PDA

View Full Version : Post Game Thread:What is a rebound? Thunderbird we need you in here [Read Post #75]



Jermaniac
11-11-2006, 11:59 PM
removed; verbal attack on non-member

D-BONE
11-12-2006, 12:00 AM
Colossal choke.

Lord Helmet
11-12-2006, 12:02 AM
The usual for this team.

It's starting to not even bother me.

317Kim
11-12-2006, 12:03 AM
Reminds me of some games from last season. I met have to bring that avatar back for the night.

Great game for Danny though. It's too bad he didn't get many touches.

They outscored us 30-14. I'm not even going to start on the rebounds and turnovers either.

Pffft. 4-3.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/PACERSGURL/CHOKE.jpg

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:03 AM
I sometimes wonder if I watch a different game then others watch.

What should Rick have done differently. Lets start there.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:04 AM
I said this in another thread, I thought the Pacers played a great game except for rebounding. The Pacers defense tonight was the best it has been all season long.

sweabs
11-12-2006, 12:05 AM
I don't know how you can only blame Al Harrington for not boxing out on the defensive end. Jermaine was not doing much to help out in that department either, which isn't a surprise. Not to mention the fact that we had wing players swooping in for offensive rebounds out of nowhere as well.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 12:06 AM
We have an exciting front court until you need a rebound. Granger is going to be on the perimeter more often, so it's up to Al and JO and they will not get it done. Don't know what the answer is, but it might involve a guy named Jeff Foster.

TheDon
11-12-2006, 12:06 AM
That was totally inexcusable the phrase "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" comes to mind. I'm so mad right now, that was such a collectively pitiful "effort" and we use that term loosely here. What was the point in keeping Marquis and Jeff on the floor at the same time?!?!? Neither one of them could throw a snowball into a pool from 20ft, so on the offensive end it's like watching 3 guys try to make something happen. Rick is an idiot, can he not see how we're getting beat and how he needs to adjust. That entire game made me sick, I can't count how many times we stood around with our thumb up our collective :censored: and watched ben wallace pull in 56034968340 offensive rebounds. :mad:

Frank Slade
11-12-2006, 12:09 AM
I said this in another thread, I thought the Pacers played a great game except for rebounding. The Pacers defense tonight was the best it has been all season long.

I agree. We knew this was the otherside of going small, there are going to be nights like this. Chicago just got too many second chance points off the glass. Other than that I loved the effort , it just seemed every loose ball bounced their way, and part of that was Chicago being in position.

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 12:09 AM
I sometimes wonder if I watch a different game then others watch.

What should Rick have done differently. Lets start there.

He sat Danny Granger when he was on fire. Sitting a hot perimeter player in this NBA is an absolute sin. THe NBA has changed from 5 years ago. Rick is still caught back there.

D-BONE
11-12-2006, 12:11 AM
Great game for Danny though. It's too bad he didn't get many touches.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c121/PACERSGURL/CHOKE.jpg

I'm ecstatic to see DG get his shot going the last couple games but one rebound from him is unacceptable. Deng, Nocioni, and Wallace made our front line look it was moving in slow motion every time the Bulls put a shot up.

What happened to the ball movement the last 15 minutes of the game? All I saw was a bunch of one-on-one clear outs down the stretch. The Bulls kicked up the intensity and we didn't match. Will this be a the beginning of a trend of teams figuring out how to stymie the sets we've been running on O?

Pacerized
11-12-2006, 12:12 AM
When you look at the # of processions given up to poor rebounding, and turnovers, it's amazing that they were in the game. Offensively Al played a good game, but he's never been a good rebounder at the 4. I'm very happy with Granger so far this year, but minutes just have to be shaved from our starting front court to find more time for Foster. We really pulled down just 2 boards from the point, and 8 total boards from the back court. This needs to be addressed, but none of the our guards really rebound well.

Aw Heck
11-12-2006, 12:12 AM
A lot of people need to calm down. The Pacers are still trying to learn how to play a new style. And let's not forget that the Bulls are a good team, especially on the defensive end.

I don't see how this is completely Carlisle's fault. As far as I know, he can't be on the court boxing out. He can't be out there letting Ben Wallace score on him....

I'm with Uncle Buck. I was happy with the Pacers' effort tonight besides the rebounding.

But by all means, let's fire Carlisle. Not even 10 games into the season, lots of new players, new playing style. No, let's forget all that and make a quick hasty decision.

To borrow a Kstat phrase, "We're doooooooooooooooommmmed" :rolleyes:

Jermaniac
11-12-2006, 12:13 AM
My criticism is not off mark at all. Al Harrington didnt even try to rebound. He didnt try, its not that the guy he was guarding was like 7-6 and he couldnt get a rebound, he just didnt try to rebound.

Jon Theodore
11-12-2006, 12:13 AM
This was the first game of the season I got to watch and let me say how dissappointed i am.

Jermaine O'Neal i(edited out) who can score because he is so tall. Every rebound he got just bounced into his hands.

Good job Rick Carlisle for benching Granger and throwing the ball to JO in the clutch even though Al is CLEARLY a better offensive player and DG was on fire.

Im done with this team as long as Carlisle/Jermaine are around. Worst combo meal in the history of combos.

Hi my name is Jermaine O'neal and I am the most over paid player in the history of the NBA and I might think about getting a rebound but gee whiz all these 6'0 tall guys are real fast and I have to save my energy to try to score on Ben Wallace cuz he just scored on me and made me look like a fool for letting the worst offensive player in the NBA school me twice in a row.

Oh whats up Al Harrington your twice the player as me but make half as much money, but since I get paid so much Carlisle BETTER call the play for me in the clutch...danny who? He hasnt been shooting very well tonight, lets go ahead and sit him for Rawle Marshall.

ajbry
11-12-2006, 12:14 AM
The Bulls are a pretty good team and a great defensive team - the only team that might be better is the Spurs. The Bulls turned their defense up big time in the 4th quarter and the Pacers lack of rebounding caught up with the Pacers.

That is what I saw.

The Bulls didn't turn up their defense... We turned down the offense. Rick got scared and went to his usual favorite play - the JO isolation. That's when the game completely went down the tubes because ball movement ceased to exist and our defense was thrown out of whack.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 12:16 AM
Deng and Wallace got 30 boards, the Pacers got 28. This is pitiful. Our starting "PF" got 4 boards. How can this be?

There is a price to small ball, and finally some people might start recognizing it. Don't look at their height. Consider the reality of how they match up in the paint.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:16 AM
What play do you call to get DG an open shot. He isn't Reggie. DG needs to be standing still and pretty much wide open. So you go to Jax in the post on a smaller player, you go to JO hoping for a double team, you go to Al hoping for a double team and then they can throw the ball to DG.

Anthem
11-12-2006, 12:17 AM
The Bulls didn't turn up their defense... We turned down the offense. Rick got scared and went to his usual favorite play - the JO isolation. That's when the game completely went down the tubes because ball movement ceased to exist and our defense was thrown out of whack.
Yep, I thought the same thing.

speakout4
11-12-2006, 12:18 AM
Al is 245 lbs. He has the body and skills to get rebounds but he doesn't wan't to do the work . I don't know how RC can motivate Al to do this. If he takes him out of the game there goes a big scorer.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:19 AM
I realize I'm in no position to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Is this thread an example of what Pacers Digest has become? I certainly hope not.

Everyone needs to calm down a little.

TheDon
11-12-2006, 12:19 AM
I don't know if we can really blame the lack of effort on 4 games in 5 nights but wow was that a horrible game. If we get beat that badly one more time on offensive rebounds this season, we better be making some trades, give someone else a chance, or fire rick for sitting around watching us get beat then when we finally are getting beat call a timeout cause ya know it's easy to watch 12-14 point leads just dwindle while you ponder if you need to make an adjustment. So far this season it has been the tale of two teams, which one wants to show up each night is always a mystery.

Pacesetter
11-12-2006, 12:19 AM
My criticism is not off mark at all. Al Harrington didnt even try to rebound. He didnt try, its not that the guy he was guarding was like 7-6 and he couldnt get a rebound, he just didnt try to rebound.

Ok, so I guess you paid attn to his BS foul count eh? Al fights like a wild man every time he takes the court. If you're going to criticize, then criticize JO for coming up with a whopping 0 on Offensive rebs. Al hustled every chance he could. The man was 1 foul away from walking. .... duh!!!

ajbry
11-12-2006, 12:19 AM
I'm still just astonished at how Rick literally took the ball out of Jack and Danny's hands for pretty much the entire 2nd half. And then we expect them to light it up and save us at the very end? I just cannot understand.

317Kim
11-12-2006, 12:20 AM
Okay. I'm calm and am done venting.

I'd like to add that we did play a decent game up until the fourth quarter. Obviously because they outscored us 30-14, but also because they got to the line more often, took better care of the ball, and then got 24 offensive boards (to our 4).

Looking at the boxscore, I see Tins had 9 assists and JO with three blocks. The disturbing part is to see that JO had the most rebounds (8) and the Bulls had two guys that had more than 10 boards. Ben (18) and Luol (12). Hopefully we work on that before Wednesday.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:21 AM
The Bulls didn't turn up their defense... We turned down the offense. Rick got scared and went to his usual favorite play - the JO isolation. That's when the game completely went down the tubes because ball movement ceased to exist and our defense was thrown out of whack.

Pacers didn't go to the JO post-ups until the last 2 minutes of the game. The game changed when the Bulls turned up their defense late on the 3rd quarter

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 12:21 AM
Al is 245 lbs. He has the body and skills to get rebounds but he doesn't wan't to do the work . I don't know how RC can motivate Al to do this. If he takes him out of the game there goes a big scorer.

I don't think it's that he doesn't want to do the work. Rebounding is about effort, but it is also anticipation and other skills that are not necessarily Al's strength. Al is also not particularly long and he is not a big leaper. Maybe he doesn't have a nose for the ball or great hands. I don't know. However, with Al, it is not likely lack of effort.

Big Smooth
11-12-2006, 12:22 AM
I realize I'm in no position to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Is this thread an example of what Pacers Digest has become? I certainly hope not.

Everyone needs to calm down a little.

It is just like any other board.

Evidently if the Pacers just played Jermaine 1 on 5 then we'd be all set.

Jermaniac
11-12-2006, 12:22 AM
Ok, so I guess you paid attn to his BS foul count eh? Al fights like a wild man every time he takes the court. If you're going to criticize, then criticize JO for coming up with a whopping 0 on Offensive rebs. Al hustled every chance he could. The man was 1 foul away from walking. .... duh!!!If he got that foul at maybe the start of the 4th qtr, we would have probably won.

He had 4 rebounds. I could care less about our offensive rebounding. Our offensive rebounding wasnt the problem tonight.

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 12:23 AM
What play do you call to get DG an open shot. He isn't Reggie. DG needs to be standing still and pretty much wide open. So you go to Jax in the post on a smaller player, you go to JO hoping for a double team, you go to Al hoping for a double team and then they can throw the ball to DG.

BOLOGNA. To say Granger can't create for himself is questionable at best. He has never had a problem putting the ball on the floor. Rick BLEW it by not having him on the court.

Rick does what that little white card tells him to do. It doesn't matter whats going on. The little white card told him to play Rawle Marshall and take out Granger so thats what he did. Granger could have had 40 and it wouldn't have mattered.

Wilt Chamberlain would have never scored 100 points with Carlisle as coach. He would have gotten benched for whoever his backup was.

Pacerized
11-12-2006, 12:23 AM
In hindsite this would have been a good team to try our bigger lineup on with Granger moving to the 2. It might have put Granger in foul trouble early, but we'd have plenty of depth to back him up.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 12:24 AM
Pacers didn't go to the JO post-ups until the last 2 minutes of the game. The game changed when the Bulls turned up their defense late on the 3rd quarter

Agreed. I am not taking too much from this game considering the team is just beginning to learn to play together. We cracked under a very good defense tonight...and this allowed them to get momentum and begin scoring. I look at it as a learning experience....something needed before this team takes another step up with its new style.

D-BONE
11-12-2006, 12:25 AM
If we get beat that badly one more time on offensive rebounds this season, we better be making some trades, give someone else a chance

Despite the immense concerns over the state of the backcourt coming in and the appearance of a strong frontcourt, it seems the lack of a big-time interior presence could be shaping up to be an achilles heel of this squad. I just mean I rebounding machine/enforcer. Doesn't even have to be a starter. Just the guy who goes at it blue collar style in the paint every night as his niche.

jjbjjbjjb
11-12-2006, 12:26 AM
I have to agree that this loss is on the coaches.

Foster was out there forever, and while he did some nice things for a while, late in the game he did almost nothing, and throughout it seemed that he couldn't time a jump to get a rebound to save his life. Going repeatedly to the isolation for JO down the stretch was intolerably horrible, I was screaming at the TV. Has that play EVER been good?

I feel bad for the players, I thought they brought a good effort tonight.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:27 AM
In hindsite this would have been a good team to try our bigger lineup on with Granger moving to the 2. It might have put Granger in foul trouble early, but we'd have plenty of depth to back him up.


Granger would have not been able to handle Hinrick. Jax had to play him.

TheDon
11-12-2006, 12:27 AM
The Bulls didn't turn up their defense... We turned down the offense. Rick got scared and went to his usual favorite play - the JO isolation. That's when the game completely went down the tubes because ball movement ceased to exist and our defense was thrown out of whack.


have to agree with aj we decided to put in marquis and jeff who are offensively challenged with these two exceptions Jeff when he is 2 inches away for the tip-ins and marquise when he doesn't work within the system and tries to create his own shot and that's about it. Then rick sit and watched as our lead just dwindled, dwindled and then all of a sudden they had tied us. Same thing hapened in the 2nd quarter when jeff and marquise were on the floor at the same time and then rick puts in the guys who could actually shoot the ball and was doing fairly well came back from a 9 point deficit and spaced it out to a 9 point lead. So rick decides to let the people that were effective sit once again and SURPRISE they come back....pitiful pitiful coaching

speakout4
11-12-2006, 12:29 AM
I don't think it's that he doesn't want to do the work. Rebounding is about effort, but it is also anticipation and other skills that are not necessarily Al's strength. Al is also not particularly long and he is not a big leaper. Maybe he doesn't have a nose for the ball or great hands. I don't know. However, with Al, it is not likely lack of effort.

Do we even see anyone in position to get an offensive rebound? Throw up a shot and go the other way. If al can't get rebounds he should be playing SF because we can't have JO as the only rebounder. If we do then the team will avergae 35 rebounds a game.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:29 AM
I've watched Carlisle for quite some time now, and his subs and rotations are dismal. He sucks at it. He has no clue about how the game is flowing other than to make the concrete minute subs he thinks will work.



Is that why Saras got his regular rotation minutes in the second half. Oh wait

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 12:31 AM
Granger would have not been able to handle Hinrick. Jax had to play him.

And yet Jack was not even guarding Hinrich that much this game. Interesting he was on Ben Gordon.

Yet I do agree the big lineup would have exposed us too.

bnd45
11-12-2006, 12:31 AM
That would have been a big win on the road against a real good team.

First time I've seen the boys on TV, so this might get long.

Offense really slowed down in the 4th, mainly because the Bulls controlled the time of possession w/ all of their o-boards. Normally I'd blast JO for not being aggressive on the boards, but tonight falls on Al and Granger. They need to help out down there because the Deng and Nocioni were following Wallace's lead and hitting the boards hard.

Tinsley looked slow during that final quarter. He wasn't attacking on the p&r like he was earlier in the game. (This is how Granger was WIDE open in the corner all night. He wasn't exactly creating his own shot for those of you frustrated that the offense didn't run through him) It seemed like every shot we took was contested and the ball movement wasn't as crisp.

Jack played the best defense I have ever seen him play. He made Hinrich work on every possession. That late 3 was just good execution by the Bulls. I liked what I saw from Jack on that end of the floor tonight. His offense was frustrating because normally when we play the Bulls he gets a lot of post touches. It did seem like we focused too much on JO in the 4th and forgot to give Jack or Al some touches.

JO has become the best big man in the league at taking charges. He really understands when to go for the block and when to stay planted.

Sarunas is going to make Carlisle's PG rotation real easy to decide when O. Greene comes back. I hope he has some nice European suits because if the shots not falling, there is no reason for him to play.

Armstrong looked a step slow tonight. It was only a matter of time. He's old, there will be the occasional off night. The end of the game was just frustration and officials overreacting. I hope he doesn't get suspended because he's Tinsley ONLY backup right now.

My final thought deals with Marquis Daniels. I was waiting to see him on TV before I commented on his game. Offensively he just looks out of place. Carlisle let him go 1 on 1 a few times at the beginning of the 4th and he scored, split 2 FTs, and airballed a floater. I like the idea of playing Armstrong off the ball and letting Daniels create a little bit. We've got to get him playing with some confidence ASAP.

Tough loss, but still 4-3. There was more good than bad tonight.

Pacerized
11-12-2006, 12:32 AM
I love these early season standings. 1 loss, and we go from first in the east down to sixth.

Frank Slade
11-12-2006, 12:33 AM
I realize I'm in no position to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Is this thread an example of what Pacers Digest has become? I certainly hope not.

Everyone needs to calm down a little.

I hope not the sad part is after a win last night it took almost until 11 a.m. this morning to fill a an actual page in that post game thread !.

Tonight ?.. 20 minutes.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 12:34 AM
I have to agree that this loss is on the coaches.

Foster was out there forever, and while he did some nice things for a while, late in the game he did almost nothing, and throughout it seemed that he couldn't time a jump to get a rebound to save his life. Going repeatedly to the isolation for JO down the stretch was intolerably horrible, I was screaming at the TV. Has that play EVER been good?

I feel bad for the players, I thought they brought a good effort tonight.

I am not a huge Foster fan, but if you look at his stat line, he did well in 17 minutes. 7 points, 7 boards, 2 steals, 100% shooting, 75% from the line. He had several fouls because for some reason they had him on Hienrich.

BUT, yes, the JO isolation has to end forever.

Kegboy
11-12-2006, 12:34 AM
Rebounding.




Okay, now that I've gotten the Pacers analysis out of the way, I wish I could say that it's nice to see that we played a good team close at least. Problem is, Chicago ain't good. Since that Miami game, they've been bad, and they didn't look any better tonight. Skiles needs to slap Wallace upside the head and tell him to stop shooting that ****. At one point it was mentioned they've got 8 new players, which is more than us. They got some nice pieces. Brown was a bigger move than they've gotten credit for. Thomas showed in the preseason I was wrong about him. I even liked what I saw from Khryapa tonight. Wish I was half as optimistic about us as I am about them.

ABA_Pacers
11-12-2006, 12:35 AM
I can hear John Wooden asking Bill Walton--"What is the key to good rebounding?"

Walton--"Assume every shot is a miss."

Also, it seemed like the Pacers couldn't hold onto any rebound they had in the 4th.

But hey, we're not even 1/10 into the season yet, don't panic yet Pacers faithful.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:35 AM
And yet Jack was not even guarding Hinrich that much this game. Interesting he was on Ben Gordon.

Yet I do agree the big lineup would have exposed us too.

Jax might have started out on Ben, but I do know whenever Duhon was on with Hinrich, Jax was always on Hin

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 12:36 AM
I hope not the sad part is after a win last night it took almost until 11 a.m. this morning to fill a an actual page in that post game thread !.

Tonight ?.. 20 minutes.

Or it could have been the fact last night was a home game and I'm sure some of us were there, maybe a lot of us actually, but whatever floats your boat...

Pacesetter
11-12-2006, 12:39 AM
I love these early season standings. 1 loss, and we go from first in the east down to sixth.

Honestly, the loss is awash when you look at where this team is at ability-wsie. The team knows where they are at and has a good handle on what they can do in the season. The stats to this point aren't really indicative of where this team can play. What we need to be concerned about is the lack of hustle out of certain players which have been named, but to prevent an unnecessary roughness penalty I'll leave that to your imagination!

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 12:40 AM
He had several fouls because for some reason they had him on Hienrich.



Those were switches on pick and rolls.

speakout4
11-12-2006, 12:42 AM
I hope not the sad part is after a win last night it took almost until 11 a.m. this morning to fill a an actual page in that post game thread !.

Tonight ?.. 20 minutes.

Maybe some people don't like to see their team lose and they get upset. Possible? Pacers have to win this kind of game.

Naptown_Seth
11-12-2006, 12:48 AM
I sometimes wonder if I watch a different game then others watch.

What should Rick have done differently. Lets start there.
I agree. Jermaniac, you came right back and didn't mention anything that should have happened.

The Pacers didn't lose it on offense, they lost it on defensive rebounding. They forced some really poor shots by Chicago, like that turnaround jumper from Big Ben, but you have to get the ball off those.

Maybe Dat Dude is just trying to cover god's butt on this one, because JO got his @ss handed to him tonight by Ben and Dang. I like JO and only a nutjob would consider me a hater of any player since I'm usually the one defending them against the bashers.

But the hard fact is that JO got whipped pretty good by their frontline. At least Al was scoring the ball, though his rebounding was clearly worse. JO was productive for having a bad night, which I recognize, but a big JO fan ripping RICK for blowing the game when JO went 6-16 for 12 points and 8 rebounds while Big Ben had 18 boards and Deng had 12 rebounds himself...well, let's just say I have to question the neutrality of the opinion.

Worse when Kirk had something like 3 critical misses late in the game that were rebounding for scores by the Bulls bigs.

The Bulls had SEVEN offensive boards in the final 5:18 which started with the Pacers leading 73-70, so put a sock in the "he left MD and Foster in which cost them the lead". They still had a lead, got at least 7 quality stops that became 2nd possessions for Chicago. Those boards were 6 points on FGs and 5 more on FTs.

ELEVEN FREAKING POINTS that Al, JO and Danny let the Bulls have in the 4 minute stretch between 5:18 and 1:25 that created a 7 point swing in the game.

THAT'S THE GAME and it falls squarely on those 3 players letting Ben, Nocioni and Deng beat them.




Granger would have not been able to handle Hinrick. Jax had to play him.I agree. Maybe Danny should have done something on those Hinrich misses in the 4th. I know where Jack was, up on Kirk creating the bad shots (till they threw the hard PnR at him to free Kirk for the 3 ball to make it 84). Where was the rest of the team? Watching Ben push them aside on most plays.



Frankly I hate ripping them this much, but when I get on here and see crazy rants against things that weren't the main factor in the least I end up having to take a hardline just to get it back to level reality.

Frank Slade
11-12-2006, 12:50 AM
Maybe some people don't like to see their team lose and they get upset. Possible?

Very possible , I'm right there with them !

I just wish we could get the same over the top enthusiasm, and pearls of wisdom after each win as well. I really enjoy everyone's rational take on the game, I just would like (for some) it did not only have to be to suit a certain agenda regarding certain players. But I respect everyone's right to share whatever they have to say.

Roaming Gnome
11-12-2006, 12:50 AM
:drama: :lurk: :drama:
Don't mind me, I'm just watching y'all lose your minds...

Naptown_Seth
11-12-2006, 12:51 AM
Jax might have started out on Ben, but I do know whenever Duhon was on with Hinrich, Jax was always on Hin
This was definitely true in the final 6 minutes, and Clark even mentioned the quality job Jack was doing on Kirk.

For example, before one of those late Kirk misses Jack first poked the dribble away from him and almost got to it before it went out of bounds. He was really disrupting what Kirk wanted to do.

Jermaniac
11-12-2006, 12:52 AM
I agree. Jermaniac, you came right back and didn't mention anything that should have happened.

The Pacers didn't lose it on offense, they lost it on defensive rebounding. They forced some really poor shots by Chicago, like that turnaround jumper from Big Ben, but you have to get the ball off those.

Maybe Dat Dude is just trying to cover god's butt on this one, because JO got his @ss handed to him tonight by Ben and Dang. I like JO and only a nutjob would consider me a hater of any player since I'm usually the one defending them against the bashers.

But the hard fact is that JO got whipped pretty good by their frontline. At least Al was scoring the ball, though his rebounding was clearly worse. JO was productive for having a bad night, which I recognize, but a big JO fan ripping RICK for blowing the game when JO went 6-16 for 12 points and 8 rebounds while Big Ben had 18 boards and Deng had 12 rebounds himself...well, let's just say I have to question the neutrality of the opinion.

Worse when Kirk had something like 3 critical misses late in the game that were rebounding for scores by the Bulls bigs.

The Bulls had SEVEN offensive boards in the final 5:18 which started with the Pacers leading 73-70, so put a sock in the "he left MD and Foster in which cost them the lead". They still had a lead, got at least 7 quality stops that became 2nd possessions for Chicago. Those boards were 6 points on FGs and 5 more on FTs.

ELEVEN FREAKING POINTS that Al, JO and Danny let the Bulls have in the 4 minute stretch between 5:18 and 1:25 that created a 7 point swing in the game.

THAT'S THE GAME and it falls squarely on those 3 players letting Ben, Nocioni and Deng beat them.



I agree. Maybe Danny should have done something on those Hinrich misses in the 4th. I know where Jack was, up on Kirk creating the bad shots (till they threw the hard PnR at him to free Kirk for the 3 ball to make it 84). Where was the rest of the team? Watching Ben push them aside on most plays.



Frankly I hate ripping them this much, but when I get on here and see crazy rants against things that weren't the main factor in the least I end up having to take a hardline just to get it back to level reality.

Ohh okay, so its Jermaine's fault also that Deng got 12 rebounds. Thats cool, from now on Jermaine boxes out his man for a little, then he switches and boxes out the SF, then he goes and gets the rebound.

30 rebounds from 2 people, all Jermaine O'neals fault.

speakout4
11-12-2006, 12:54 AM
Very possible , I'm right there with them !

I just wish we could get the same over the top enthusiasm, and pearls of wisdom after each win as well. I really enjoy everyone's rational take on the game, I just would like (for some) it did not only have to be to suit a certain agenda regarding certain players. But I respect everyone's right to share whatever they have to say.


People take pleasure in a win but keep that more to themselves. A loss like tonight requires a bit of venting.

Big Smooth
11-12-2006, 12:56 AM
Ohh okay, so its Jermaine's fault also that Deng got 12 rebounds. Thats cool, from now on Jermaine boxes out his man for a little, then he switches and boxes out the SF, then he goes and gets the rebound.

30 rebounds from 2 people, all Jermaine O'neals fault.

Jermaine doesn't know how to boxout, that is the problem.

For a guy who is supposed to be a superstar, he doesnt' have a great grasp of some fundamental issues.

Big Smooth
11-12-2006, 12:57 AM
:drama: :lurk: :drama:
Don't mind me, I'm just watching y'all lose your minds...

Don't Bogart the popcorn dude. *waves finger Mutombo style*

Naptown_Seth
11-12-2006, 01:04 AM
Ohh okay, so its Jermaine's fault also that Deng got 12 rebounds. Thats cool, from now on Jermaine boxes out his man for a little, then he switches and boxes out the SF, then he goes and gets the rebound.

30 rebounds from 2 people, all Jermaine O'neals fault.
Look, what isn't clear here. The Bulls got 7 offensive boards in 4 minutes that resulted in 11 points they shouldn't have had. Before the crazy foul ending the game was a 4 point difference.

It went from +3 Indy to -4 Indy during this stretch. Jack was on Kirk for 3 straight misses by him and they got Ben to take some crap jumper that had me laughing when I saw he was about to try it.

I said JO was good in what was a bad night for him. But you are ripping RICK when your boy did get punked by Ben and Deng. So did Al and Danny, I threw them in there as well. Of course JO did have the FIVE turnovers tonight to go with the sub 1.00 PPS (no FTAs even), but you can't expect him to do everything. Someone else had to miss shots and turn it over too. :rolleyes:

My problem with you here is that you are ripping Rick but are DEFENDING JO, let alone mentioning him as part of the problem.

Tell me this, you are trying to say that by asking JO to NOT GET OUTREBOUNDED by Ben and Deng (either one, your choice) that we are asking too much of him. Think about that. Sounds to me like you are saying JO isn't the player that they are.

I mean if JO is just blocking out Ben all night and that leads Deng to get those 12, then okay...but where did Ben's 18 come from? The fact is that Al should have been stopping one of them but JO was supposed to be denying the other.

Al and JO got their butts handed to them in the defensive paint, and that aspect far and away exceded any other problem the team had in that critical 4 minute span that saw them lose the game.

You turned that into "Rick blew it...again, just like always"...oh, except the years he won games with guys like James Jones or Chucky Atkins as major players for his team.

Don't take my word for it that RC knows what he is doing, take the word of the writers that voted him a top 5 COY in 4 straight seasons. He didn't blow it by not having enough Danny time because last I checked Danny wasn't protecting the defensive boards with his 1 rebound either.



And trust me, when the 2 guards go 10-16 from 3 I will not be blaming JO, alright. But when the FRONTLINE of the opponents racks up 30 just between their starting bigs I'm pretty sure the problem is someone in the general frontline area, not the freaking bench or backcourt.

Cornrows
11-12-2006, 01:04 AM
Aside from the rebounding debacle, JO and Al were nowhere to be found when the Pacers needed a go to guy down the stretch.

Big Smooth
11-12-2006, 01:07 AM
In the end, it's pretty simple. Some folks are fans of the Indiana Pacers and some folks are fans of Jermaine O'Neal.

Somehow it seems like it is mutually exclusive but it really should not be that way.

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 01:12 AM
This rebounding debacle was no different then our ft collapse against the Bucks last year.

Evan_The_Dude
11-12-2006, 01:16 AM
I don't understand the Carlisle blame. I think he's been coaching well all season. We're a new team. There's going to be a number of nights like this one, get over it, move on.

SycamoreKen
11-12-2006, 01:18 AM
Would you please calm down.

The ignore button takes care of that.

Pacesetter
11-12-2006, 01:28 AM
Is that why Saras got his regular rotation minutes in the second half. Oh wait


Kinda like Marquis Daniels! Oh wait

Will Galen
11-12-2006, 01:38 AM
I realize I'm in no position to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Is this thread an example of what Pacers Digest has become? I certainly hope not.

Everyone needs to calm down a little.

It used to be the best NBA forum on the net, but that's when basketball was discussed. It's turned into a place to vent.

rabid
11-12-2006, 01:39 AM
I realize I'm in no position to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Is this thread an example of what Pacers Digest has become? I certainly hope not.

Everyone needs to calm down a little.

When I first saw this thread, I was about to say the same thing, but UB beat me to it.

Seriously, you guys need to CHILL. OUT.

This was the second game of a back-to-back, on the road, against one of the better defensive teams in the league. J.O. is coming off an ankle injury, which probably partially hurt his lift on shots AND rebounds tonight and last night for that matter.

Basically we got outrebounded overall, and generally outhustled in the fourth (we got tired). Chicago switching to a zone didn't help either.

Could this game have been coached better? Yeah - I thought DG should have gotten the ball way more in the 4th, Quis should have been on the bench, and Rick did a bad job managing time-outs.

But I feel sorry for you guys if you're freaking out even half as much as it sounds like in this thread. It's going to be a long, long, long season for some of you.

Fire the coach? Trade J.O? After, what, 7 games?

Fix your face. There will be another game on Wednesday.

EDIT: Eerie that me and Will caught this at the same time.

Anthem
11-12-2006, 01:41 AM
I'll echo what the others have said. This is ridiculous.

AesopRockOn
11-12-2006, 01:42 AM
I am depressed as ****.

Bball
11-12-2006, 02:39 AM
Would this have been a good night to have tried Powell in the lineup?

I'm glad I recorded the game and watched it tonight rather than relying on the forum. The lack of defensive rebounds worried me but until the final minute or so I thought we had a chance to win this game. If we didn't win it, I knew we'd have rebounding to look at in the end.

But reading some on here make me wonder if I watched the same game. It sounds like we were blew out.


-Bball

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 02:55 AM
Would this have been a good night to have tried Powell in the lineup?

I'm glad I recorded the game and watched it tonight rather than relying on the forum. The lack of defensive rebounds worried me but until the final minute or so I thought we had a chance to win this game. If we didn't win it, I knew we'd have rebounding to look at in the end.

But reading some on here make me wonder if I watched the same game. It sounds like we were blew out.


-Bball

Oh great Bball is being more positive than me, I need to reevaluate my priorities.;)

D-BONE
11-12-2006, 09:00 AM
My first post was CHOKE. Hope I'm not being labeled one of the reactionaries. Choke meaning the played a good game for 31/2 quarters but then wasted it by not being able to control just two or three defensive boards that whole time they were forcing the Bulls into awful shooting.

It's not the end of the world, but they did choke what would have been a nice road win against a division opponent they would might be competing with for playoff position. Actually, that's true of the Wiz debacle, too. Looks to me like all three of these teams potentially could wind up in the same general vecinity of win total. Barring a Pacers swoon anyway.

Mourning
11-12-2006, 09:42 AM
The negativity of some after one game is getting tiring, almost like the board is sometimes filled with borderliners or people with Manic depression. Too much mood swings, while I do understand it after a loss, the severity keeps surprising me, maybe that's just me though.

I wasn't too positive at the start of the season, I had serious reservations about Al really beying able to help us and not reeinforcing the squad with either a starting quality PG and/or a veteran sharp shooter at SG.

But, I have been pleasantly surprised so far. And not only by Al, but by the whole team (and staff trying to make this a real "team"). It's still not even 10 games, so I won't get too positive OR negative for that matter, the team is still setting shape. I happen to think it's moving in the right direction, every decent, good to elite team has its bad games or tough losses.

A tip to anyone who hasn't read Peck's thread dubbed "It's probably way to early for a post like this.... " it's very much worth reading. Great post, Peck! ;)

The key to yesterday was rebounding as it has been in the loss vs the Hornets aswell, it's still early, so let's hope the guys pay a little more attention to it

Just remember fellow Pacers fans ... it's only the middle of november, there's time and I happen to think over time our team has a lot of room for improvement. True, other teams will also become better adjusted to each other and to us and the way our team plays, but fitting in so many new players I think we have more room for growth then, by far, most other teams.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Hicks
11-12-2006, 09:52 AM
Folks,

Let me tell you all something. What I have seen in this post game thread is a disgrace to this forum. What some of you may think is acceptable on Pacers Digest IS NOT SO. The kind of attitude displayed in this thread by a certain few people will not stand, will not be tolerated, and will NOT be allowed to continue. This is not everybody, this is a select few, but they are loud and obnoxious enough to ruin it for many more, and something needs to be said. Either clean up your acts, or find somewhere else to flip out about the Indiana Pacers beause you will not be doing it here. This is not everybody, this is a select few, but they are loud and obnoxious enough to ruin it for many more, and something needed to be said.

- Hicks

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 10:13 AM
This rebounding debacle was no different then our ft collapse against the Bucks last year.

Last year the Pacers blew a 14 point lead in the last 3 minutes of the game due to missed free throws.

Kegboy
11-12-2006, 10:53 AM
For all the backlash against Jermaine (and his prophet), I found this interesting:

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0607.html

To put the Chicago game in order:
JO +15
Danny +6
Jack +5
Tinsley +4
Al -4
Rawle -4
Quis -15
Cabbage -15
Armstrong -17
Foster -20

I think that speaks for itself.

Raskolnikov
11-12-2006, 11:08 AM
The negativity of some after one game is getting tiring, almost like the board is sometimes filled with borderliners or people with Manic depression. Too much mood swings, while I do understand it after a loss, the severity keeps surprising me, maybe that's just me though.

I wasn't too positive at the start of the season, I had serious reservations about Al really beying able to help us and not reeinforcing the squad with either a starting quality PG and/or a veteran sharp shooter at SG.

But, I have been pleasantly surprised so far. And not only by Al, but by the whole team (and staff trying to make this a real "team"). It's still not even 10 games, so I won't get too positive OR negative for that matter, the team is still setting shape. I happen to think it's moving in the right direction, every decent, good to elite team has its bad games or tough losses.

A tip to anyone who hasn't read Peck's thread dubbed "It's probably way to early for a post like this.... " it's very much worth reading. Great post, Peck! ;)

The key to yesterday was rebounding as it has been in the loss vs the Hornets aswell, it's still early, so let's hope the guys pay a little more attention to it

Just remember fellow Pacers fans ... it's only the middle of november, there's time and I happen to think over time our team has a lot of room for improvement. True, other teams will also become better adjusted to each other and to us and the way our team plays, but fitting in so many new players I think we have more room for growth then, by far, most other teams.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:


Folks,

Let me tell you all something. What I have seen in this post game thread is a disgrace to this forum. What some of you may think is acceptable on Pacers Digest IS NOT SO. The kind of attitude displayed in this thread by a certain few people will not stand, will not be tolerated, and will NOT be allowed to continue. This is not everybody, this is a select few, but they are loud and obnoxious enough to ruin it for many more, and something needs to be said. Either clean up your acts, or find somewhere else to flip out about the Indiana Pacers beause you will not be doing it here. This is not everybody, this is a select few, but they are loud and obnoxious enough to ruin it for many more, and something needed to be said.

- Hicks
Amen to that.

Just
11-12-2006, 11:12 AM
I don't understand the Carlisle blame. I think he's been coaching well all season. We're a new team. There's going to be a number of nights like this one, get over it, move on.


Agreed.

I didn't see the game, but, dang, we lost by one to the Bulls on the road? Hard to be reeaaallly disappointed there. I think Rick has been great this season.

Big Smooth
11-12-2006, 01:09 PM
Folks,

Let me tell you all something. What I have seen in this post game thread is a disgrace to this forum. What some of you may think is acceptable on Pacers Digest IS NOT SO. The kind of attitude displayed in this thread by a certain few people will not stand, will not be tolerated, and will NOT be allowed to continue. This is not everybody, this is a select few, but they are loud and obnoxious enough to ruin it for many more, and something needs to be said. Either clean up your acts, or find somewhere else to flip out about the Indiana Pacers beause you will not be doing it here. This is not everybody, this is a select few, but they are loud and obnoxious enough to ruin it for many more, and something needed to be said.

- Hicks

Amen to that!

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 03:08 PM
Last year the Pacers blew a 14 point lead in the last 3 minutes of the game due to missed free throws.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. Not that it was necessarily the same type of collapse in terms of blowing a lead or really choking away a game, I was talking about it in terms of the absolute falling apart of such an essential fundamental ability like rebounding that must be addressed.

I am probably being labeled as one of the reactionaries, and maybe rightfully so because I did let my emotions dictate a lot of my posts. That being said I do stand behind what I said even if I didn't go about saying it the right way. I do believe that Carlisle played a large role in the loss and was significantly outcoached by Skiles. I do believe that our bench may as well not even shown up to the game last night. I do believe Danny Granger sitting from 1:30 minute mark in the third to the 7:45 minute mark in the 4th was far too long.

Again I apologize if my emotions got the better of me. However that was one of the most frustrating lazy rebounding efforts I have ever seen. It wasn't just that they were tired IMO, it was that they just didn't care about the boards at times, that they were more focused on watching the ball roll around on the rim rather than gain position.

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 03:13 PM
For all the backlash against Jermaine (and his prophet), I found this interesting:

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0607.html

To put the Chicago game in order:
JO +15
Danny +6
Jack +5
Tinsley +4
Al -4
Rawle -4
Quis -15
Cabbage -15
Armstrong -17
Foster -20

I think that speaks for itself.

Very interesting to me. COnsidering JO has caught a ton of flack in this thread and that Foster has gotten a lot of support for a starting job. Personally Foster frustrated as much as anyone on the boards last night. His 7 rebounds were nice and this is gonna sound stupid, but I thought there maybe 5-6 other boards he could have gotten that he just did not go after. Maybe I am nitpicking and usually I don't put much stock in the plus-minus stat, but on nights where there is that sort of disparity you have to take notice.

Hicks
11-12-2006, 03:24 PM
I still think the individual +/- stat is practically meaningless.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 03:28 PM
Those plus minus numbers proved one thing that anyone who watched the game surely figured out. The bench had their worst game of the season as a group and the starters had their best game of the season as a group. And that is one reason why the 4 games in 5 nights really hurt the team.

Note: up until last night Armstrong was the team leader in plus/minus.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 03:51 PM
I still think the individual +/- stat is practically meaningless.

The +/- stat is particularly unreliable while looking at one single game.

Instead, it would be best to look at the rebound totals and address it either through coaching or personnel changes.

Kegboy
11-12-2006, 08:04 PM
I think when people are blaming the loss on the player who had the best +/- by a large margin, and championing the player who had the worst +/-, and when there is such a wide disparity of the rotations, then they are certainly pertinent to the discussion.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 08:38 PM
I think when people are blaming the loss on the player who had the best +/- by a large margin, and championing the player who had the worst +/-, and when there is such a wide disparity of the rotations, then they are certainly pertinent to the discussion.

Stats are quite reliable, but only with a large enough sample size. They will flat out lie to you under these circumstances.

Reality is complex and there are just too many other factors involved to skew the numbers. For example, were the Bulls playing their starters against our subs while Jeff was in? Was JO playing most of the game with the starters...particularly when we built up big leads, then let him rest. Did JO ever play when we played that idiotic 3 guard lineup? Did the players tire from the back to back when Jeff got most of his minutes? When did a red hot Granger get taken out to help switch momentum and when did Jeff and JO enter and exit during that time? What coaching changes were going on while the rotations were being made? Too many unknowns IMO.

Kegboy
11-12-2006, 10:09 PM
Stats are quite reliable, but only with a large enough sample size. They will flat out lie to you under these circumstances.

Reality is complex and there are just too many other factors involved to skew the numbers. For example, were the Bulls playing their starters against our subs while Jeff was in? Was JO playing most of the game with the starters...particularly when we built up big leads, then let him rest. Did JO ever play when we played that idiotic 3 guard lineup? Did the players tire from the back to back when Jeff got most of his minutes? When did a red hot Granger get taken out to help switch momentum and when did Jeff and JO enter and exit during that time? What coaching changes were going on while the rotations were being made? Too many unknowns IMO.

Yes, if you're talking about over a longer period of time, but we're talking about one game. Just like you shouldn't judge a player by his stats in one game, but you can judge his impact (thanks Jay) on the game by his stats for that one game.

What this shows is that the team outscored Chicago the most when JO was on the floor, and they were outscored the most when Jeff was on the floor. The doesn't jive with the notion that Jermaine cost us the game, nor that we'd have done better if Jeff had played more.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 10:55 PM
Yes, if you're talking about over a longer period of time, but we're talking about one game. Just like you shouldn't judge a player by his stats in one game, but you can judge his impact (thanks Jay) on the game by his stats for that one game.

The +/- stat involves a whole lot more than individual statistics. IOW, you might be able to judge a player's impact from individual stats in one game, but not their +/- stat. There are nine other players on the floor and two coaches on the sideline who have much more impact on the score (and thus the +/- stat) than one player.



What this shows is that the team outscored Chicago the most when JO was on the floor, and they were outscored the most when Jeff was on the floor. The doesn't jive with the notion that Jermaine cost us the game, nor that we'd have done better if Jeff had played more.

First, I am not saying JO cost us the game. Others might be, but I'm not. I am only saying our rebounding effort/abilities cost us the game and Foster is by far our best rebounder...and it's not just his totals that matter. He will contend with Wallace and the ball might get poked to another Pacer due to their pursuit. It is key that this does not get caught in his stat sheet. Again, stats can mislead. Also, Wallace does not break a sweat without Jeff competing for boards. He simply sucks in 18 boards as he files his nails and dominates our small ball lineups.

bulldog
11-13-2006, 01:41 AM
I think we knew two things before the season started: we are not going to be a good shooting team, and we are not going to be a good rebounding team. Where is all this shock and outrage coming from? Were you in a cave this summer?

We're going to have to win in spite of those two deficiences...and we're good enough in other areas that we will pull out some wins. But Chicago's pretty much set up to exploit weaknesses in those two areas, I don't understand what people expected.

Cherokee
11-13-2006, 02:44 AM
While the Pacers as a whole are not doing a very good at blocking out (same as last year), most teams might have trouble doing that playing a fourth game in five nights. That is why I would like to have seen some rebounding help used in the form of Powell or perhaps Baston and give the starters a little more rest. Fresher legs might have made a bit of a difference late in the game.

McKeyFan
11-13-2006, 10:24 AM
My two cents worth:

Jackson in the clutch.

I agree with most of the assessments that we actually played a pretty good game against the Bulls. We missed a couple of key rebounds, but Duhon's was the result of very aggressive defense, and it's hard to complain there. Nocioni simply jumped higher than Al and got a perfect bounce to get that rebound. Al was trying. I don't think effort would have changed anything.

Here's my concern, and I'm okay with the mistakes as it is early in the year and this is the time to make mistakes and learn from them: Granger was big in the clutch. How awesome was that three to put us back in the game?

Jackson was horrible in the clutch. He jacked up a terrible three while double-teamed, shot an air ball, and also let Heinrich get open for a three that lost us the game.

I'm not taking away Jack's props for 1) having played some good ball the past few games 2) actually looking like a team player and looking for the pass and racking up a lot of assists 3) Playing a good game most of the night against the bulls until the end.

What I am saying is that he didn't look good at all in the clutch.

Okay, mistake made. But lesson learned? I'll know when we get into a clutch situation again. Will Rick call Danny's number or someone else, or will he go back to Jack like a dog to its vomit.

ajbry
11-13-2006, 12:36 PM
My two cents worth:

Jackson in the clutch.

I agree with most of the assessments that we actually played a pretty good game against the Bulls. We missed a couple of key rebounds, but Duhon's was the result of very aggressive defense, and it's hard to complain there. Nocioni simply jumped higher than Al and got a perfect bounce to get that rebound. Al was trying. I don't think effort would have changed anything.

Here's my concern, and I'm okay with the mistakes as it is early in the year and this is the time to make mistakes and learn from them: Granger was big in the clutch. How awesome was that three to put us back in the game?

Jackson was horrible in the clutch. He jacked up a terrible three while double-teamed, shot an air ball, and also let Heinrich get open for a three that lost us the game.

I'm not taking away Jack's props for 1) having played some good ball the past few games 2) actually looking like a team player and looking for the pass and racking up a lot of assists 3) Playing a good game most of the night against the bulls until the end.

What I am saying is that he didn't look good at all in the clutch.

Okay, mistake made. But lesson learned? I'll know when we get into a clutch situation again. Will Rick call Danny's number or someone else, or will he go back to Jack like a dog to its vomit.

I understand your perspective, but I have to disagree. His only mistake in the clutch was the pass to Scott Skiles. Otherwise, he did what we asked him to. The 3 by Hinrich was set up by a perfectly set screen on the perimeter - nobody could've got around it quick enough to put a hand in Kirk's face. As for the airball, that was Rick's call. He put the ball in the hands of our best clutch player, but drew up a terrible play. Jack was forced to take that shot and was simply put in a bad position (turning around on the baseline with no room and with a double team).

Granger has been nice in the clutch lately, but I'd still rather have Jack take the final shot.

McKeyFan
11-13-2006, 12:46 PM
As for the airball, that was Rick's call. He put the ball in the hands of our best clutch player

I appreciate the calm and careful response, but your point above is obviously where we must agree to disagree.

waxman
11-13-2006, 01:28 PM
I thought we played very well for about 36 minutes or so....

the bench struggled, which may have led to late game fatigue from our starters, ... during the 4th quarter flop we didn't do anything as crisply as we did in the 3rd. Our legs looked tired. The execution and decision making suffered because of it. We got sloppy at both ends.

If we're going to pressure the perimeter and use JO as cover... someone needs to work overtime on the defensive boards to cover his back. Danny seems like the natural one since he has a nose for the ball... but it may require help from the guards.

We aren't... and don't have to be a poor rebounding team. Hopefully last night was a lesson we can scheme around,, or merely late game fatigue because our bench had an off night.

Raskolnikov
11-13-2006, 01:40 PM
We aren't... and don't have to be a poor rebounding team. Hopefully last night was a lesson we can scheme around,, or merely late game fatigue because our bench had an off night.
Yeah...before the Chicago game, the Pacers had outrebounded their last three opponents 146-105.

imawhat
11-13-2006, 02:55 PM
He put the ball in the hands of our best clutch player, but drew up a terrible play.

Uh, Jack had a wide open shot and put it three feet over the rim.

I like Jackson, but not only is he not the best clutch player, he's the last guy on the floor I wanted to take that shot. He's made a total of three clutch shots since he's been here, out of about 25 attempts. That's 12%.

Isaac
11-13-2006, 03:00 PM
What play do you call to get DG an open shot. He isn't Reggie. DG needs to be standing still and pretty much wide open. So you go to Jax in the post on a smaller player, you go to JO hoping for a double team, you go to Al hoping for a double team and then they can throw the ball to DG.

I'm so glad that UB was the voice of reason here a little bit. This is a great point.

Mourning
11-13-2006, 03:04 PM
Yeah...before the Chicago game, the Pacers had outrebounded their last three opponents 146-105.

Could be, but we played those games mostly against teams that are bad rebounding teams aswell, New Orleans beying the most notable exception and we lost that one.

I have been a lot more positive about Al since acquiring, but anyone, like Bulldog wrote, who thought rebounding wasn't going to be a weakeness after getting Al back and pencilling him in at PF and C had to be really sleeping. I know I was concerned about it and wrote about it.

We can become better then what we showed against the Bulls, IMO that had much more to do with playing 4 games in 5 days then anything else, but we will never be a top rebounding team. We are a notch below those teams. Or better said we are capeable of beying "just" one notch below, but there has to be certain improvement then.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

JayRedd
11-13-2006, 03:23 PM
I think we knew two things before the season started: we are not going to be a good shooting team, and we are not going to be a good rebounding team. Where is all this shock and outrage coming from? Were you in a cave this summer?

We're going to have to win in spite of those two deficiences...and we're good enough in other areas that we will pull out some wins. But Chicago's pretty much set up to exploit weaknesses in those two areas, I don't understand what people expected.

The frustration is understandable, but I think Bulldog pretty much nailed this one. This is going to be a problem all year. None of these guys are going to become great shooters during this regular season, and whether you want to chalk it up to lack of effort, poor anticipation, poor technique or whatever, the rebounding isn't ever going to be spectacular.

Naptown_Seth
11-15-2006, 02:55 AM
Uh, Jack had a wide open shot and put it three feet over the rim.

I like Jackson, but not only is he not the best clutch player, he's the last guy on the floor I wanted to take that shot. He's made a total of three clutch shots since he's been here, out of about 25 attempts. That's 12%.
I sincerely wonder just how much the new ball is messing with his shot, even if its just a mental thing.

He's always been streaky but this year he's way below his norm. If it is the ball I sure as heck hope he figures it out.


Clutch shots - either the JO/Jack give and go or put Sarunas in on a PnR that lets him dribble to the FT line for a pull up. Those have been the two most reliable shots the team has. JO's elbow jumper is also coming on I think, but you still can't call it a go-to clutch shot I don't think.



On JO's rebounding, the funny thing is I go to Star and someone is ripping JO as a lazy, lucky rebounder who never shows effort. So I end up on Jermaniac's side (kinda) and was defending JO overall. JO has been the Pacers best rebounder ever by the numbers. As I said at Star, he's got more 10+ rebound seasons than Dale and Tony combined. The case for Foster due to Per 48 is valid, and honestly he is a better rebounder than JO, but not enough to make up for everything else.

That's not lucky, that's not because he gets FT misses that Dale and Tony didn't (because they did too).

My only interest in the frontline's rough stretch and JO's unproductive scoring night was that Jerm was blaming RC, when clearly the team got the stops they needed and couldn't pull the miss in.

I just love hearing the "Jack choked because he couldn't gaurd Kirk"...you do realize that before they picked him off hard for that final shot that Jack had forced 3 straight misses from Kirk, part of that 7 offensive boards in 4 minutes stretch. He also knocked his dribble away from him at one point, further disrupting his attempt to get into the offense.

Kirk was shutdown and if the Pacers had just come up with HALF the rebounds in that final run they would have won. The fact is that no team gives up EVEN defensive rebounds to the other team's offensive rebounds. And during that final stretch it was much worse than that, the 50/50 was just the final totals.


The frontline came up with a rough spot on the glass against a team that signed the biggest star rebounder in the NBA to a huge contract (getting into JO range) despite the fact that the guy can't play a lick of offense at all.

It wasn't bad coaching, it was a game with a couple of crazy rebounding plays that just didn't go their way. If it happens 10 of the next 12 we can revisit it as an issue.

Naptown_Seth
11-15-2006, 02:58 AM
This rebounding debacle was no different then our ft collapse against the Bucks last year.
Dang it, I'd just about forgotten that awful night.

Thanks.

;)

imawhat
11-15-2006, 02:25 PM
Clutch shots - either the JO/Jack give and go or put Sarunas in on a PnR that lets him dribble to the FT line for a pull up. Those have been the two most reliable shots the team has. JO's elbow jumper is also coming on I think, but you still can't call it a go-to clutch shot I don't think.



It's interesting you say that because one of those plays is responsible for one of Jack's three shots I'm talking about. The JO/Jack give and go was the game winner against Philly (in Philly)(he also hit a 3 as the buzzer went off vs. Miami in '04/'05 off of a missed shot which sent the game into OT). Stephen gets great looks in these situations but just doesn't make the shot (mostly) for some reason.

I'm thinking it has to be the ball accounting for his shooting slump. He hasn't had a hot streak all year, and about 80% of his shots are good shots. He'll be matched up with Pierce tonight so I'm expecting it to bring out his best.

-edit- The game winner in Philly was an assist from Sarunas (http://www.nba.com/games/20060305/INDPHI/boxscore.html), and it was off of an inbounds pass (http://www.nba.com/games/20060305/INDPHI/recap.html). I was wrong.