granger ) and Granger would become a likely 3rd scoring option when he is on the floor with Harrington and JONeal.

Mourning
11-04-2006, 05:10 PM
Maybe start Quis and give him the task of slashing inside EVERYTIME he gets the ball to provoke fouls from particularly the opponents big men might be something to consider.

Or give Stephen that same task, go inside at every opportunity, let them foul you. I think Daniels is better at it, but Stephen can do that too.

Let the opponent foul us from the get go, better force them to foul us as much as possible so that our own big men will get more opportunities aswell, because the opponent either will keep playing a tough defense on our forwards and centers, with the risk of getting more fouls on them and getting into really serious foul trouble, OR they won't play our frontcourt very hard for sometime to prevent getting into that serious foul trouble.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

CableKC
11-04-2006, 05:24 PM
Or give Stephen that same task, go inside at every opportunity, let them foul you. I think Daniels is better at it, but Stephen can do that too.
I agree....there are times when SJax completely recognize that he can't hit his perimeter shots and drives to the hoop and draws 7+ Fouls. There were many games last season where SJax was couldn't hit anything but did good by drawing multiple fouls.

The problem is that this may happen 1 out of 4 times when SJax and Sarunas can't shoot the ball....they recognize this and draw fouls.

Unfortunately for the majority of the time when they can't hit the side of a barn, they continue to rely on their midrange to 3pt jumper ( that isn't dropping ) hoping to shoot their way out of a slump instead of trying to drive to the hoop to draw fouls for FTA.

BlueNGold
11-04-2006, 05:44 PM
The guys who should start are:

Daniels - PG: He can handle this position...and more important, he can defend ferociously on the other end...and abuse a PG on offense. Let Tinman be the star backup PG. We can't rely on him being healthy anyway.

Jackson - SG: Hate to say it, but we need the threat of his erratic 3pt shooting. It would be best that he slash to the bucket.

Granger - SF: Love to say it. He was born to play the position. Let him grow! Let him work on improving his range and he will be the next Pippen.

JO - PF: Why even say it. He should never be the only guy over 6'9" on the floor for the Pacers.

Foster - C: Only because Harrison cannot handle it. If Harrison ever does get it, the position is clearly DH's. Until that time, Foster is the best we have and he needs to stay out there.


That squad can defend, rebound and score. It is a great defensive group as well. Foster may not be as talented on offense, but we need size and rebounding more than Al's fadeaway.

Harrington - 6th Man: Sorry Al. You were not the best PF or SF on this team 3 years ago...and you're not the best now. Small ball does not work. Don't make JO play C and don't get in DG's way.

D-BONE
11-04-2006, 05:46 PM
Why not make everyone happy and just go with a lineup of Tinsley/Granger/Harrington/JONeal/Foster.

We would be covered on the rebounding end, SJax would be given the keys to shoot as the 6th Man ( but with equal minutes with Granger ) and Granger would become a likely 3rd scoring option when he is on the floor with Harrington and JONeal.


That's not the line up I want. I'd take Tins, Jack, Quis, JO, and DG. Al's a good 6th man.

D-BONE
11-04-2006, 05:48 PM
The guys who should start are:

Daniels - PG: He can handle this position...and more important, he can defend ferociously on the other end...and abuse a PG on offense. Let Tinman be the star backup PG. We can't rely on him being healthy anyway.

Jackson - SG: Hate to say it, but we need the threat of his erratic 3pt shooting. It would be best that he slash to the bucket.

Granger - SF: Love to say it. He was born to play the position. Let him grow! Let him work on improving his range and he will be the next Pippen.

JO - PF: Why even say it. He should never be the only guy over 6'9" on the floor for the Pacers.

Foster - C: Only because Harrison cannot handle it. If Harrison ever does get it, the position is clearly DH's. Until that time, Foster is the best we have and he needs to stay out there.


That squad can defend, rebound and score. It is a great defensive group as well. Foster may not be as talented on offense, but we need size and rebounding more than Al's fadeaway.

Harrington - 6th Man: Sorry Al. You were not the best PF or SF on this team 3 years ago...and you're not the best now. Small ball does not work. Don't make JO play C and don't get in DG's way.

This line up is also palatable to me.

imawhat
11-04-2006, 06:24 PM
Deep down I think replacing Granger with Foster would be better, but I don't think Rick is being fair and I don't think he should tinker with the lineup (yet). These guys need some time to get used to each other.


As far as the rebounding problems go, last night was just bad basketball. They were taking shots when our guys were out of position, lack of hustle, West setting up at the top of the key and drawing his defender out, etc. Our current group can rebound much better; they just didn't.

CableKC
11-04-2006, 06:34 PM
That's not the line up I want. I'd take Tins, Jack, Quis, JO, and DG. Al's a good 6th man.

Thats one of the smallest lineups that we can come up with.

BlueNGold
11-04-2006, 07:25 PM
Thats one of the smallest lineups that we can come up with.
Yes. Even better...why don't we play Armstrong, Saras, Tinman, Quis and let Jack defend the C position. ;)

I remember a day when we had a front court (all 3) at 6'11" or taller with a 7'4" center. But we only made it to the NBA finals that year.

Pacerized
11-04-2006, 09:27 PM
This is what I've wanted all along. Starting Foster not only gives us more rebounding, it gives us a better defender. I always thought Al was a great defender at the 3 when he played here before, so I would expect the same of him now. Granger will get a lot more involved in the offense playing as the 6th. man. He's only in his second year, we shouldn't rush him if we don't have to.

Unclebuck
11-04-2006, 11:27 PM
Anyone else believe Rick made those comments to try and get Al and Granger to step it up

Trader Joe
11-05-2006, 12:26 AM
Anyone else believe Rick made those comments to try and get Al and Granger to step it up

Possibly.
More than anything tho, I think Rick was disappointed we let a golden oppurtunity slip away in the 4th and was just a bit frustrated and thinking out loud at the press conference.

BoomBaby31
11-06-2006, 05:45 PM
One loss and he already thinks we're in trouble? says on pacers.com he's thinking of moving danny to the bench to bring in Jeff to play at center so Jermaine can play at PF and Al can play at SF...I don't think it's a bad idea but I think he might be making a big deal out of nothing.


lol.. yawwwnnnnnnnnn who has been predicting this since acquiring AL??? Next Granger will get the starting spot and Al will becoming off the bench, playing behind JO and Danny G. Then will come the *****ing from AL and this time next year we will be discussing the new player we got for Harrington or will we be writing about trading him.