PDA

View Full Version : Two quick comments on last night's game



ChicagoJ
11-04-2006, 01:27 PM
I'm sure these have been covered elsewhere, but I've only got a couple minutes...

a) 26 3pt FGAs? That's shameful. The two guys that combined for 14 three-point attempts should be taking a long look in the mirror. Neither one of them should take more than 2-3 attempts per game, even they're 3-3.

They could learn something from Marquis. (Okay, make that three quick points, I like what I've seen from Daniels - he's an excellent near-the-rim player which is something the Pacers really need from their backcourt.)

2) What is the job of the coach? Is it his job to try to prepare a team to win a championship or is it for him to try to win every game? I thought, if the team was struggling a month into the season, we'd see him "run home to mama" - his comfort zone.

I didn't think if the team was 1-1 he'd start the, "I may need to change the starting lineup" nonsense.

The guy has no vision, no patience. He's very, very good at winning regular season games, don't get me wrong. But there's much more to his job than that.

Somebody in the front office probably needs to call him up and suggest that he'd better not change the starting frontcourt until February at the earliest. Give them time to get some chemistry for defense and rebounds. Give them time to get comfortable with each other offensively.

Good gracious. I had to laugh out loud at the line from The Star today - "Carlisle could be on his way to shaking up the lineup just two games into what's supposed to be an improved season for the Pacers..." Does anybody really expect *immediate* improvement with so many changes. Patience, fellow Pacers fans.

Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

JO, playing C, needs more than six rebounds. (oops, here's point #4). He seems like he's interested in turning himself into Kevin Garnett, and I don't mean that as a compliment, because I've always thought Garnett was "soft" - a seven-footer playing on the perimeter :rolleyes: . JO now appears to be playing as soft as Garnett always has.

Gotta run, but I'll check back in later in the weekend.

Naptown_Seth
11-04-2006, 01:58 PM
Jay, my personal complaint about the team the last THREE years, and that includes very strongly Reggie's final year when he stunk up the joint from 3 (most attempts, 32%) was that this team does not win if they settle for 20+ from 3.

Preseason we saw it dip below 10 most nights. With that you see points in the paint come up as well as FTAs.


I disagee sort of about Jack and Tinsley. Armstrong was chucking more than anyone, a couple of his 3s were forced. Jack and Tinsley were left open, crazy open. The solution is to be able to make those types of shots from the backcourt.

If it was Pargo standing 15 feet open like Tinsley was left, EVERY SINGLE fan on this board would be ripping Tinsley for leaving him like that. At some point some of these guys need to get their "no one within miles" 3P% up above 36-37%.

HOWEVER, what you saw Tinsley finally start to do was show the shot and then move the ball. In the end they got open looks for other players off of that. Unfortunately it ended up being things like a Granger 3PA instead, so it really didn't address the main issue.

But the point is that this is the method the team must adapt to, don't settle for OPEN 3PAs. Daniels is a great example. He had several open looks last night, and I think a few in game 1, but he just REFUSES to take them. He always works the ball closer to the rim (and does it very, very well). He doesn't get to the cup for a layup look, often he gets cut off, but he gets the ball closer and pressures the defense.

This is what they need to do with a lot of these open 3PAs. Teams are going to drop off Tinsley and he just needs to accept it and find another way to hurt them from doing so. Or he needs to get that decent 3P% from a few years ago back.

Jack is a better 3P shooter, but he also needs to limit it to 4-5 max unless 3 of those were makes. Then you better go 1-2 on every shot after that if you want to keep taking them. I'm all for him taking 20, as long as when was at 10 3PAs he had hit 5 of them and he finishes with 9-10 makes.

Some fans gag at the idea, but my point would be that this rarely happens so I'm not really advocating a lot of 3PAs. When it does (if ever) you'll love his night and he'll go for 35 in a big win.

But in the meantime when he gets to 1-4 he needs to back off and realize he's been settling too often. He is so much better in the low post and along the baseline that it's a waste to see most of his offense come from the outside.



I don't fault Rick for mentioning the lineup change. They have fundamental inside scoring issues and it's bad. Until Al finds his game I think you have to use Foster or David as a starter in order to get some stuff inside. Foster on clean-ups or David as a legit inside threat.

JO and Al have had nothing on the low block. Nothing. That and all the jumpers from every starter in the first 6 minutes are why they had 2 slow starts.

I think Al needs to try on the 30 mpg 6th man role again for a bit and see if it gets him going. Then you can look at moving him back to the starters if he wants (and the team can win that way).

If it was just chemistry or an off-night then I would agree Jay, but I watched both games using replay 80% of the time, and it's more a problem with their inability to really show a serious low post offense of any sort. They can't get the position, feed the position, nothing. And JO's had several shots blocked inside, enough for me to worry about his lift.

A little David muscle to soften up the opponents front line might help the situation.

Los Angeles
11-04-2006, 02:10 PM
It's weird. I've always considered Carlisle as TOO patient. It usually takes him like 3-4 games to make a change that is obvious to 70% of the board. It totally bizarre to hear someone say that he isn't patient.

I think he's not only overly patient but he also is not a very good disciplinarian. These are two weaknesses in an otherwise *very competent* coach.

So - It' spretty clear that this linup WILL NOT WORK. Al is totally lost. We're not big enough. And to steal a comment from UB, we don't have a dirty work player in there.

I want Granger or Al (pick one) to be a 6th man taking a similar role as Al had in 03/04.

My starting 5:
Tinsley
Jackson/Marquis (don't care which)
Al/Granger (pick one)
JO
Harrison/Powell/Foster (pick one)

Granger or Al (pick one) needs 30 minutes off the bench.

Huh, fancy that, everyone playing their natural position. What a novel idea. ;)

Bball
11-04-2006, 02:20 PM
Does anyone really think Al wasn't all but guaranteed a starting spot when he agreed on this return to the Pacers? Yes, it was 'technically' a trade but it was a trade with many negotiations and Al's contract status meant he had lots of say so in those negotiations.

I'm not saying it was in ink but I bet it was strongly implied he was coming here to start... and I bet he received some strong signals that they Pacers understood that and would honor that.

IF SO... Then it would be shocking to see Harrington moved out of the starting lineup anytime soon. I'm not saying they eventually wouldn't try it but unless he comes to the coach and says "If you wanna try bringing me off the bench that would be cool" then I'm going to mark seeing Al coming off the bench to be a last ditch move.

Does anyone else agree with the premise?

-Bball

Trader Joe
11-04-2006, 02:25 PM
Jay I agree with most of what you said I have had differing opinions on the JO thing because if he is scoring, I am happy. I believe there are enough rebounding options where if the other bigs are playing well we will be ok, but I digress.

I however do agree 100% that Rick should NOT fiddle with this starting lineup. Why? What has been our biggest problem bar none the past two years? It has been the fact we could develop no consistency among our starters. Now we finally have all 5 projected starters healthy and ready to play and we want to shake it up after ONE bad game? PLEASE. Talk about jumping the gun.

Los Angeles
11-04-2006, 02:27 PM
Does anyone really think Al wasn't all but guaranteed a starting spot when he agreed on this return to the Pacers? Yes, it was 'technically' a trade but it was a trade with many negotiations and Al's contract status meant he had lots of say so in those negotiations.

I'm not saying it was in ink but I bet it was strongly implied he was coming here to start... and I bet he received some strong signals that they Pacers understood that and would honor that.

IF SO... Then it would be shocking to see Harrington moved out of the starting lineup anytime soon. I'm not saying they eventually wouldn't try it but unless he comes to the coach and says "If you wanna try bringing me off the bench that would be cool" then I'm going to mark seeing Al coming off the bench to be a last ditch move.

Does anyone else agree with the premise?

-Bball

Absolutely.

grace
11-04-2006, 02:33 PM
Of course he was promised a starting spot and that's why a few of us see him as a hindrance to Danny's development.

Bball
11-04-2006, 02:37 PM
Of course he was promised a starting spot and that's why a few of us see him as a hindrance to Danny's development.

I'm seeing several people mention trying Al off the bench and I just don't think that is a realistic possibility right now because of that. His spot may be as secure, if not moreso, than JO at this point.

-Bball

D-BONE
11-04-2006, 02:39 PM
Here's an idea for Tins, and to a lesser degree Jack since I don't think they tend to lay off him so extremely, step in a few feet and be ready to shoot a 15 or 16 footer off the catch. Hell, Tins could even take a rhythm dribble as far off as they are.

I just cringe because JO is becoming a total finesse player IMO. Maybe he always was but it seems like he was at least more agressive going after rebounds and trying to take it to the rim. Is it just me or does it seem like he's noticably lost some ups? I would think dropping the weight would have helped there. Maybe he's not really recovered from his ailments.

Arcadian
11-04-2006, 02:42 PM
Does anyone really think Al wasn't all but guaranteed a starting spot when he agreed on this return to the Pacers?

Does anyone else agree with the premise?

-Bball

Not at all. Al didn't really have any other options of where he was going to go. So I don't see where that kind of leverage would have come from. Rick even said the only starter going in was JO.

Sollozzo
11-04-2006, 03:04 PM
JO, playing C, needs more than six rebounds. (oops, here's point #4). He seems like he's interested in turning himself into Kevin Garnett, and I don't mean that as a compliment, because I've always thought Garnett was "soft" - a seven-footer playing on the perimeter :rolleyes: . JO now appears to be playing as soft as Garnett always has.



"Soft" yet he has averaged 12 plus rebounds for the past 5 seasons. JO doesn't even have 12 rebounds in 2 games yet.

Unclebuck
11-04-2006, 03:14 PM
Seems to me that the complaint about Carlisle is he's too patient. So I don't know where you are getting that from jay

Kegboy
11-04-2006, 03:23 PM
Somebody in the front office probably needs to call him up and suggest that he'd better not change the starting frontcourt until February at the earliest.

Well then, guess I can forget about Jay helping me with the "Start Hulk" bandwagon. :kickcan:

Naptown_Seth
11-04-2006, 04:07 PM
I however do agree 100% that Rick should NOT fiddle with this starting lineup. Why? What has been our biggest problem bar none the past two years? It has been the fact we could develop no consistency among our starters. Now we finally have all 5 projected starters healthy and ready to play and we want to shake it up after ONE bad game? PLEASE. Talk about jumping the gun.
Actually this is a good point, stability has been the #1 issue so far.

My point remains that in this case you can really see some issues that were even popping up a little with JO, Al and Danny on court together in the pre-season. It might just be a chemistry thing though (on-court, not personality) that needs to be suffered through in order to sort it out and end up stronger for it.

As long as fans can bite that bullet.

But when Rick says that things need to be changed, its at least true in the sense that this current rotation has some gaping holes in it and needs a solution.



Also, I hadn't seen the box score before my first post in the thread, but when I did look I had some doubts about some of the 3pt CHOICES complaints...

Jack > 2-8 which was a problem (but 3-5 inside the arc and still had a PPS above 1.00). As noted, he got a ton of open looks, so my problem isn't so much the 8 (I don't like it though) as it is that he only hit 2. An SG left open has to have 3-4 makes at least on those.

Tins > 0-2, 5 of 9 from 2...ie, not really an issue after all. Turns out he was stepping in off those shots after the first 2 misses and should be recognized for doing so.

Also note that Tins had a couple of plays where he lept to contest a rebound and then where he denied a certain alley-oop. Gotta give him credit, those were both big time effort plays from a PG going against some bigs.

Granger > 2-5, my only problem is that he only took 2 shots inside the arc. Gotta have a better 2 to 3PA ratio. He was fantastic in the 2nd half in any case.

Armstrong > 2-4, so he only forced those late misses, must have felt like more to me because they came late in the game. Also note that he put up a 3 that he was fouled on but which wasn't a really great look. 11 points on 7 FGAs is nice regardless.

Marshall's 1 attempt was meaningless in this game.

That leaves Cabbages > 1-6, 1 of 8 from the field. Terrible 3 to 2PA ratio, and much more so when you consider the number of misses. People complain about Jack's attempts, but the dude played 37 minutes which means 1 3PA every 4.5 minutes. SarJas played 15 which means 1 every 2.5 minutes.


Take Al and Cabbages out and you have the team shooting 47.6%. Now add back in their FGAs and have them just be 2s and make them at 47%. You get 8 makes instead of 2 and 16 points instead of 5 (plus the 4 from FTAs).

So all I'm asking is to have them shoot a fair average, not make a bunch of 3s or anything, just keep up with the team. If they had just done that the Pacers would have won the game.


I've seen several people turn the situation into "Without SarJas to save them the team had no chance". Hardly. It was actually SarJas who along with Al did the MOST damage. 2-17 is brutal, especially with only 4 FTAs to go with it. 17 shots for 9 points is a disaster.

The problem wasn't that SarJas didn't show up, it was that he did. As much as he helped in game 1, he hurt them in game 2. He has one step up on Al though, as Al is 0-2 on quality games.

Naptown_Seth
11-04-2006, 04:23 PM
One other note, maybe mentioned in the game thread which I haven't read (had to watch via Tivo after work) CHANDLER FOULING on "rebounds". He had 4 times for certain where he came flying into players and knocked them down or clearly pushed guys out to clear space for a rebound. He flattened Cabbages (IIRC) one time like this. He sent both Al and JO off the court at least once each.

No calls over and over. So while we are ripping the team on their rebounding, what was the deal with letting Chandler assualt players all night? There were several rebounds he shouldn't have had because of this, and on top of that he should have been fouled out.

No way Foster gets to fly into the lane and literally knock a guard standing there to the floor during a rebound. You might as well let a guy double dribble or travel and then credit him for having "great moves". Really annoying.

Los Angeles
11-04-2006, 04:31 PM
I'm glad the real Naptown Seth has joined PD.

Chandler was driving me bonkers - it was up to the coaches to point out what he was doing to the officials. Don't know if that happened.

Unclebuck
11-04-2006, 05:18 PM
If the problem with the starting lineup was chemistry and them getting to know each other then of course the lineup shouldn't be changed, however the problem is effort, energy, and rebouding. Will that get better after 20 games, will it get better after 400 games (yes 4 hundred games) I have my doubts.

Rick called Granger and Harrington out saying they need to play with more energy, so it will be interesting to see what those two players do tonight.

Los Angeles
11-04-2006, 05:46 PM
If the problem with the starting lineup was chemistry and them getting to know each other then of course the lineup shouldn't be changed, however the problem is effort, energy, and rebouding. Will that get better after 20 games, will it get better after 400 games (yes 4 hundred games) I have my doubts.

Rick called Granger and Harrington out saying they need to play with more energy, so it will be interesting to see what those two players do tonight.

I think the lack of energy is related to being lost and not understanding who is supposed to do what. They don't even look like they know what position each person is supposed to play. Especially Al. Harrington looks completely lost and out of place. Adding energy to being lost just means that you're "hopelessly lost in an energetic kind of way".

Hope that makes sense.

Will Galen
11-04-2006, 06:03 PM
One thing everyone is assuming is that Rick has decided on a starting lineup. Yes he started the season with who everyone assumed would start, but that doesn't mean it was written in stone. In fact didn't he say on Pacers.com that the same people might not start every ball game, or words to that effect?

I would like to see him start David a few times to see what he gives us. In fact tonight against Curry would be a good time to start.

BlueNGold
11-04-2006, 06:15 PM
One thing everyone is assuming is that Rick has decided on a starting lineup. Yes he started the season with who everyone assumed would start, but that doesn't mean it was written in stone. In fact didn't he say on Pacers.com that the same people might not start every ball game, or words to that effect?

I would like to see him start David a few times to see what he gives us. In fact tonight against Curry would be a good time to start.

Mark it down. Foster and/or Harrison will either play or be forced to play due to JO being in foul trouble. Hopefully, RC does not wait too long.

Curry will brush JO aside with one paw, and bring the rim down with the other.

Unclebuck
11-04-2006, 06:39 PM
I think the lack of energy is related to being lost and not understanding who is supposed to do what. They don't even look like they know what position each person is supposed to play. Especially Al. Harrington looks completely lost and out of place. Adding energy to being lost just means that you're "hopelessly lost in an energetic kind of way".

Hope that makes sense.


Yes that does make sense and I admit I am at a loss as to what the lineup should be. I just don't know. I can make strong arguments for about 3 or 4 different starting 5's.

,

croz24
11-04-2006, 06:56 PM
imo, it'd be much smarter to start granger instead of al along with foster or david. granger isn't developed enough as a player to have as big an impact as someone like al or jax would coming off the bench. granger could provide a 'spark' off the bench, but it wouldn't be consistent as he is not yet a go-to player.

Naptown_Seth
11-05-2006, 01:55 AM
I think the lack of energy is related to being lost and not understanding who is supposed to do what. They don't even look like they know what position each person is supposed to play. Especially Al. Harrington looks completely lost and out of place. Adding energy to being lost just means that you're "hopelessly lost in an energetic kind of way".

Hope that makes sense.
I agree. I really didn't feel like there was ever a lack of energy from the group.

The opening 5-6 minutes, typically the most structured and scripted, have just looked awkward (I didn't get to see the start of the NY game yet however) and while they are getting open looks, they don't appear to be the shots they are most comfortable with taking.

Honestly we probably have to face the fact that Rick is also figuring out what he can do with this new roster.

Naptown_Seth
11-05-2006, 02:00 AM
Mark it down. Foster and/or Harrison will either play or be forced to play due to JO being in foul trouble. Hopefully, RC does not wait too long.

Curry will brush JO aside with one paw, and bring the rim down with the other.
Foster and Harrison - 14 minutes
JO - 36 minutes

JO 7 rebounds, Curry 6 rebounds.
JO 5 blocks, Curry no blocks
JO 4 fouls, Curry 4 fouls

:brilliant

Jermaniac
11-05-2006, 02:06 AM
Mark it down. Foster and/or Harrison will either play or be forced to play due to JO being in foul trouble. Hopefully, RC does not wait too long.

Curry will brush JO aside with one paw, and bring the rim down with the other.LMAO @ Your thoughts. So much for the foul trouble and Curry's paw. You are pathetic.

You know what was funny, the guy in your avatar shooting a jump shot thats funny. Who's paw made him shoot jumpers like Jeff Foster the past 3 games? Mark that **** down.

ChicagoJ
11-05-2006, 09:44 PM
Tins > 0-2, 5 of 9 from 2...ie, not really an issue after all. Turns out he was stepping in off those shots after the first 2 misses and should be recognized for doing so.

Bingo. I was referring to Jack and Saras in the first place. They should probably have a finger cut off each time either one of them shoots more than 4 3-pt FGAs in a game. They aren't exceptionally good shooters in the first place, and "streakiness" is not a good justification for shooting too many three's.

BTW, if two of our three frontcourt starters have a big game, we'll generally win. And its unlikely that all three will have "big" games on the same night. So we'll always be saying, "Well x1 and x2 played well, but x3 didn't." No big deal. Just like last night's game, Danny had foul difficulty but Al and JO were very, very good.

Since86
11-06-2006, 04:23 PM
You know what was funny, the guy in your avatar shooting a jump shot thats funny. Who's paw made him shoot jumpers like Jeff Foster the past 3 games? Mark that **** down.

WTF:confused:

You really stooped to a low bashing a Pacer player, just to belittle another poster. I can't believe something hasn't been said to you yet with the comments you make here, and especially the one in the Pac Man thread.

BlueNGold
11-06-2006, 11:06 PM
LMAO @ Your thoughts. So much for the foul trouble and Curry's paw. You are pathetic.

You know what was funny, the guy in your avatar shooting a jump shot thats funny. Who's paw made him shoot jumpers like Jeff Foster the past 3 games? Mark that **** down.

The only reason Curry didn't devour our front line is that he has gained 50-100 lbs. I guess I wasn't monitoring his intake. That's not the kind of "big" that works in this league.

That will not be a problem for other bigs like Tyson Chandler who will (or in his case have already) beat the **** out of our front line. You and others will eventually learn that JO and Al cannot handle the beatings they will take in the paint. Don't take too much from one game against the lowly Knicks playing an out of shape pig.

Jermaniac
11-06-2006, 11:08 PM
WTF:confused:

You really stooped to a low bashing a Pacer player, just to belittle another poster. I can't believe something hasn't been said to you yet with the comments you make here, and especially the one in the Pac Man thread.He didnt bash Jermaine O'Neal?

Ohh and who the hell are you to tell me about bashing a Pacers player. You spend every minute of your life waiting for one of the Pacers players you dont like to **** up, so you can come here and spread that hate out of your heart.

Step your life up.

BlueNGold
11-06-2006, 11:11 PM
He didnt bash Jermaine O'Neal?

I didn't bash JO. I like JO. Even JO wants a real C to play next to him.

Edit: I would say the same about that "poor shooter" in my avatar.

Naptown_Seth
11-07-2006, 02:17 AM
Bingo. I was referring to Jack and Saras in the first place. They should probably have a finger cut off each time either one of them shoots more than 4 3-pt FGAs in a game. They aren't exceptionally good shooters in the first place, and "streakiness" is not a good justification for shooting too many three's.

BTW, if two of our three frontcourt starters have a big game, we'll generally win. And its unlikely that all three will have "big" games on the same night. So we'll always be saying, "Well x1 and x2 played well, but x3 didn't." No big deal. Just like last night's game, Danny had foul difficulty but Al and JO were very, very good.
Yeah, I realized after I looked at the box...I mistakingly assumed that the initital complaint was those 2 since I hear that comment about Tinsley so often.

In another thread I just pointed out that off all the Pacers he has one of the highest inside vs outside FGA ratios. I just don't understand where he gets this outside chucker rep. I guess because he doesn't have a high outside average. But typically, even in previous years, he will try a couple and attempt to keep the defense honest, but if it's not going he'll back off of it.

He's much more likely to use his quick post on a guy which he is very good at getting, yet unpleasantly streaky about making. That's a shot he has to have go at 90% or better. Too many rimouts from 2 feet away despite the good look.



I also strongly agree that with a team you just have to understand that on any given night some guys will struggle, and the key will be to always have enough guys on to overcome that. It's silly to just bounce up and down with a players game to game results.

DA will have some real duds at some point, but hopefully Tins, Cabbages or even Greene will step in and make it all okay. Same with the frontline.

Despite some of the raw awkwardness they continue to show, the effort is great, the attitude is great, and they look like they can become something pretty solid. I especially like what we've seen from the defense. It looks a little better overall than it has the last 2 seasons, even with Ron around.

Can't replace him but the team seems to be more on the same page at that end than they have in some time. The help defenders are really reading each other's players very well for the most part. That makes things look a lot better and keeps the game close even on bad offensive nights.