PDA

View Full Version : JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office



Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 02:53 AM
Let the fun begin.



http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20061115&Kategori=SPORTS04&Lopenr=611150499&Ref=AR&template=printart


Celtics 114, Pacers 88
Pacers get clobbered, fall to .500
By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com
November 15, 2006


BOSTON -- You can easily point to the Indiana Pacers' inability to rebound -- again -- as the reason they lost to the struggling Boston Celtics on Wednesday.
That would be letting the Pacers off too easily, though.
They let the Celtics' athletic, but inexperienced, point guards outhustle them. For a team of veterans, the Pacers were the ones looking like the team that's rebuilding as they came unraveled mentally and physically in the second half.

The Pacers became Boston's second victim of the season when the Celtics outplayed them in the second half of their easy 114-88 victory at the TD Banknorth Garden.

"Don't ever underestimate a desperate team, and they were desperate and they played their (expletive) off and they deserved to kick our (expletive)," coach Rick Carlisle said afterward.

Frustration mounted after the game when forward Jermaine O'Neal, still in his uniform, went into the coaches' office down the hall from the locker room and had a heated conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. Voices could be heard in the hallway. O'Neal declined to comment on the incident, for which team president Larry Bird was also in the room.

The Pacers, who have dropped two straight games, have said a number of times it's going to take time before they start looking like the team they want to be.

It could take a lot longer than expected because they continue to make the same mistakes Carlisle is trying to correct.

The Pacers (4-4) have yet to beat a team that had a winning record last season.

"I don't know what it is," Pacers shooting guard Stephen Jackson said. "I can't really put my hand on it. Everybody knows we're a lot better than what we're showing. Everybody has different things on their mind. Some things have to change."

One thing that could change is the Pacers' rotation, including the starting lineup. For the second time this season, Carlisle said he's going to look at possibly making a lineup change.

"Right now we have 15 healthy players and we have a chance for some consistency," he said. "I'm going to look at the film and we may have to shuffle the deck. Maybe these pieces don't fit together.

"I still think they can (get it together), but you have to bring commitment, you have to bring the unselfishness and you have to bring the passion, otherwise you are going to get your (expletive) kicked. That's how it works in this league."

The Pacers haven't gotten the memo yet that says they have to rebound missed shots if they want to use their so far nonexistent uptempo offense.

The Pacers followed up their rebounding debacle against Chicago on Saturday by letting the Celtics outrebound them 53-33.

The Pacers reverted to some of their bad habits in the second half when the Celtics shot 60 percent from the field.

Jackson was called for a technical for complaining about a play he thought was a foul. Carlisle promptly benched him. Point guard Jamaal Tinsley was whistled for a flagrant foul on Celtics forward Wally Szczerbiak following a Jackson turnover.

"The disappointing thing was when things got tough, Boston was the tougher team," Carlisle said. "That is not the sign of the type of team we need to be successful."

Paul Pierce led all scorers with 32 points on 11-of-19 shooting in 32 minutes. Al Harrington led the Pacers with 23 points.

croz24
11-16-2006, 02:59 AM
pacers are going nowhere with jo as the 'franchise'. trade him to chicago for that nyk pick, thomas, and deng at all costs.

sweabs
11-16-2006, 03:00 AM
:lurk:

This should be fun.

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 03:03 AM
We'll find out tomorrow what was said as MagicRat has every arena in the NBA bugged

Naptown_Seth
11-16-2006, 03:04 AM
He probably wondered why a guy who inbounds the ball into the freaking backboard is getting any playing time at all.

He also might have wondered why most of his blocks bounced away from guys like Foster (he missed 2 of them, one right off his leg and another he was slow to chase down) aren't getting recovered by his own teammates, especially when he saves the day on a 4 on 1 break.


I gotta say that Al, Daniels and JO were by far the most impressive guys in terms of effort tonight.

Here's the key point, JO went to the office, Ron went to Mike Wells.

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 03:08 AM
He probably wondered why a guy who inbounds the ball into the freaking backboard is getting any playing time at all.




I forgot all about that play - but that was a puzzler - If JO is wondering that, then JO and I think alike.

I also wonder when Bird will let Rick bench Saras. You know he wants to. He might also want to go back to his "playoff style" especially if the defense and rebounding don't improve.

Naptown_Seth
11-16-2006, 03:37 AM
Rick did bench him (SarJas) and Jack tonight after each had stretches of bad ball. Now contrary to fans that think just missing shots is bad ball, RC only plants guys who have brain locks, are disgruntled, or lack the effort.

Jack really let Paul get in his head early and just was not putting in the effort after the initial move by PP. A couple of PnRolls he left JO hanging by not switching hard and denying the return pass (like that Perkins layup).

If you want to see me get on Jack, here is your chance, because just like he can play well with bad shooting he can also play bad with good shooting, and that was the case tonight.

He did try and did keep his cool (that tech was complete BS unless he said something particularly nasty, he gave no indication of argument that you could see), but in the first especially he just looked like @ss. That got Rawle in, as Rick (and I) had seen enough. :)


Sarunas then had an even worse sequence that didn't end with the stupid ball off the backboard, which frankly is just embarrassing. First he went to the lane off the PnR dribble (the play where the guard curls the low post screen and take the pass from up top) and proceeded to travel when he got caught going up and not shooting as Rondo came leaping by.

Around this time the starters rejoined him so no excuse about who he has to play with. And he was the only PG on the floor (Jack, Daniels, Granger, JO). They ran the double elbow screen play (2 bigs come to the elbows, PG has choice) which he took for another shot and miss, but luckily JO's effort sandwiched between Perkins and Pierce got the ball knocked out baseline off Pierce.

Then came that joke baseline in-bounds pass off the backboard, right out of a Jerry Lewis flick.

Rondo then crossed him over badly and went straight to the lane. JO left Perkins to challenge the shot, Rondo passed to Perkins, JO recovers to defend Perkins shot too and forces a miss, which he rebounds himself.

They ran a PnR with SarJas and JO that sent it back to JO at the elbow, he fakes and popped a nice jumper. Went the other way and Pierce matched it (Cabbages not part of that play).

Then Sarunas brought it up one more time and sent it way out of bounds baseline on a PnR drive in which he was trying to pass back to JO. He just totally lost the handle and sent the ball sailing.

He then grabbed his front shoulder (his left) which got run into by Perkins well after he lost the pass, almost in a cover-up for his crap play.

At this point Rick yanked him. 3 TOs in less than 90 seconds of game play, plus getting beat badly off the Rondo dribble. And each TO was pretty ugly.



Could be something totally different. Maybe JO didn't like Rick yanking Jack early (though it was deserved), maybe RC said something to him about his shooting, but I'd honestly be surprised if RC had been getting on JO while watching this game. JO was doing much better than everyone but Al and Daniels.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-16-2006, 03:44 AM
Frustration mounted after the game when forward Jermaine O'Neal, still in his uniform, went into the coaches' office down the hall from the locker room and had a heated conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. Voices could be heard in the hallway. O'Neal declined to comment on the incident, for which team president Larry Bird was also in the room.

The Pacers, who have dropped two straight games, have said a number of times it's going to take time before they start looking like the team they want to be.



The Pacers (4-4) have yet to beat a team that had a winning record last season.



One thing that could change is the Pacers' rotation, including the starting lineup. For the second time this season, Carlisle said he's going to look at possibly making a lineup change.

"Right now we have 15 healthy players and we have a chance for some consistency," he said. "I'm going to look at the film and we may have to shuffle the deck. Maybe these pieces don't fit together.





Jackson was called for a technical for complaining about a play he thought was a foul. Carlisle promptly benched him. Point guard Jamaal Tinsley was whistled for a flagrant foul on Celtics forward Wally Szczerbiak following a Jackson turnover.




I don't know how to to the fancy multi-quote thing so bear with me.


Since when do guys who've shot 28% averaged 3.3 T/O's and 9.7 points over the last three get to yell at their bosses?


They said themselves it was going to take time before they started playing the way they want to...is eight games longer than they expected?


I like how Wells threw in the "They haven't beat a team with a winning record yet" blurb . Last time I checked, we've played the Bobcats(26-56), Hornets(38-44), Knicks(23-59), 76ers(38-44), The Wiz(42-40), Magic(36-46), Bulls (41-41) and Celtics(33-49). While the statement is true, it's also true that I've never missed a game winning Super Bowl field goal.



We've already heard Rick say he was gonna shuffle the lineup and he didn't. He also didn't mention anything about the starting lineup in his quote. I suppose it's possible he could tinker with the starters but from that quote I'd venture to say he gonna "shuffle the deck".


Yes Jackson got a tech on a call he thought was bad. I thought it was a bad no call too. Yes he got benched for 8 minutes. Tinsley got a flagrant. He was not benched however. It seems like he is piling on these guys to me. Maybe not.


Runi can't get a break, can he? Throwing the ball into the backboard?

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 03:55 AM
:drama:

Peck
11-16-2006, 05:06 AM
Well...

so much for my "there is something special" post.:mad: :censored:

I hope this was just some form of frustration about losing the game. I pray to God that the words "I need more touches" did not come out of his mouth.

I'll be honest with you, if he can't co-exist with Al then it's time for everybody & I mean everybody to step back & take a long look at this guy.

He couldn't co-exist with Jalen, he couldn't co-exist with Ron.

Al was his hand picked guy.

I am not saying that this is what was said, all I'm saying is that it better not be what was said.

Although once again I will now take the time to thank the Star for having an honest reporter who is not afraid to print this stuff.

Other reporters, no names mentioned, would have just not even have commented on it & we would have had to have heard about it from Bob Ryan or some other Boston reporter.

I can't tell you how happy I am to have real actual sports reporting done at the star & not just p.r. releases by the team.

I still hold out hope for a good season & they are still more fun to watch than they have been for a long time.

Bball
11-16-2006, 05:34 AM
Speaking of Boston reporters, there's this Pacers snippet:

Bird identified Jamaal Tinsley and Sarunas Jasikevicius as two of the four Indy players who weren't playing well, the others being Danny Granger and Stephen Jackson.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2006/11/16/one_of_these_long_overdue/

Will Galen
11-16-2006, 08:51 AM
Although once again I will now take the time to thank the Star for having an honest reporter who is not afraid to print this stuff.

Other reporters, no names mentioned, would have just not even have commented on it & we would have had to have heard about it from Bob Ryan or some other Boston reporter.


I know your position, still I wouldn't have used the word honest in that sentence. I don't think honesty has much to do with it unless you think not reporting everything is dishonest.

And if that is what you think I don't think the Star has changed. They still only report what they want to. What am I talking about?

Monday Stephen Jackson had a court date in Michigan. The Star had two articles on it. The main one read thus . . .

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/SPORTS04/61113046/1088

Star staff report

DETROIT - Pacers guard Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty today to a misdemeanor charge of probation violation and returned to Indiana. He is scheduled to appear Jan. 26 before Oakland County District Court judge Julie Nicholson.

His attorney, James Burdick, said Jackson pleaded not guilty "because he is not guilty."

Jackson's trial in Indianapolis could impact his case in Michigan. If found guilty of violating probation, he faces up to 93 days in jail.

"I can only guess what the judge will do," prosector John Pietrofesa said.
-------

The second article was halfway down an article titled, "More Foster may help rebounding." It read this way . . .

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061114/SPORTS04/611140402/1088


Jackson back in court

Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty Monday in Rochester Hills, Mich., to a misdemeanor charge of violating probation. He is scheduled to appear Jan. 26 in Oakland County District Court.

"Feeling good. Feeling good," Jackson told The Associated Press after his brief court appearance. "Just ready to get a workout in and get ready for our next game. That's my whole point: just getting back to basketball."

Michigan prosecutors say Jackson's recent arrest in Indianapolis violated probation. Jackson, whose original charge stemmed from his role in a Nov. 19, 2004, brawl between Pacers players and Pistons fans, was charged with criminal recklessness and misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct stemming from a fight Oct. 6 at a strip club. His trial is scheduled to start Jan. 8 in Indianapolis.

That trial could affect his case in Michigan, which carries a maximum sentence of 93 days in jail.
-----

What's wrong with those articles? Nothing on the surface, but they left out something I thought important. ESPN reported this from the Associated Press . . .

Jackson pleads not guilty on probation violation charge Associated Press


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2660493
Jackson

ROCHESTER HILLS, Mich. -- Indiana Pacers guard Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty to a probation violation charge on Monday.

Michigan prosecutors said Jackson violated his probation after being accused of firing a gun outside a strip club in Indiana last month.

Jackson, who appeared Monday for arraignment in district court, could face up to three months in jail if found guilty of violating the terms of his probation. His next court appearance in Michigan is scheduled for Jan. 26.

Jackson was serving probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor assault and battery charges in September 2005 for his role in a 2004 brawl between Pacers players and fans at The Palace of Auburn Hills. He is charged in Indiana with criminal recklessness -- a felony -- and misdemeanor counts of battery and disorderly conduct.


"Feeling good. Feeling good," Jackson said after his brief court appearance north of Detroit. "Just ready to get a workout in and get ready for our next game. That's my whole point: just getting back to basketball."

Police said Jackson fired a gun in the air at least five times during an Oct. 6 fight outside Club Rio. Jackson originally told police that he fired the gun in self-defense, but Marion County (Ind.) Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Jackson retrieved his gun from his car and fired it before he was struck and injured by another car.

Defense attorney James Burdick said Jackson had fully completed the terms of his 12-month probation earlier this year and therefore was not on probation at the time of his arrest in Indianapolis.

"Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty, because he is not guilty," Burdick said outside court. "He is doing great. He's a great guy who loves Indiana, loves the team, loves playing for the people of Indiana."

His trial is scheduled to start Jan. 8 in Indianapolis. The criminal recklessness charge carries a prison term of six months to three years.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
-----

You would think the Star would report that Jackson's attorney said Jackson had already competed his teams of probation thus he wasn't guilty. The Star didn't report this and I wondered why since they cover the Pacers and it's germane to the story.

Could be any number of reasons they didn't report it. I don't think it's the reason, but it occurred to me that they could want to keep things stirred up because it sells newspapers too. How a newspaper slants things does have a bearing on what people think. Would they do that? Haw Haw . . . sure they would if they thought it would sell newspapers some way!

Back on topic. One thing is for sure, JO was very unhappy about something that went on in that game. Two things occur to me. He was unhappy with Rick in some way (rotation, game plan, calling plays, he didn't give Jeff more minutes like he said he would, etc.) or as has been said, JO was unhappy with his touches.

Slick Pinkham
11-16-2006, 09:31 AM
Speaking of Boston reporters, there's this Pacers snippet:

Bird identified Jamaal Tinsley and Sarunas Jasikevicius as two of the four Indy players who weren't playing well, the others being Danny Granger and Stephen Jackson.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2006/11/16/one_of_these_long_overdue/

Most likely JO was fuming about the attitude, effort, and basketball IQ of one or more of these guys, and probably not Danny.

An alternative: I remember last year when JO was furious about guys laughing and joking in the locker room after a terrible loss, like nothing was wrong. Maybe that happened again.

I seriously doubt it was over lack of "touches" or the game plan. When you get blown out by one of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, it ain't all game-planning.

JBones19
11-16-2006, 09:58 AM
Most likely JO was fuming about the attitude, effort, and basketball IQ of one or more of these guys, and probably not Danny.

An alternative: I remember last year when JO was furious about guys laughing and joking in the locker room after a terrible loss, like nothing was wrong. Maybe that happened again.

I seriously doubt it was over lack of "touches" or the game plan. When you get blown out by one of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, it ain't all game-planning.

There was a shot near the end of the game where the camera panned across the Pacer's bench and Jack was joking and laughing with the guy (Danny?) to his left and JO was on the other side of Jack with a look of disgust on his face.

On a side note, who is going to call into the Rick Carlisle show tonight and ask what the heated exchange was about? C'mon guys, it's up to us.

-J

D-BONE
11-16-2006, 10:39 AM
All this makes me think is: Oh, boy! Took all of eight games before signs of tension and frustration started to rear their ugly head.

Hopefully this is either something legit and/or just an isolated incident. It's easy to get steamed after a bad loss. But what happened to all the harmony and good feelings we were so glad to see just a few games ago?

Or is it just a by-product of the off-season personnel and system overhaul?

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 10:39 AM
There was a shot near the end of the game where the camera panned across the Pacer's bench and Jack was joking and laughing with the guy (Danny?) to his left and JO was on the other side of Jack with a look of disgust on his face.




This is one of my biggest pet peeves. JBones, I don't mean to pick on you, but when people see a 2 second snippet of the bench and extrapulate what they see into something of meaning it makes me mad. Do we know what Jax was doing right before the camera showed him, he might have been crying, he might have been so mad his eyes were bugging out of his head.

If I was at a funeral of a very good and close friend of mine and they were shooting a video tape of it and a two second snippet showed me smiling or laughing, does that mean I don't care about my best friend dying. Does that mean I wasn't crying the other 99% percent of the time. Well of course not, but you are doing the same thing by taking a 2 second snippet and acting like it was 35 minutes long

Jax is a guy who I believe really wants to win, he's very competitive - but the point is, we have no idea what was going on there, the camera showed 2 or 3 seconds of what you are talking about.

For the record, there were other shots of Jax looking very disgusted and upset.

Rinuven
11-16-2006, 10:51 AM
I think many of us are getting way too far ahead of our analysis of how things are going. Did anyone honestly expect a team that has experienced as much change as the Pacers to burst out of the gate and set the league on fire? I personally just want to see progress from one week to another. You can't make a judgement from game to game, because they are going to stumble now and then.

We are .500 and with lots of season left. I think we need to be encouraged by the fact that a "discussion" occurred. It's obvious there are issues with how we are playing that need to be addressed...lets give them the opportunity to do so. It's too early at this point.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 10:58 AM
Patience, my friends.

This is going to be a long, bumpy ride.

I can't fault JO's effort. 12 boards, four assists, four blocks. He just couldn't hit shots. You certainly can't say that JO let the rest of his game suffer because he wasn't hitting shots.

Our backcourt still needs a lot of help.

BillS
11-16-2006, 11:21 AM
I like that JO stormed in and had a heated discussion. If nothing else it shows that there is the kind of passion for winning (or at least hatred of being embarassed) that we want to see from a team leader. This could have been just a vent session (something one should be able to do with one's boss), it could have been about something specific, but either way the number of good things it could be about far outweighs the number of bad things it could be about. Let's see what is done before we jump to conclusions.

Remember, a lot of folks had the Pacers at around .400 after the first 20 or so games because of the need to get settled in, the schedule timing, and the number of road games. Let's not let the fact that they looked very good in some wins lead us to believe that they won't be inconsistent and get frustrated about it.

I really think of this team something like the 93-94 team, which looked awful at times until after the All-Star break. This does NOT mean that I think the team as is will make it to the ECF, but it DOES mean that I think we need to be patient before making final judgements.

Now, let the world come to a peaceful end since I've once again agreed with Jay :cheers:

rimock31
11-16-2006, 11:23 AM
Does Bird even watch the games. In his postgame comments he claimed that Sarunas is the first guy off the bench. I'm pretty sure Quis, Foster, Rawle and Armstrong all get in before Sarunas

Speed
11-16-2006, 11:23 AM
I think many of us are getting way too far ahead of our analysis of how things are going. Did anyone honestly expect a team that has experienced as much change as the Pacers to burst out of the gate and set the league on fire? I personally just want to see progress from one week to another. You can't make a judgement from game to game, because they are going to stumble now and then.

We are .500 and with lots of season left. I think we need to be encouraged by the fact that a "discussion" occurred. It's obvious there are issues with how we are playing that need to be addressed...lets give them the opportunity to do so. It's too early at this point.


Yes, I agree, I wouldbe happy with .500 through the first 19 games, then we'll see where they are and headed from there, this basically a whole new team in my eyes.

3rdStrike
11-16-2006, 11:51 AM
Unfortunately, everytime I hear "lineup shuffle" I know it means Granger gets benched and Foster comes in. I also thought it was a bit more than coincidence that Larry Bird was quoted as saying he really likes several of the Celtics young players, "without getting specific."

It's well known he likes Gerald Green, and GG is a franchise type of player, but the team is overrun with wing players, so I have to believe he is looking at Delonte West, who is inexplicably having his playing time reduced this year. He's smart, plays hard and he's a lights out shooter.

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 11:51 AM
I find it interesting that we all think it was JO who stormed in and was upset about things. What if Rick and Larry were upset and wanted to talk to the "leader" of the team privately. Maybe it was Rick and Larry who did all the yelling.

Just something to consider.


I hope we do see a lineup change - but I hope it is in the backcourt.

JBones19
11-16-2006, 12:00 PM
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. JBones, I don't mean to pick on you, but when people see a 2 second snippet of the bench and extrapulate what they see into something of meaning it makes me mad. Do we know what Jax was doing right before the camera showed him, he might have been crying, he might have been so mad his eyes were bugging out of his head.

If I was at a funeral of a very good and close friend of mine and they were shooting a video tape of it and a two second snippet showed me smiling or laughing, does that mean I don't care about my best friend dying. Does that mean I wasn't crying the other 99% percent of the time. Well of course not, but you are doing the same thing by taking a 2 second snippet and acting like it was 35 minutes long

Jax is a guy who I believe really wants to win, he's very competitive - but the point is, we have no idea what was going on there, the camera showed 2 or 3 seconds of what you are talking about.

For the record, there were other shots of Jax looking very disgusted and upset.

I understand what you're saying and agree. It was just something I noticed at the end of the game that kinda rubbed me the wrong way and then pacertom brought up that it may have been a reason JO was peeved. Of course, it's all speculation.

Lamar Mundane
11-16-2006, 12:16 PM
Is it sacrilege to say I miss the way that Artest would OWN Paul Pierce and really get into his head? :censored:

RWB
11-16-2006, 12:18 PM
Is it sacrilege to say I miss the way that Artest would OWN Paul Pierce and really get into his head? :censored:


Not at all Lamar, but remember Artest not only got into the other player's head but his own as well. ;)

Naptown_Seth
11-16-2006, 12:25 PM
For the record, there were other shots of Jax looking very disgusted and upset.
Yeah, they cut to the bench once in the 2nd half and I was actually bothered by how down he and the other guys were, comparing it to how they had been up and supportive previously. This night they looked whipped emotionally.

Now there was a point in the 3rd that Armstrong just refused to go quietly and when he hit the court he was forcing guys to keep the energy, like when he called for Foster to help him on a full court press. He was trying to rally their spirit and almost pulled it off.


And in the end what I want to see out of Jack more than any other player is the ability to laugh stuff off because his problem is 100% not a lack of caring or emotion. His problem is usually too much and letting it ruin his game when he gets frustrated. I also thought he played a little better after RC benched him for Rawle early on.


Our backcourt still needs a lot of help.
Yeah, this wasn't the finest hour for Tins, Jack and Cabbages. But on the other hand Daniels was outstanding and Armstrong gave them a spark in the 3rd.



Also wanted to add that I totally agree with Will's post about the Star's reporting. One part of me wondered if Mike commenting on this was necessary at all. I mean when you hear old timer stories of the locker room in any sport, stuff like this comes off as a lot more common than we realized at the time. For all we know Staubach was in Landry's office having a meltdown every other week, it just never made news.

Was this a special shouting match or just typical blowing off steam?

The only story I know for certain is that on WED night Fun was definitely not back. ;)

Major Cold
11-16-2006, 12:43 PM
I understand we have played only one team over .500 last year. That is no indicator for how bad we are this year.

Philly played well up to the game they played us (only one loss going in)


After that they dropped 2 before beating Seattle and ending their3 game winning streak (game was in Seattle after Seattle won 3 games in a row on the road)

Hornets-6-3 winning against GSW Hou and Detroit (had the best record last year so that makes then what?) Obviously this team is not the same. With Peja added and West tearing it up this team is better than what they were was last year.

Orlando is 6-3 with wins against Chicago, Wolves, and snapped Denver's 3 game winning streak. They are continuing the run of last year.

Chicago has been inconsistent but last April showed that they were better than a 41-41 team. Add Ben and role players and it is a matter of time before they get in rythmn.

The only proclaimed above .500 team last year (42-40) has had a tough schedule playing the Cavs and Nets (magic too) and lossing both of those closely. But they are 3-4 (thats under .500).


So what is my point? You can make anything look bad (or good as I pointed out) with just a few facts.

Like:

The Pacers do not play consecutive home games till December 8. Thats 20 games with having to fly home only to fly somewhere else the next game.

There is only one team that goes longer and that is Philly (December 11, but only 13 games played). Aside from those two teams. All other teams in the NBA have consecutive home games (whether back to back or days rested).

But does that matter. the Hornets really don't have a home and yet they win. I know this post is wishy washy. But we can talk up a storm about the whys and hows but it just comes down to execution and desire.
We have problems (rebounding, guard play to name a couple) and as fans we want the product to produce. Its time. No more excuses. Shut the Hell up and play basketball. Stop acting like its your right and start acting like its a privelege to be a Pacer.

Will Galen
11-16-2006, 01:01 PM
The previous post edited to read better.


I understand we have played only one team over .500 last year. That is no indicator for how bad we are this year.

Philly played well up to the game they played us (only one loss going in)


After that they dropped 2 before beating Seattle and ending their3 game winning streak (game was in Seattle after Seattle won 3 games in a row on the road)

Hornets-6-3 winning against GSW Hou and Detroit (had the best record last year so that makes then what?) Obviously this team is not the same. With Peja added and West tearing it up this team is better than what they were was last year.

Orlando is 6-3 with wins against Chicago, Wolves, and snapped Denver's 3 game winning streak. They are continuing the run of last year.

Chicago has been inconsistent but last April showed that they were better than a 41-41 team. Add Ben and role players and it is a matter of time before they get in rythmn.

The only proclaimed above .500 team last year (42-40) has had a tough schedule playing the Cavs and Nets (magic too) and lossing both of those closely. But they are 3-4 (thats under .500).


So what is my point? You can make anything look bad (or good as I pointed out) with just a few facts.

Like:

The Pacers do not play consecutive home games till December 8. Thats 20 games with having to fly home only to fly somewhere else the next game.

There is only one team that goes longer and that is Philly (December 11, but only 13 games played). Aside from those two teams. All other teams in the NBA have consecutive home games (whether back to back or days rested).

But does that matter. the Hornets really don't have a home and yet they win. I know this post is wishy washy. But we can talk up a storm about the whys and hows but it just comes down to execution and desire.

We have problems (rebounding, guard play to name a couple) and as fans we want the product to produce. Its time. No more excuses. Shut the Hell up and play basketball. Stop acting like its your right and start acting like its a privelege to be a Pacer.

ALF68
11-16-2006, 01:14 PM
He probably wondered why a guy who inbounds the ball into the freaking backboard is getting any playing time at all.

He also might have wondered why most of his blocks bounced away from guys like Foster (he missed 2 of them, one right off his leg and another he was slow to chase down) aren't getting recovered by his own teammates, especially when he saves the day on a 4 on 1 break.


I gotta say that Al, Daniels and JO were by far the most impressive guys in terms of effort tonight.

Here's the key point, JO went to the office, Ron went to Mike Wells.
Yeah let's put the loss on Sars and Foster, your agenda is not loss on me.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 01:26 PM
Yeah let's put the loss on Sars and Foster, your agenda is not loss on me.

What agenda?

Please elaborate. I have no idea what you're talking about.

McKeyFan
11-16-2006, 01:29 PM
I'd sure like to have Delonte West.

imawhat
11-16-2006, 01:50 PM
I have a different opinion than most on JO tonight; just a warning.

I think he played poorly. I'm stumped at how he got 12 rebounds because there were about 12 or 13 plays I caught him just watching the ball go up without boxing out. Our help defense was really bad tonight, and a few times it left Jermaine in a bad position, but it's his job to cut off the lane. Tonight he kept floating out towards the top of the key (without putting his arms up to defend) and by the time he got back to the basket it was too late. He went out in the third quarter and the moment he went out Boston stopped getting shots in the lane and stopped getting offensive rebounds. Then we put him back in and on the first play Boston got into the lane, missed a shot, and got an offensive rebound + put back. And I'm not even going to discuss his lack of effort for position on the offensive end. It was a poor effort in my opinion, and I feel like it set the tone for the rest of the game.


As far as the reporting goes, our writer has a definite motive in his writings. It's disgusting, and I think his motives get in the way. I lost a lot of respect for him after listening to his Sirius radio season preview. At least Kravitz comes up with facts that support his cynical views. This guy is just cynical, even with every win. And it's a shame that he reported on JO's meeting with Rick and Larry. Trying to make something out of nothing.

Pitons
11-16-2006, 02:15 PM
Saras is the worst player ever played in the NBA. And he's primarily responsible for the loss yesterday. And for every of 4 losses this season. No doubt. If not him, Pacers would be in a better position right now. And the fact when he's on the court the team has a good +/- stat (yesterday while he was on the court it was about 0) just confirms it.

FrenchConnection
11-16-2006, 02:24 PM
Saras is the worst player ever played in the NBA. And he's primarily responsible for the loss yesterday. And for every of 4 losses this season. No doubt. If not him, Pacers would be in a better position right now. And the fact when he's on the court the team has a good +/- stat (yesterday while he was on the court it was about 0) just confirms it.

Your sarcasm is not coming through very clearly in the translation. FWIW, +/- has little meaning in the NBA. Unlike in hockey where it is the key stat for defensemen. But 0 is not good enough. Everyone played poorly last night, Saras included.

v_d_g
11-16-2006, 03:50 PM
This team justs keep getting UGLIER and UGLIER.

The games are becoming unwatchable.

I can understand UGLY WINS but this is basketball

athleticism, grace, style, teamwork, effort, etc. are supposed to be on display

I can't watch this team:

it plays STUPID, UNathletic, UNcreative, LAZY basketball

seriously, is this the best team they can put on the court?

is this the best they can do coaching? give me a break, Carlisle

I'm at the point where I'm about to switch to the Knicks

It's been over 15 long years and while it's never been the most atheltic or most entertaining to watch, this team has regressed to playing extreme MIDWEST GRUNT BBall. Why the rest of the league serves up entertainment nightly, revived '70's BBall, we're crawling along, playing '90's BRUISER BALL. (Featuring the OLE defense)
Yeah, and we're claiming to be doing the UPTEMPO thing. righttttttttttttttttt

at this point in time, the lowly KNICKS have BETTER PLAYERS, give more effort, are a hell of alot more entertaining, and are BETTER COACHED (neve thought I'd be writing this.)

go figure

I'm watching the game last night:

Can ANYONE make a JUMPER? ANYONE? 20,15,10,5 FEET?

All I saw, over and over, is a pass to a man underneath, surrounded by defenders, eventually getting stuffed. Kick it out: hit a 15 footer. Oh, that's right: NO ONE on the team can make a 15 footer consistently.

indygeezer
11-16-2006, 03:56 PM
(Scratching head trying to cypher whether that was Displaced Knick o Kstat that wrote the above post.)

pwee31
11-16-2006, 03:59 PM
Saras is the worst player ever played in the NBA. And he's primarily responsible for the loss yesterday. And for every of 4 losses this season. No doubt. If not him, Pacers would be in a better position right now. And the fact when he's on the court the team has a good +/- stat (yesterday while he was on the court it was about 0) just confirms it.

I actually enjoy the sarcasm.. kinda lightens up the board for me.

Pitons
11-16-2006, 04:14 PM
Your sarcasm is not coming through very clearly in the translation. FWIW, +/- has little meaning in the NBA. Unlike in hockey where it is the key stat for defensemen. But 0 is not good enough. Everyone played poorly last night, Saras included.

I understand and admit it. But everybody sees only how Saras played bad, and if he does a turnover, that is always a turnover of the year. But nobody talks about for example other guys, who try to shoot after 5 spins around and with 3 opponents on the neck. That is OK.

And what is Saras job? He brings the ball upcourt, passes to other guy, and that guy shoots through 6 hands. Saras gets the ball very rare, so he must shoot, because he will go with 0 points in the end.

I didn't see nothing about team basketball yesterday.

I hope Pacers aren't playing like that every time, because it will be very hard to earn a spot in the playoffs.

Pacers can't rebound, can't shoot and don't have any advantage on the other teams so far. 2 last games were awful.

I really hope they will improve.

Alpolloloco
11-16-2006, 04:20 PM
Right on!

Fireball Kid
11-16-2006, 04:32 PM
I'd sure like to have Delonte West.

I've been saying the Pacers should get him the entire off-season. And I still think we should go after him.

naptownmenace
11-16-2006, 04:43 PM
I've been saying the Pacers should get him the entire off-season. And I still think we should go after him.

Me and you buddy.

I wanted the Pacers to trade Tinsley for West and a filler but I rarely get what I want. Although getting Quis was one rare exception.

FlavaDave
11-16-2006, 04:46 PM
I've been saying the Pacers should get him the entire off-season. And I still think we should go after him.

It just plain makes sense for the Pacers to trade an extra swingman for one of Boston's extra point guards.

Will Galen
11-16-2006, 05:31 PM
It just plain makes sense for the Pacers to trade an extra swingman for one of Boston's extra point guards.

Makes sense? We would then have 5 point guards.

Lord Helmet
11-16-2006, 05:33 PM
This is going to be a fun season.......

Jumper
11-16-2006, 05:40 PM
Everyone knows that this team is gonna take some time to gel thats all there is to it. Those of you that want to see a winner now and forever, then go watch a winning team! Those that are true Pacer fans, stick around for the remainder of the season and support the players. We have seen glimpses of brilliance and moments of utter defeat, take the bad with the good, bleed blue and gold and stop jumping anyone and everyone who is in that locker room. I feel by the time this season is over people will be questioning if Bird is a Hall of Famer because of his front office skills...not his career as a player, what a joke.

imawhat
11-16-2006, 05:43 PM
We're eight games into the season. There's no reason to lose perspective over that.

Major Cold
11-16-2006, 05:50 PM
We're eight games into the season. There's no reason to lose perspective over that.


I concur

And thank

you

Will

imawhat
11-16-2006, 05:58 PM
We were 4-2 and it looked like we are on our way to the finals, and two games later we're headed for a horrible season, according to general opinion around here.

We have a couple of glaring problems, but this is a team with 8 new players. It's going to take a long, long time for everyone to play together as well as they're going to. But we're still healthy, we're getting comfortable, and Rick is about to make his first set of adjustments.

We'll have a better idea in a month, but everything feels extreme right now and it's not really like that.

FlavaDave
11-16-2006, 06:01 PM
Makes sense? We would then have 5 point guards.

And none of them will be the starter three years from now. Orien Greene is an insurance policy and DA (as much as I like him) will be gone at the end of the season. In terms of building for the future (and my evaluation of the Pacer's roster is based on the assumption that they are trying to make a run two to three years from now not today), we really have two point guards. Sarunas won't be the starter in two years, so it is down to Tinsley.

So from that perspective, I would rather the Pacers carry 5 point guards this year so that they have a strong contingency plan if Tinsley doesn't pan out as the long-term starter.

Bball
11-16-2006, 06:06 PM
I've said it several times but I think it bears repeating...

This is a transition year.

If anyone expected anything but a transition year then they are dreaming. There were a lot of questions left unanswered over the off season, and a few more thrown into the pile before this season even started. Now that the season is under way there are even more questions that will naturally bubble to the top. Rebounding issues seem to be a big one.

This season is more about finding out who's really an Indiana Pacer and who is trade fodder or a potential coaching castaway. There probably should be an eye cast toward management as well... but there probably won't be.

Probably the issue that should be of most immediate concern is this reported 'heated' conversation. Who was 'heated' with whom? Who initiated it? Why? To know that there's already a crack in the veneer that was put on this season should concern us all because the Pacers are historically slow to react. If JO has a legitimate concern, will TPTB act upon it? If TPTB have a concern with JO will they act upon it? Or if this heated conversation was initiated by JO and wasn't a legitimate Pacer problem (but instead his own ego talking) then he just made one for them.

IMHO, the team has to know this is a transition year too so they shouldn't be abandoning ship. And especially not yet.

I think there are some legitimate questions management needs to answer. Why did they bother signing Baston? If Harrison is not going to play then why is he even still on the roster and at least why is he 'active'? If we need some dirty work up front, why is Powell sitting? How can having 4 PG's be a smart move? Sometimes you have to have a vision and see it thru, even if that means a golden boy or overpaid player gets jettisoned for the good of the team. That's a place this team has had trouble in the past.

If chemistry is yet again a problem someone needs to start looking at management.

-Bball

rimock31
11-16-2006, 06:41 PM
I have to disagree with whoever said plus/minus doesn't mean anything in the NBA. I think if you're a 0 in a game where your team lost by 20 and others are -15, it shows something

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 06:43 PM
No, individual plus/ minus is influenced by many, many other factors (such as who else is on the court.)

Five man plus/ minus is meaningful, individual plus/ minus has a number of significant flaws.

For example, JO's high (relative) season-to-date +/- is affected becasue he didn't play at all in the Washington blowout. Was JO's absense, alone, the reason we lost by a bazillion points?

I can't find the Celtics game +/-, but I think you're referring to a player that got most of his minutes after the damage was done and then, along with our scrubs and against Boston's scrubs, we actually chipped into the deficit a little bit. That would certainly not imply that the scrub deserves a large spot in the rotation to the detriment of the regular player.

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 06:58 PM
Bingo, Jay.

If anyone deserves the blame for the Celtics loss, it's the TEAM who played (or rather DIDN'T play) in the 3rd quarter.

ajbry
11-16-2006, 07:08 PM
Agreed as well, Jay.

This may be an unpopular observation to make around here, but during the 3rd quarter, Jack only played 3 minutes and JO only got about 5. There's really not much else to it.

Hicks
11-16-2006, 07:09 PM
WTHR just went to a comerical with a teaser about JO and Carlisle "setting the record straight" about their heated conversation.

I'd record it and upload it, but my PVR is not working right now (@%@ing software/drivers!)

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 07:24 PM
Just saw it on WTHR. I was a little distracted. But I think JO said he wants more touches in the low-post. He isn't like how he's being used in the offense.

Hicks will have the report for you I think in a couple of minutes.

I don't know if the other local stations had anything on it

aceace
11-16-2006, 07:33 PM
I think I would start foster and daniels, take out granger an jax... see what happens.

Bball
11-16-2006, 07:40 PM
Just saw it on WTHR. I was a little distracted. But I think JO said he wants more touches in the low-post. He isn't like how he's being used in the offense.


Are you being serious or trying to drive Peck into a PFFL-like frenzy?

-Bball

PaceBalls
11-16-2006, 07:41 PM
Well...

so much for my "there is something special" post.:mad: :censored:

I hope this was just some form of frustration about losing the game. I pray to God that the words "I need more touches" did not come out of his mouth.

I'll be honest with you, if he can't co-exist with Al then it's time for everybody & I mean everybody to step back & take a long look at this guy.

He couldn't co-exist with Jalen, he couldn't co-exist with Ron.


JO co-existed with Ron perfectly, and AL back in '03. It wasnt on the court where the issues were. I always thought that team complimented eachother beautifully. It's a darn shame things turned out the way they did with Ron, this team could have been so wonderful for years to come...

And here we are deep in the depths of suckiness/mediocrity for years to come.

speakout4
11-16-2006, 07:57 PM
And none of them will be the starter three years from now. Orien Greene is an insurance policy and DA (as much as I like him) will be gone at the end of the season. In terms of building for the future (and my evaluation of the Pacer's roster is based on the assumption that they are trying to make a run two to three years from now not today), we really have two point guards. Sarunas won't be the starter in two years, so it is down to Tinsley.

So from that perspective, I would rather the Pacers carry 5 point guards this year so that they have a strong contingency plan if Tinsley doesn't pan out as the long-term starter.
The reason we have so many PGs is that we don't have anyone who is reliable so we compensate by having too many. Sarunas can't play; Tinsley is hot and cold and the number of games is unpredictable. Get a real PG like West from the Celts and we can jettison Sarunas, eat his salary and move on.

However, the backcourt isn't to blame for the really miserable rebounding and that has to be addressed. I thought that Granger's job was to rebound and play defense. The team needs 20-25 rebounds from JO, Al and Granger. If these guys aren't doing it then only Foster is a fair rebounder.
IMO Al is a SF. He doesn't rebound sufficiently well to play the 4 or 5. He is hurting the team. Al needs to get more rebounds and try to get an assist occasionally.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 07:58 PM
Agreed as well, Jay.

This may be an unpopular observation to make around here, but during the 3rd quarter, Jack only played 3 minutes and JO only got about 5. There's really not much else to it.

When did Jack pick up the "T"? I have no opinion on whether it was warranted or not, but Rick did put him on the bench right away.

(EDIT - there it is, just over two minutes into the third quarter. He came back at the 1:11 mark. We were down six when he sat down, down down sixteen when he came back, and then, when he sat down for good seven minutes later, we were down by 25.)

We got smashed in the second half regardless of whether Jack was on the floor or not, and Rick must've assumed (and probably correctly), that it would've been even worse if he left Jack on the court after the "T".

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 08:02 PM
Are you being serious or trying to drive Peck into a PFFL-like frenzy?

-Bball

Yes dead serious.

Bball
11-16-2006, 08:08 PM
Yes dead serious.

Not good then...

Maybe it's time to upgrade our backcourt....

-Bball

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 08:09 PM
Peck must be psychic or something. Really, this is right up there with his "red flag" post early last season.

Bball
11-16-2006, 08:17 PM
Signed Baston... still have Harrison... Signed Al.... Kept Powell...

Maybe management was thinking they'd maybe be be moving a certain player on the team and we just got a snippet what they were fearing and planning for?

-Bball

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 08:20 PM
Just saw it on WTHR. I was a little distracted. But I think JO said he wants more touches in the low-post. He isn't like how he's being used in the offense.

Does this read,

JO said he WANTS MORE TOUCHES in the low post?

or,

JO said he wants more touches IN THE LOW POST?

Big difference, IMO.

I agree with #2, quite strongly, BTW. We've become a bit of a donut team and that's not necessary. JO in the low post is still our #1 play, but we need to see quick-hitters, off the ball movement, etc. Not a "stand around and watch JO play" offense. But also not a "oooh no, let's overreact and never use JO in the low post ever again" offense.

And, for the record, this sounds like nothing more than "growing pains" to me. Patience, everyone. Including JO and Rick.

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 08:21 PM
This absolutely no matter what confirms that the "pound-it-into-JO" offense we all hate so much is JO's fault more than it is Rick's.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 08:24 PM
This absolutely no matter what confirms that the "pound-it-into-JO" offense we all hate so much is JO's fault more than it is Rick's.

I don't agree with that at all.

More touches IN THE LOW POST does not necessarily equal the pound-it-into-JO offense. And whether we hate it or not, it is our #1 play (yes is overused and more importantly, under Rick its been misused as the other players stand around, of course, but it shouldn't be completely abandoned.)

If JO were just asking for more touches, period, then maybe...

This seems to be about location, not quantity. If UB's quote is correct.

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 08:31 PM
Listen, we've agreed for a couple of years about the proper use of JO. He's a great post player that needs slight improvment on his decision making, and particularly the speed of his decision making while he's in the post.

But the guy couldn't handle being out of the post a little less often for one game.

I wish I didn't delete the game, because I'd watch it right now to figure out how many times he got the ball in the post in the first half when we were playing competitive ball.

The way I'm reading this, Rick is trying to change our style of play for the long haul, and at the first sign of trouble, JO wants to run back home to 03-04.

I freely admit that it may be me who is overreacting to this "news".

Peck
11-16-2006, 08:41 PM
You have got to be kidding me??????

I have not seen what WTHR said so I think I will with hold comment for the moment, as long as my temper will allow me.

But if what I am reading from U.B. (who I trust) is true then I will have to do everything in my power to be as civil as I can later tonight.

In fact if I find this to be true I may just have to stay off of here for a few days so as to not set a horrid example.

Peck
11-16-2006, 08:42 PM
I don't agree with that at all.

More touches IN THE LOW POST does not necessarily equal the pound-it-into-JO offense. And whether we hate it or not, it is our #1 play (yes is overused and more importantly, under Rick its been misused as the other players stand around, of course, but it shouldn't be completely abandoned.)

If JO were just asking for more touches, period, then maybe...

This seems to be about location, not quantity. If UB's quote is correct.

Considering the source of the complaint I would say that is exactly what it means.

Hicks
11-16-2006, 08:45 PM
Peck, I didn't take it the way Uncle Buck took it. I took it to mean he want to take less mid-range jumpers, and work more in the post INSTEAD. I didn't see it as a "I want more shots" type of statement.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 08:50 PM
I think everyone is overreacting.

Players and coaches have these conversations all the time, and there might be shouting involved, too.

The problem isn't the conversation at all - JO was talking to his coach and not the media. This isn't Artest-like.

The problem isn't what JO is asking for, I've hardly seen him in the paint all season. For those that didn't have the Boston announcers last night, they had a lenghty discussion that JO was playing more like a perimeter-oriented SF - that's a bad thing, Pacers fans.

Let's give this team a few more months to figure out their identity before we reach judgment on the first (of many) animated discussions.

Patience.

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 08:56 PM
Does this read,

JO said he WANTS MORE TOUCHES in the low post?

or,

JO said he wants more touches IN THE LOW POST?

Big difference, IMO.



I was wondering the same thing, and it was not clear to me what he wanted

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 09:01 PM
If he just wants more touches period, then why add the "in the low post" portion?

I'm (obviously) only working with the text you provided, but there are too many possible interpretations (many of which are totally harmless) to justify getting upset over what we know right now.

Kegboy
11-16-2006, 09:16 PM
It makes much more sense to me to get Jermaine touches in the post, as opposed to the donut **** we've been running. But then, this is the same man who has a pathological fear of the letter "C", so who the **** knows what he means.

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 09:22 PM
It makes much more sense to me to get Jermaine touches in the post, as opposed to the donut **** we've been running. But then, this is the same man who has a pathological fear of the letter "C", so who the **** knows what he means.

Exactly - "You must call me a forward!!! You must play me as a center!!!"

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 09:26 PM
Peck, I didn't take it the way Uncle Buck took it. I took it to mean he want to take less mid-range jumpers, and work more in the post INSTEAD. I didn't see it as a "I want more shots" type of statement.

He easily could have meant that, and for the record it was not clear as to what he meant from what I saw.

Does WTHR have it on their website

imawhat
11-16-2006, 09:27 PM
If JO wants more touches in the low post then he needs to committ a lot more practice time to getting good position, or at least making an effort to get good position.

He's not getting good position and he's not trying to move.

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 09:31 PM
This might shed some light on the discussion

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_061117.html


OK, let's assume JO would just like to get the ball in the low post and not 15 feet out. His low post game IMO has looked horrible this season - his shot gets blocked again and again. He's been much more effective running pick and pops.

If the Pacers to accomodate JO and get him the ball more in the low post, that would slow down and stagnate the offense.

imawhat
11-16-2006, 09:39 PM
from http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_061117.html

"I'm a post-up player," O'Neal said. "I want to be able to mix it up more and get the ball in the low post and put these teams in foul trouble. In the previous six or seven games I've been pretty much on the perimeter. That's one of the things I've been disappointed in about myself. Defensively, I think things are going good for me but offensively this team needs me to score and I need to be a little bit more aggressive in the low box area."



This is exactly what he should be doing. He didn't lose all that weight this offseason to stand around and shoot long jumpers. He should be facing up and making quick moves in the post.

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 09:41 PM
OK, after reading that, it doesn't sound SO bad. We thought JO would be able to revert to JO the younger, but I guess that JO he is what he is. Oh well.

The most depressing thing in the whole preview?


The Pacers have been outscored by 71 points with Jamaal Tinsley on the floor.

imawhat
11-16-2006, 09:42 PM
His low post game IMO has looked horrible this season - his shot gets blocked again and again. He's been much more effective running pick and pops.

If the Pacers to accomodate JO and get him the ball more in the low post, that would slow down and stagnate the offense.



I agree but I wonder how much of that was because of the sprained ankle. It happened with Okaefor (sp), but he's the exception to all of his other defenders. He's quick enough to go around his opponent, strong enough to muscle, or savvy enough to use his feet. One of those could work against just about anyone.


And, if you remember in late 2001/early 2002, Jermaine played what, imo, was easily his best offensive basketball. He played in the low post, and it wasn't a stagnant offense.

imawhat
11-16-2006, 09:44 PM
OK, after reading that, it doesn't sound SO bad.


Not as bad as one of the Star writers wants it to sound.

Los Angeles
11-16-2006, 09:46 PM
Not as bad as one of the Star writers wants it to sound.

In the past, it never would have been mentioned in the first place, so I'll still give Wells credit here. I don't think his report was inaccurate.

BlueNGold
11-16-2006, 09:54 PM
This might shed some light on the discussion

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_061117.html

OK, let's assume JO would just like to get the ball in the low post and not 15 feet out. His low post game IMO has looked horrible this season - his shot gets blocked again and again. He's been much more effective running pick and pops.

If the Pacers to accomodate JO and get him the ball more in the low post, that would slow down and stagnate the offense.

JO looks bad in the post partially because of the game plan and partially because of his physical transformation. His focus simply has not been on building strength, it has been aerobic in nature. Less weight and brute strength is not a good combination if you want to post up. It is, however, a good combination if you want to use JO as he is now being used. This physical transformation is also part of the reason he is not able to keep position for rebounding.

Even last year, "pound it into JO" often was not the answer. Everybody knows all you need to do to stop him is get physical. Now it's just easier.

imawhat
11-16-2006, 09:55 PM
It isn't inaccurate, but it's aside from the point. There's a reason the door was closed in that meeting, just like there's a reason accurate reports of Bird/Walsh's draft-day dealings aren't printed. He isn't getting any credit from me for reporting private discussions.

It's about digging dirt for this guy, not objectivity. Read his "report" after when we win by 20. It's never going to change for him.

Unclebuck
11-16-2006, 10:25 PM
Did anyone else hear Al on WIBC about 20 minutes ago. He said that there was a lot less tension at practice today because JO got some things off his chest last night.

What in the world does that mean

Doug
11-16-2006, 10:26 PM
Let's give this team a few more months to figure out their identity before we reach judgment on the first (of many) animated discussions.

Patience.

That's almost exactly what I'd say to JO.

Let's give this team a few more months to figure out their identity before we reach judgment on how many and where your touches should be.

Patience.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 10:49 PM
Individually, O'Neal wants to move away from the perimeter and into the post in hopes of shaking a 13-of-45 shooting slump in the last three games. O'Neal has totaled four free-throw attempts in that span while averaging just 9.7 points.

"I'm a post-up player," O'Neal said. "I want to be able to mix it up more and get the ball in the low post and put these teams in foul trouble. In the previous six or seven games I've been pretty much on the perimeter. That's one of the things I've been disappointed in about myself. Defensively, I think things are going good for me but offensively this team needs me to score and I need to be a little bit more aggressive in the low box area."

As for the postgame meeting in Boston, the key parties involved shrugged it off.

Carlisle described it as "a conversation" and not "a yelling match as portrayed by some members of the media."

O'Neal said he felt "the need to vent a little bit" after a frustrating loss.

"It's not a negative. It's a positive," O'Neal said. "In order to achieve the goal we want to achieve, especially a guy in my position, you've got to be willing to state your opinion. Whether you agree or not at the end of the day, you have to figure that out. But at the end of the day last night we agreed things needed to be altered a little bit in our approach and we walked away from it."

I've got no problem with this. Rick has over-compensated away from things that work, and we're not playing well at all with JO on the perimeter. I'd like to think Rick could figure that out on his own, but he seems a bit dense to me.

ALF68
11-16-2006, 10:51 PM
Did anyone else hear Al on WIBC about 20 minutes ago. He said that there was a lot less tension at practice today because JO got some things off his chest last night.

What in the world does that mean

It means that the inmates are once again running the show.

sweabs
11-16-2006, 11:37 PM
Did anyone else hear Al on WIBC about 20 minutes ago. He said that there was a lot less tension at practice today because JO got some things off his chest last night.

What in the world does that mean
I'm not entirely sure how we should take that comment.

What could have possibly been the cause of tension during practice, that could be resolved during a sit-down with Rick & Larry? I'm inclined to believe that it has something to do with the plays we run. Maybe Jermaine realized he's only at a 15ppg average? Oh no!

madison
11-17-2006, 01:07 AM
Hey, guys. This is NOT a very talented team. I'm not saying none of the players have talent, but the fact is, the TEAM is not very talented. We don't do the things that talented TEAMS do. We're not a good defensive unit, we don't block out, just the oldest guy on the squad moves without the ball, and almost no one takes care of the ball.

IMO, we're in a rebuilding phase, even though the front office won't say so outright. It will be a couple more seasons before we have a competitive team (defined as playing in the Eastern Finals).

Our needs are pretty obvious. We don't have a quality point guard. We don't have a real SG and we're playing a 6'8" 'shooting' forward at C. Our biggest and strongest starter isn't "comfortable" playing offense under the basket, and our biggest player on the bench (Dave the college boy), hasn't learned basics like blocking out nor playing defense with his feet. It will take at least two more seasons before we can fix more then two of these problems.

Meanwhile, take pleasure in watching our younger players develop. Enjoy the occasional opportunities to see the new NBA standouts like Lebron and Wade. And, be thankful we play in the East where 500 ball will get you into the playoffs so we can showcase our franchise on ESPN at least once a year.

3rdStrike
11-17-2006, 01:47 AM
Geez, noone is talking about Bird's comments regarding the Celtics players. Seems Delonte would be a perfect fit here, though outside of Jeff Foster I dunno who the Celts would want in return (maybe Foster would be enough?).

I'm a Jermaine O'Neal fan, but he needs to shut up and perform. Lead by example and pass the ball if you're shooting 33%.

Also, when are they going to open up the offense for Granger to get involved more? And Marshall, for that matter, but Granger taking 5 shots in an entire game is not good.

Arcadian
11-17-2006, 02:43 AM
I can't believe that we have a franchise player and we don't know where to get him the ball. Either we should design the team around him and play to his strengths, whatever they may be, or trade him.

I hear so much talk that we should compensate for the strengths and weakness of a back up point guard, when really what we should be doing is building the team around our max player, letting him play his game or decide that he is not our franchise player and trade him asp.

Seed
11-17-2006, 02:53 AM
No, individual plus/ minus is influenced by many, many other factors (such as who else is on the court.)
Every stat is influenced by that. So none of the stats count?



For example, JO's high (relative) season-to-date +/- is affected becasue he didn't play at all in the Washington blowout.
That's an argument against relying on too few games when considering the data. This is not an agrgument against the stat itself.



I can't find the Celtics game +/-, but I think you're referring to a player that got most of his minutes after the damage was done and then, along with our scrubs and against Boston's scrubs, we actually chipped into the deficit a little bit. That would certainly not imply that the scrub deserves a large spot in the rotation to the detriment of the regular player.
Again, this is reffering to a single game, while the stat is accumulative.

Finally, Do you think DA, JO, Danny are our best +- performers at the moment just by plain luck? I don't think so.

ABADays
11-17-2006, 03:14 AM
I can't believe that we have a franchise player and we don't know where to get him the ball.

Off all the "franchise" players I've seen during my lifetime, JO is not one of them.

Arcadian
11-17-2006, 04:35 AM
I thought about putting it into quotes. Generally players aren't considered franchise players until they win multiple championships, retire or still on their rookie contract.

Pitons
11-17-2006, 04:55 AM
No, individual plus/ minus is influenced by many, many other factors (such as who else is on the court.)

Five man plus/ minus is meaningful, individual plus/ minus has a number of significant flaws.

For example, JO's high (relative) season-to-date +/- is affected becasue he didn't play at all in the Washington blowout. Was JO's absense, alone, the reason we lost by a bazillion points?

I can't find the Celtics game +/-, but I think you're referring to a player that got most of his minutes after the damage was done and then, along with our scrubs and against Boston's scrubs, we actually chipped into the deficit a little bit. That would certainly not imply that the scrub deserves a large spot in the rotation to the detriment of the regular player.

Not every time Saras or other "scrub" plays there are no Pierce or other "not scrub" on the court. But let's say yes - "not scrubs" play against "not scrubs" and "scrubs" play against "scrubs".

So when Saras with other "scrubs" play against other teams "scrubs", the team somehow usually cempetes. His +/- with Boston was +2. His +/- is +11 overall.

And when for example Tinsley was on the court with other "not scrubs", the team against other teams "not scrubs" didn't even compete. His +/- stat was -28. And he has the lowest +/- on the team -71. Doesn't it mean that when Tinsley was on the court, the team usually looked horrible (team average -28)?

And I don't say that Saras would play better if he would play instead of Tinsley. But I see only one thing - when Tinsley is on the floor, the team usually doesn't compete with others.

But nobody talks about how Tinsley played bad in Boston (Did you see 1 of his turnovers? That could be the turnover of the year. Did you see some of his shots from desperate situations created only by himself?). Everybody only sees how Saras or Foster are bad. Though they with other "scrubs" usually compete while some of our starters can't compete with other teams starters yet.

So where is the problem? Bench which competes with other teams bench or some starters, who can't do that with other teams starters?

Pitons
11-17-2006, 05:39 AM
OK, after reading that, it doesn't sound SO bad. We thought JO would be able to revert to JO the younger, but I guess that JO he is what he is. Oh well.

The most depressing thing in the whole preview?

"The Pacers have been outscored by 71 points with Jamaal Tinsley on the floor."

If it was Jasikevicius, there would be 10 threads already about how he *****.


Edit: Jasikevicius must be 3 times better than others to have a chance to be treated equally. I call it prejudice.

D-BONE
11-17-2006, 06:49 AM
JO may want the ball in the low post more, but I am not sure he's actually more effective there than the way he's been utilized so far this year.

Whatever the case, I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans as far as the team's development. I don't think we'll be significantly better just b/c JO gets more of his shots on the block. This sounds more like a JO thing than a team thing to me.

Fine if he wants to voice his opinion on it but a rather cosmetic thing in the big picture. Doesn't change the fact of who he's playing with or the continuing tranformation of the group as a whole. I might go so far as to say Al is equally as good or better than JO as a post up threat now days.

Alpolloloco
11-17-2006, 08:17 AM
Not every time Saras or other "scrub" plays there are no Pierce or other "not scrub" on the court. But let's say yes - "not scrubs" play against "not scrubs" and "scrubs" play against "scrubs".

So when Saras with other "scrubs" play against other teams "scrubs", the team somehow usually cempetes. His +/- with Boston was +2. His +/- is +11 overall.

And when for example Tinsley was on the court with other "not scrubs", the team against other teams "not scrubs" didn't even compete. His +/- stat was -28. And he has the lowest +/- on the team -71. Doesn't it mean that when Tinsley was on the court, the team usually looked horrible (team average -28)?

And I don't say that Saras would play better if he would play instead of Tinsley. But I see only one thing - when Tinsley is on the floor, the team usually doesn't compete with others.

But nobody talks about how Tinsley played bad in Boston (Did you see 1 of his turnovers? That could be the turnover of the year. Did you see some of his shots from desperate situations created only by himself?). Everybody only sees how Saras or Foster are bad. Though they with other "scrubs" usually compete while some of our starters can't compete with other teams starters yet.

So where is the problem? Bench which competes with other teams bench or some starters, who can't do that with other teams starters?

hear hear

Alpolloloco
11-17-2006, 08:19 AM
"The Pacers have been outscored by 71 points with Jamaal Tinsley on the floor."

If it was Jasikevicius, there would be 10 threads already about how he *****.

YEAH

able
11-17-2006, 09:07 AM
"JO Needs to get into the paint more, that's where his strengths lay"

"JO needs to play more in the low post, he can wreck that team on his own there, I wonder why he is not playing lower"


Want to know who these quotes are from ?


Slick Leonard

cheers

Speed
11-17-2006, 09:09 AM
JO may want the ball in the low post more, but I am not sure he's actually more effective there than the way he's been utilized so far this year.

I didn't get this either, yes he needs to draw fouls, yes he needs to utilized his quickness and athleticism, but there was about 5 low post shots I can remember against Boston 2 got stuffed in his face and 3 were altered or they would have been stuffed in his face. How can you say I need the ball in the low post more after shooting terrible in that Boston game. I appreciate a guy wanting to be the man, but um, what did he want 40 shots so he could make 5.

Olawakandi and freakin Kendrick Perkins made him look bad that night, hurt his feelings and he had to react defensive to save face, thats my take.

rexnom
11-17-2006, 10:18 AM
"JO Needs to get into the paint more, that's where his strengths lay"

"JO needs to play more in the low post, he can wreck that team on his own there, I wonder why he is not playing lower"


Want to know who these quotes are from ?


Slick Leonard

cheers
Thank you.

JO is our franchise guy. We are so underappreciating him. I can't believe this. We have one of few dominant big men in the league and he can never seem to do right with some of you. I am sure that in every game thread you will find someone yelling out "why is JO taking so many jumpers!" or "JO needs to get to the line more!" Well...JO is trying to fix that...he is the leader of this team after alll (as well as its most effective player).

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 11:02 AM
Euro friends,

We've had numerous discussions at PD of the pitfalls of individual player +/- (especially the one as reported by Pacers.com) over the years.

I even built a database to track five-man +/- on here a few seasons ago (I think a lot of that was "lost in the fire" however.) Since then, 82games.com has signficantly expanded its use of five-man +/-, which is the ONLY meaningful basketball stat in my opinion (the only time I look at a box score is to see if there is numerical evidence to corroborate something I've observed during a game, or I'll glance at the box-score on my way to the offical play-by-play).

I'd love to take the time to pick apart individual +/- on an item by item basis, but I just don't have time to do it again.

Unclebuck
11-17-2006, 11:10 AM
I'm not bashing anyone, but I must admit I've lost a lot of faith in JO's ability to be successful in the low post. I like when he faces up and drives to the basket, or when he gets an open 12 footer on a pick and pop. Yes post up some, but that IMO should only be about 1/3 of his attempts. He and the coaches need to mix it up and how and where he gets the ball and then he needs to change his tactics after he gets the ball.

As soon as JO shoots the ball I can with about 80% certainly know if the balls going in or not. If he fades on his jump shot the ball will hit the front of the rim, if he doesn't go up fast and strong on his turnaround, he'll get his shot blocked.

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 11:26 AM
I like JO better in the low post when he's using speed, or speed and power. But we've seen that he's not as good at just bowling over defenders, like the other O'Neal.

That's why, IMO, he lost a little bit of weight. Not so that Rick could use him on the wing as if he's Rik Smits redux. And that's what they've been doing.

He's damned if he says anything (he's just been selfish) and damned if he doesn't (he's playing soft). Rick put him in a no-win situation, as far as Pacers Digest PR goes.

Give him a break.

Seed
11-17-2006, 11:56 AM
There are two things about JO, I've been thinking for a long time:

1. I think he's the kind of player who needs a 'dirty worker' in the post beside him. JO is not a rebounding machine. You need to pair him with a PF/center who is an excellent defender & rebounder. A beast in the paint. That's why I've been saying in the summer we need to get Ben Wallace here. That was a one time opportunity. :(
It might sound crazy, but considering our roster, I think it would be a nice try to pair him with Baston, and tell Maceo to concentrate on the defensive tasks. This is a low post that is a defensive threat to anyone, except maybe against a team with big men in both positions.

2. JO has aspirations to be a leader both on and out of court, but its quite obvious after these few last years that he is not dominant enough in the locker room. By enough, I'm referring to the ability to get his team to play consistently as a team. Each time the guys play for each other we are looking like a solid playoff team. :bowdown: But they just can't seem to :censored: keep it up. This lack of consistency strikes me as a clear lack of locker room leadership. This is also a responsibility of the coach of course.

Pitons
11-17-2006, 12:30 PM
Euro friends,

We've had numerous discussions at PD of the pitfalls of individual player +/- (especially the one as reported by Pacers.com) over the years.

I even built a database to track five-man +/- on here a few seasons ago (I think a lot of that was "lost in the fire" however.) Since then, 82games.com has signficantly expanded its use of five-man +/-, which is the ONLY meaningful basketball stat in my opinion (the only time I look at a box score is to see if there is numerical evidence to corroborate something I've observed during a game, or I'll glance at the box-score on my way to the offical play-by-play).

I'd love to take the time to pick apart individual +/- on an item by item basis, but I just don't have time to do it again.

I glance at Pacers Top Five-Man Floor Units (http://www.82games.com/0607/0607IND2.HTM) and our first unit (plays 55 % of all time) Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-O'Neal isn't performing well yet (42,8 % wins (3/4)). Other two units Tinsley-Daniels-Jackson-Harrington-O'Neal (17 min) and Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-O'Neal-Foster even worse (14 min) (25 % wins each (1/3). Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-Foster - 0 % wins (0/2) (9 minutes of play).

That's our main units which usually fight against main other teams units. That's the top force of our team.

Other units get to play only from 6 minutes to 8.

The most effective units are Jasikevicius-Marshall-Powell-Granger-Harrison (8 min) and Armstrong-Jasikevicius-Daniels-Harrington-Harrison (6 min) with one win and no losses each. Then Armstrong-Daniels-Jackson-O'Neal-Foster unit - 2 W 1 L (8 min). Then Tinsley-Daniels-Jackson-O'Neal-Foster (8 min) and Jasikevicius-Daniels-Marshall-Harrington-Foster (8 min) (1/1) and Armstrong-Jasikevicius-Daniels-Harrington-Foster (1/3 7 min).

Wins = number of games a unit outscored its opponents while on the court
Losses = number of games a unit was outscored by its opponents while on the court


So I say our top units definitely aren't performing well yet. They should because they play the longest time and should feel each other better (should be better teamwork). You can't expect bench units who usually play against other teams bench to do miracles in 7 minutes.

And I think that players +/- is useful also. That don't necessary mean if one player is better than other in the team, but it shows how the team performs at the moment he's on the floor in different units. Yes, for example if he has +10 in one unit in same playing time and - 10 in same time in other in one game, his +/- will be 0. While units +/- shows one units effectiveness (but in that unit play 5 players and one is more effective than others and plays better, but +/- is the average of all players in that unit. There have to be each players deep analysis how well they performed in the unit, to find out who performs best and who worst and maybe there's a need to change one player let's say and this unit will be even more effective), players +/- shows effectiveness in different units overall. That's like to take out a player from all the units he played and see how he's performed with all those units relatively.



There have to be each players analysis in each unit to find out in which units the player plays better and also what units with him play better and with what players we can make the most effective units. Players and units +/- alone don't tell us very much.

waxman
11-17-2006, 12:32 PM
JO can still be one of the top post players... he seems to be struggling a little with footwork. I think he's gotten called for a travel at least once every game when he's in a back to the basket situation. He tends to take a little bunny hop as he goes into a move...which he used to get away with, but they're calling him early this year and i think its gotten to his head a little.

Anyway he still has great low post skills.... he just needs a refresher course so to speak. He needs to swallow a little pride and work on some basic footwork, work some pump fakes in...up and unders...and finish with the left more which he does very well... then once he in a rhythm go to the jump shots and fadeaways.

3rdStrike
11-17-2006, 12:47 PM
Did you see 1 of his turnovers? That could be the turnover of the year.

Was it worse than Sarunas Jasikevicius inbounding off the backboard?

Pitons
11-17-2006, 12:49 PM
Was it worse than Sarunas Jasikevicius inbounding off the backboard?

But why Saras turnover is the turnover of the year and nobody sees Tinsley turnovers?

indygeezer
11-17-2006, 12:56 PM
Thank you.

JO is our franchise guy. We are so underappreciating him. I can't believe this. We have one of few dominant big men in the league and he can never seem to do right with some of you. I am sure that in every game thread you will find someone yelling out "why is JO taking so many jumpers!" or "JO needs to get to the line more!" Well...JO is trying to fix that...he is the leader of this team after alll (as well as its most effective player).


I'm sorry Rexnom but when is the last time JO "dominated" any player or team let alone being one of the most dominating in the league? I just don't see it at all. When I think of dominating PF's I think of McAdoo and Malone...not JO.

Bball
11-17-2006, 01:03 PM
After sleeping on this whole brouhaha I'm fine with ending the 'JO as a Pacer' era.

It's time to move on for both parties.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 01:14 PM
Well, there's obviously a reason coaches pick who starts and who doesn't.

Our starting lineup right now is not competing well against other team's starters. We don't even need a five-man +/- to figure that out, its painfully obvious.

Let's see, JO has missed a lot of games because of injury over the past two seasons, but he's still our best player so its worth the investment.

Al has missed a bunch of Pacers games over the past two seasons, because he was playing somewhere else. But he's still our second-best player so its worth the investment.

Danny is a second-year player and first year starter. There's still a long learning curve for Danny but its worth the investment.

Tinsley is far and away our best guard, even with his defensive limitations, but he's missed a bunch of games with injury over the past two years. Worth the investment unless we make a blockbuster trade to upgrade that position.

SJax is the only real "holdover" in the starting lineup, but he was brought here to be a sixth man and he's still learning how to not dominate the ball (which would actually be okay for him to do if he were playing with the second unit, but its not okay when he's playing with the starters).

Does anybody in their right mind really think things would be better right now? I'm doing backflips that we're 4-4 and showing signs of life, even if one of the early-season strategies (placing JO too far from the basket) is undermining our best player's effectiveness - rebounding, shot selection/ FG%, getting to the line, that type of stuff. You can look at JO's stat line and accuse him of "not hustling" or whatever. But its hard for a post player to "do his thing" when he's that far away from the basket.

This is going to be a long, painful process, especially for our key players. Advocating that a vastly inferior bench player get more minutes - to the detriment of the long process of building first-unit chemistry and cohesiveness, is outlandishly short-sighted and counterproductive.

The solution is not necessarily "play the bench more", or even "change the starting lineup" (although at some point a Marquis for SJax change might be warranted).

Rome was not built in a day. Neither was Greenwood. And I'm not even sure if we're trying to build Rome or Greenwood with this team, anyway.

If, at the All-Star break, our starters are still getting worked over this badly in terms of 5-man +/-, then we'll talk.

I swear, I might need a four-month vacation from PD (but not the Pacers). This team is going to require a LOT of patience. And they're also going to have to admit it when they make missteps along the way (such as playing JO too far from the basket).

But goodness gracious, P-A-T-I-E-N-C-E.

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 01:16 PM
After sleeping on this whole brouhaha I'm fine with ending the 'JO as a Pacer' era.

It's time to move on for both parties.

-Bball

My goodness, buddy,

You've taken over-reacting to a new extreme.

:buddies:

Pitons
11-17-2006, 01:33 PM
Well, there's obviously a reason coaches pick who starts and who doesn't.

Our starting lineup right now is not competing well against other team's starters. We don't even need a five-man +/- to figure that out, its painfully obvious.

Let's see, JO has missed a lot of games because of injury over the past two seasons, but he's still our best player so its worth the investment.

Al has missed a bunch of Pacers games over the past two seasons, because he was playing somewhere else. But he's still our second-best player so its worth the investment.

Danny is a second-year player and first year starter. There's still a long learning curve for Danny but its worth the investment.

Tinsley is far and away our best guard, even with his defensive limitations, but he's missed a bunch of games with injury over the past two years. Worth the investment unless we make a blockbuster trade to upgrade that position.

SJax is the only real "holdover" in the starting lineup, but he was brought here to be a sixth man and he's still learning how to not dominate the ball (which would actually be okay for him to do if he were playing with the second unit, but its not okay when he's playing with the starters).

Does anybody in their right mind really think things would be better right now? I'm doing backflips that we're 4-4 and showing signs of life, even if one of the early-season strategies (placing JO too far from the basket) is undermining our best player's effectiveness - rebounding, shot selection/ FG%, getting to the line, that type of stuff. You can look at JO's stat line and accuse him of "not hustling" or whatever. But its hard for a post player to "do his thing" when he's that far away from the basket.

This is going to be a long, painful process, especially for our key players. Advocating that a vastly inferior bench player get more minutes - to the detriment of the long process of building first-unit chemistry and cohesiveness, is outlandishly short-sighted and counterproductive.

The solution is not necessarily "play the bench more", or even "change the starting lineup" (although at some point a Marquis for SJax change might be warranted).

Rome was not built in a day. Neither was Greenwood. And I'm not even sure if we're trying to build Rome or Greenwood with this team, anyway.

If, at the All-Star break, our starters are still getting worked over this badly in terms of 5-man +/-, then we'll talk.

I swear, I might need a four-month vacation from PD (but not the Pacers). This team is going to require a LOT of patience. And they're also going to have to admit it when they make missteps along the way (such as playing JO too far from the basket).

But goodness gracious, P-A-T-I-E-N-C-E.

I realize that it needs time and so on and I hope our starters and others will play very well how I would like to see them, but as I see Saras or Foster are accused of bad performance, but not others who perform bad also and even much worse sometimes, I lost my patience and mentioned those +/-, which show that our main units aren't playing well, not talking about each players +/-. Those stats don't show us everything though, but it still means something imo.

imawhat
11-17-2006, 01:36 PM
Thank you.

JO is our franchise guy. We are so underappreciating him. I can't believe this. We have one of few dominant big men in the league and he can never seem to do right with some of you.


I think Jermaine's brought this all onto himself rather than us underappreciating. He's made little effort this season to establish good offensive position or to use his strengths, which is strange after all the working out he did in the offseason.

I think he'll always have issues because he's sensitive, and as long as he's the team leader they'll have to cater to his needs, which they have done quite excessively.

I hope he does what he says, and works to get good position. It would make a crazy difference.

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 01:51 PM
I guess I don't see Saras and Foster being accused of bad performance. Or at least, they don't deserve to be accused of bad performance.

They aren't very good players. But they're not performing badly.

Foster is the typical one-trick-pony. He's a hustle player, but he offers little in terms of offensive help. And while he offers defensive help, it comes with a price - he's a lousy post defender, forcing JO or someone else to do the dirty work. Many of the Foster critics (myself included) don't dislike Foster as much as we dislike what Foster does to JO. The solution isn't to get Foster more minutes, its to find the right way to use him in order to maximize his production. Rick's infatuation with Foster is greatly exaggerated around here - even when Foster started Rick kept a tight grip on his minutes, realizing that expanding Foster's minutes per game did not result in a better team performance. There's a bit of "calculus" invovled because there's a curve - to get the maximum performance without maximizing his minutes.

Saras is interesting, he seems to have the uncanny ability this season to make a number of high-profile good and high-profile bad plays.

Unfortunately for Saras, his fans (many of which came here before you) did him such a disservice by over-hyping what he's actually capable of doing and there's a still a lot of backlash. Does Saras deserve it? No. (Do some of his more-trolling fans deserve it? I don't know.) But there always seems to be a new wave of reinforcements coming in here to tell us that Saras is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and our coaches are too stupid to figure it out, and Indiana basketball fans are too stupid to figure it out. Or words to that effect. And the fact continues to be that Saras played his way to the third-string last year, and he seems to be about to fall behind Orien Greene (and Darrell Armstrong) in the rotation this year (which would be fourth-string, if my math is correct). Outside of hitting his shot better, he seems to be even worse at the basics of the PG position (and I've noticed that a large percentage of Saras' minutes have come at SG again, which is sure to infuriate his fans but he's just not an NBA-caliber PG.)

Bball
11-17-2006, 01:53 PM
My goodness, buddy,

You've taken over-reacting to a new extreme.

:buddies:

The only heated discussion JO should've had following the Celtics game should've involved himself and a mirror.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 01:54 PM
The same applies for Rick Carlisle for the boneheaded gameplan that took JO away from the paint in the first place.

EDIT - for all you know, Bird called them both into the office to yell at each of them for this mess.

sweabs
11-17-2006, 02:06 PM
The same applies for Rick Carlisle for the boneheaded gameplan that took JO away from the paint in the first place.
I'm with Bball on this one, as I usually am when it comes to JO.

But here's the problem. Even when Jermaine goes down to the low post, he still plays as if he's a shooting guard. Jermaine is one of the least physical big-men out there when it comes to playing close to the basket. I will admit, defensively, he does a much better job of contesting and blocking shots which proves that he is not afraid of some contact. On the offensive end, however, he doesn't like people touching him or getting into his grill.

When he gets the ball in the low post, we're going to see him do what he loves to do most. A couple bangs to feel out his defender - turn - fade away jump shot. Sure, he's playing closer to the basket...but it's not like he's doing much outside of jump shooting.

It's not difficult to see why Jermaine wants to retreat back to the low-post. Based on statistics (which I believe JO over-values), he has been most successful in the slow-it-down, JO-ball. All of a sudden, his statistics aren't as good this year and it seems to me like he wants to go back to his comfort zone...a place where he felt most comfortable. What about the rest of the team?

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 02:14 PM
He's not asking to slow it down.

He's saying, when we're in the halfcourt, give me the ball where I play the best. That's all. You guys have turned this into a bunch of things it is not.

In what world is it possibly wrong for him to make that request? He IS the team's #1 option, whether we like it or not. He should get the ball in his comfort zone.

Can somebody find a youtube video of JO in the post during prior to the last two seasons. JO's a damn good post player offensively. I don't believe that Rick has completely destroyed that, but the longer Rick is here the more I wonder if firing Isiah and replacing him and Mark Aguirre with Rick and no big-man coach really was a good idea or not.

For all of Isiah's flaws, (and I can list about 397,209,947 of them) he seemed to understand how to use JO better than Rick does.

Pitons
11-17-2006, 02:29 PM
They aren't very good players. But they're not performing badly.

I agree. But that's why they don't get very much money. Saras was brought to be a backup. And that's fair.
And we all know stories, when players in one team play better, in other worse. The players performance depends on his abilities, negatives and for what team he plays, how he fits in there.


Unfortunately for Saras, his fans (many of which came here before you) did him such a disservice by over-hyping what he's actually capable of doing and there's a still a lot of backlash. Does Saras deserve it? No. (Do some of his more-trolling fans deserve it? I don't know.) But there always seems to be a new wave of reinforcements coming in here to tell us that Saras is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and our coaches are too stupid to figure it out, and Indiana basketball fans are too stupid to figure it out. Or words to that effect.

:laugh:. Now I understand (I realize PD was like a war field, and some of the posters negative opinions about Saras is like a natural reaction against Saras praisers).


And the fact continues to be that Saras played his way to the third-string last year, and he seems to be about to fall behind Orien Greene (and Darrell Armstrong) in the rotation this year (which would be fourth-string, if my math is correct). Outside of hitting his shot better, he seems to be even worse at the basics of the PG position (and I've noticed that a large percentage of Saras' minutes have come at SG again, which is sure to infuriate his fans but he's just not an NBA-caliber PG.)

Yes, I see how he gets the ball upcourt, passes and goes to the corner and that's all. But also yesterday I didn't see team ball at all. Who gets the ball - 1-2 passes - shoots from whatever position. And Saras, when he gets the ball rare, he shoots too, and there are no help, it's like everybody have to play one on one usually. Too many individual plays imo. Defensive rebounding is awful, not much opportunities for fast points. And that play don't fit for Saras.
He isn't performing well also not playing much and maybe in other team he would fit better I don't know but yes, maybe he isn't an NBA caliber PG. There are not enough evidence to say he is or is not NBA caliber. Not Pacers caliber - probably yes.

imawhat
11-17-2006, 02:29 PM
The same applies for Rick Carlisle for the boneheaded gameplan that took JO away from the paint in the first place.


Yeah, Rick has done little to establish JO down low.

rushmore
11-17-2006, 02:46 PM
He's not asking to slow it down.

He's saying, when we're in the halfcourt, give me the ball where I play the best. That's all. You guys have turned this into a bunch of things it is not.

In what world is it possibly wrong for him to make that request? He IS the team's #1 option, whether we like it or not. He should get the ball in his comfort zone.

Can somebody find a youtube video of JO in the post during prior to the last two seasons. JO's a damn good post player offensively. I don't believe that Rick has completely destroyed that, but the longer Rick is here the more I wonder if firing Isiah and replacing him and Mark Aguirre with Rick and no big-man coach really was a good idea or not.

For all of Isiah's flaws, (and I can list about 397,209,947 of them) he seemed to understand how to use JO better than Rick does.


I agree 100%. JO progressed more in the two and a half years under Isiah than his three years under Rick. In fact, I think the mvp candidate Jermaine during the 61 win season(I'm still waiting for the banner, by the way) was more of a product of Isiah's development than Rick's coaching. I think in the last three years we've actually seen Jermaine regress. Yes, he's developed a better 8-10 foot shot, his passing game has gotten a lot better, and he's gotten smarter about his ability to block shots, but he's not the same player who could dominate a game, or change the game for the better.

All of this may be due to the disaster of the last two years and the toll it's taken on him, or the pressures of him trying to be "the man", or the fact that tptb haven't been developing him well and Jermaine hasn't taken it upon himself to develop on his own. He has turned into a 7 foot, sf with above average defensive skills, and he's moved away from being a dominator in the paint. I think that was most evident in the Chicago loss last week. He couldn't get a spot-shot or turn around jumper off on Wallace, but he also couldn't take it right at Wallace either. He's become weak in the post and around the basket offensively, but his mid-range game has only improved marginally.

I'd love to eat my words though...

able
11-17-2006, 02:51 PM
It seems this board has a number of posters who are looking into taking over from Oliver Stone & Co if we are to read into their theories.

In the end it all however boils down to "bash the star" which is so easy, he either makes to much money or doesn't work hard enough, or there are a legion of other unsubstantiated ideologies thrown at it/him.


Upon the remarks that JO played in the post against Boston, I decided to watch the game once more up close to see if I could find JO in the post, getting the ball and making a move.

nope.

he gets into the post ONCE on his own move and indeed got blocked, because he had 3 defenders around him and no one to get the ball to.

I saw JO defend 4 on 1 3 times, and stop them all 3 times only to see on two occasions that his teammates then not catching the ball but tipping it to the Boston players. the only time it went "right" was when Danny got involved and hustled the ball out of bounds to Boston.

I saw Wally definitely plain afraid to get into the paint, after being stuffed 3 tiems in a row.
I saw PP decide that the paint was not his area, and I saw Perkins try it a few times, only to get pulled after he was stuffed twice in a row.

What I saw in the minutes JO played was no opponent ready to challenge him in the paint, it was his territory, the only times they scored in the paint were when JO was out or twice when he was taking over defense from Jax or Al who "forgot" to guard their man.

What i saw on offense was a JO that was constantly drawing double and tripple teams, finding the cutter if there was one, but alway with no exception , getting the ball on the top of the key.

I saw a good passing JO, didn't those same people complain last year he couldn't pass?

I saw him make moves that ended in a score, once he went down low with the ball himself.

I saw Al and Jax getting the ball and shoot, Al didn't work on defense, got into trouble several time and hardly did any rebounding.

I saw a player that is one of the best in the game today, staying with a gameplan drawn up by his coach, I saw him hustle every minute of the game, I saw him work hard, very hard.
I saw other players breaking offensive sets clearly severaL times to take their own chances, leaving guys like JT and JO flustered awaiting on the court.

I saw every reason why he went to Rick to vent.

Then I listened to the Carlisle show, and heard Rick explain that it is not special, strange or something else that this happened, that he understood the frustration and that it was good, and that it was JO's job (or at least part of) as leader of the team to do these things.

I heard the Boston tv crew say what JO said after the game all during the game, while funny enough when I listened to Slick and Mark, Slick was saying the exact same.


But yeah I agree; let's get rid of one of the best (if not THE best) players the Pacers ever had in their NBA days.

At least we can go back to saying we're young, un-experienced, ahve the wrong coach, need a vet and only the good lord knows what more we can come up with.

Better still, we already have JO's replacement in Al and Baston and then we can play Harrison at C, wo do we fear, championship here we come!

imawhat
11-17-2006, 03:18 PM
In the end it all however boils down to "bash the star" which is so easy, he either makes to much money or doesn't work hard enough, or there are a legion of other unsubstantiated ideologies thrown at it/him.

I don't really see anyone bashing him for making too much money, but there is criticism from me about his effort. Not bashing though.




I saw JO defend 4 on 1 3 times, and stop them all 3 times only to see on two occasions that his teammates then not catching the ball but tipping it to the Boston players. the only time it went "right" was when Danny got involved and hustled the ball out of bounds to Boston.

It's not a stop, imo, until we regain possession, but it's hard for Jermaine to be expected to get stops in those situations. His teammates need to get back.


I saw Wally definitely plain afraid to get into the paint, after being stuffed 3 tiems in a row.
I saw PP decide that the paint was not his area, and I saw Perkins try it a few times, only to get pulled after he was stuffed twice in a row.

Definitely true.


What I saw in the minutes JO played was no opponent ready to challenge him in the paint, it was his territory, the only times they scored in the paint were when JO was out or twice when he was taking over defense from Jax or Al who "forgot" to guard their man.

There were quite a few plays where this happened; more than two. They were consistently getting into the paint by the third quarter. When Jermaine was taken out it stopped happening and when he came back in started happening on the first play. It's not Jermaine's fault that we couldn't stop dribble penetration when he was in, coincidentally, but he was responsible for watching the ball as opposed to attempting to block the shot at times or box out.



What i saw on offense was a JO that was constantly drawing double and tripple teams, finding the cutter if there was one, but alway with no exception , getting the ball on the top of the key.

I saw Jermaine standing around and not getting to his screens quick enough when he decided to move.


I saw a good passing JO, didn't those same people complain last year he couldn't pass?

Jermaine's a good passer and he does a good job looking for his teammates.


Al didn't work on defense, got into trouble several time and hardly did any rebounding.

Al was the only player busting his a** on most every play. Jermaine finished with 12 rebounds, which nearly half came in the first half of the first quarter, Al finished with 6. So they were basically tied after the first stretch.


I saw him hustle every minute of the game, I saw him work hard, very hard.

I wish I could say that, but I can't. I saw him give up on a couple of plays, just flat out give up. Which is why I think he went out in the third quarter. I want Jermaine to succeed more than anyone on the team, but I can't say he's free of criticism.

ALF68
11-17-2006, 03:19 PM
I guess I don't see Saras and Foster being accused of bad performance. Or at least, they don't deserve to be accused of bad performance.

They aren't very good players. But they're not performing badly.

Foster is the typical one-trick-pony. He's a hustle player, but he offers little in terms of offensive help. And while he offers defensive help, it comes with a price - he's a lousy post defender, forcing JO or someone else to do the dirty work. Many of the Foster critics (myself included) don't dislike Foster as much as we dislike what Foster does to JO. The solution isn't to get Foster more minutes, its to find the right way to use him in order to maximize his production. Rick's infatuation with Foster is greatly exaggerated around here - even when Foster started Rick kept a tight grip on his minutes, realizing that expanding Foster's minutes per game did not result in a better team performance. There's a bit of "calculus" invovled because there's a curve - to get the maximum performance without maximizing his minutes.

Saras is interesting, he seems to have the uncanny ability this season to make a number of high-profile good and high-profile bad plays.

Unfortunately for Saras, his fans (many of which came here before you) did him such a disservice by over-hyping what he's actually capable of doing and there's a still a lot of backlash. Does Saras deserve it? No. (Do some of his more-trolling fans deserve it? I don't know.) But there always seems to be a new wave of reinforcements coming in here to tell us that Saras is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and our coaches are too stupid to figure it out, and Indiana basketball fans are too stupid to figure it out. Or words to that effect. And the fact continues to be that Saras played his way to the third-string last year, and he seems to be about to fall behind Orien Greene (and Darrell Armstrong) in the rotation this year (which would be fourth-string, if my math is correct). Outside of hitting his shot better, he seems to be even worse at the basics of the PG position (and I've noticed that a large percentage of Saras' minutes have come at SG again, which is sure to infuriate his fans but he's just not an NBA-caliber PG.)


I see that you have taken the Seth approach,take a thread about JO and turn it into a Foster, Sars bashfest.

bulldog
11-17-2006, 03:19 PM
Unfortunately for Saras, his fans (many of which came here before you) did him such a disservice by over-hyping what he's actually capable of doing and there's a still a lot of backlash.

Are Jax's and JO's fanboys just as bad? I see them here all the time. Why don't they inspire the same kind of hatred Saras' fanboys do?

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 03:25 PM
I see that you have taken the Seth approach,take a thread about JO and turn it into a Foster, Sars bashfest.

I did nothing of the sort.

I was responding to (admittedly off-topic) +/- comments related to Saras and Foster that were posted by others.

I didn't start it. But I will finish it. :-p

BTW, did you ever elaborate on this,



Yeah let's put the loss on Sars and Foster, your agenda is not loss on me.

What agenda?

Please elaborate. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Because if you did, I missed it. And I'm waiting for you to better explain whatever it is you're trying to say.

Anthem
11-17-2006, 03:37 PM
Euro friends,

We've had numerous discussions at PD of the pitfalls of individual player +/- (especially the one as reported by Pacers.com) over the years.

I even built a database to track five-man +/- on here a few seasons ago (I think a lot of that was "lost in the fire" however.) Since then, 82games.com has signficantly expanded its use of five-man +/-, which is the ONLY meaningful basketball stat in my opinion (the only time I look at a box score is to see if there is numerical evidence to corroborate something I've observed during a game, or I'll glance at the box-score on my way to the offical play-by-play).
According to 82games, here are our 10 most effective lineups so far:

1. Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-O'Neal
2. Tinsley-Daniels-Jackson-Harrington-O'Neal
3. Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-O'Neal-Foster
4. Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-Foster
5. Tinsley-Daniels-Jackson-O'Neal-Foster
6. Armstrong-Daniels-Jackson-O'Neal-Foster
7. Jasikevicius-Marshall-Powell-Granger-Harrison
8. Armstrong-Jasikevicius-Daniels-Harrington-Foster
9. Jasikevicius-Daniels-Marshall-Harrington-Foster
10. Armstrong-Jasikevicius-Daniels-Harrington-Harrison

It's only 8 games, but that's the 5-man +/- at this time.

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Are Jax's and JO's fanboys just as bad? I see them here all the time. Why don't they inspire the same kind of hatred Saras' fanboys do?

This is not an official PD position, just my observations for whatever they are worth (probably not much.) And I'm rarely in the game threads, since I watch the games at a different time than most of you, so I suspect the worst of the SJax/JO fanboy stuff you may be referring to I haven't seen in the first place...

SJax - there are very few "fanboys" for SJax. With only a couple exceptions even the SJax fans have not continuously over-stated SJax's capabilities. Everyone, including most of his "fanboys" generally agrees that when he's asked, and when he's willing, to play the role of the third/ fourth option, or play with the second unit as the first option, that its best for both him individually and the team.

Besides, he's so fully entrenched as public-enemy #1 that its somewhat moot.

JO's "fanboys" are an interesting phenomena. Hell, I suppose some of you probably place me in that category. :shrug: He is a max player in the NBA because he earned it from 2001-2004. Maybe, with the injuries and Rick's coaching, he's not a max/ franchise player any more, and maybe he will get back to that level soon. None of us really know how its going to pan out. Do some fans overstate JO's capabilities? Yes. He's clearly not God, but I also think there's some satire/ sarcasm that gets missed (and perhaps that's also true from the pro-Saras crowd that gets lost in translation.)

Because JO is/ (was?) good enough to have earned a max contract, he is a lightning rod of criticism. Much of which falls under the "he's great, but he's not great enough" variety. I'd offer that certain JO-bashers, on the other hand, have taken a similar (bordering on trolling) stance that receives the backlash from the JO supporters (many of whom don't really fall into the "fanboy" classification.)

I don't know. That's just my opinion but if your point is, "Have the Saras fanboys done anything more than other fanboys to deserve this much controversy?" I'd give the answer of "Yes. And no." Re-read the offical Saras thread. There's an obnoxious amount of NBA-bashing, Indiana-fan bashing that the SJax fanboys, JO fanboys, and JO anti-fans don't subject the NBA fan, Indiana residents/ natives to.

For whatever reason, early on the Saras debates took a very personal turn. The fanboys took it personally when his on-court defeciencies were discussed, and fired back in a way that escalated the situation. And it turned into a vicious cycle.

But the JO-bashers, and JO "fanboys" have certainly been trolls at times, too.

Keeps it interesting around here, doesn't it? :D

storm1015
11-17-2006, 03:53 PM
I would be hesitant to put JO on the block like this was 2001-2003. JO isn't the same player and the NBA has changed since then. It seems JO is chasing his own ghost and thinks that is the best way to get better in a hurry.

He should get more touches down low, but I hope RC avoids the low post offense with only JO. Al and Jax need their touches down low to be effective as well.

The league has evolved and the drive and kick offenses are flourishing. We are trying to do something similar, but we aren't there yet. Putting Al and JO down low a lot clogs the lane and does not help penetration. That being said we don't have a lot of players that can get into the lane and be effective. Tinsley can penetrate but can't finish. Jackson hasn't found that part of his game in 2 years. Marquis is the only one doing a good job. Granger has the ability. So do we keep trying to get to a drive and kick offense or do we go back to what we know will work in spurts: JO and Al down low?

Until we can figure that out, we'll probably stay where we are. It is an issue the coaches and players will need to deal with unless DW and LB force their hand with player movement (to become more wing oriented). I'm sure that is part of what this "heated discussion" was about.

JO want the ball more down low and either RC or LB know that puts a cap on what NBA teams can do in this era.

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 03:59 PM
Storm,

Welcome aboard. Great post.

Mourning
11-17-2006, 04:32 PM
I can absolutely live with what JO is saying with regards to getting more action in the low post, however, I would preach a little balance aswell to prevent the throw-it-into-JO gameplan from parts of last year and the year before to get too dominant, while others on the perimeter get too passive.

But, yes, he needs to be used much more in the paint.

I'm with Jay on this that we should exercise a little more restraint on our patience, though as die-hard fans which we all are that is tough.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

ALF68
11-17-2006, 04:45 PM
I did nothing of the sort.

I was responding to (admittedly off-topic) +/- comments related to Saras and Foster that were posted by others.

I didn't start it. But I will finish it. :-p

BTW, did you ever elaborate on this,



Because if you did, I missed it. And I'm waiting for you to better explain whatever it is you're trying to say.
I regretably used too strong of a word when saying that the poster had an agenda, however if you take the time to read this posters message it is clear that he slants most of his posts in one direction and I will leave it up to the reader to be the judge of that.

ChicagoJ
11-17-2006, 04:52 PM
I regretably used too strong of a word when saying that the poster had an agenda, however if you take the time to read this posters message it is clear that he slants most of his posts in one direction and I will leave it up to the reader to be the judge of that.

Fair enough.

I've not noticed an agenda; but you have.

ajbry
11-17-2006, 06:30 PM
Are Jax's and JO's fanboys just as bad? I see them here all the time. Why don't they inspire the same kind of hatred Saras' fanboys do?

Speaking on behalf of Jack's fans, it's pretty simple. We are Pacers fans first and Jack fans second. Same with the JO fans. They are our favorite players on our favorite team, a common thing, I would say. Conversely, Sarunas fans are only Sarunas fans and have only been Pacers fans since last year and take little to no pride in the rest of the team.

No offense to Saras, but also, Jack and JO are proven good players in this league and they rightfully get more support - Saras is unproven and has not had nearly the NBA productivity.

Seed
11-17-2006, 07:02 PM
Conversely, Sarunas fans are only Sarunas fans and have only been Pacers fans since last year.
:hmm:

ajbry
11-17-2006, 08:01 PM
:hmm:

You get my point...

ALF68
11-17-2006, 09:41 PM
Speaking on behalf of Jack's fans, it's pretty simple. We are Pacers fans first and Jack fans second. Same with the JO fans. They are our favorite players on our favorite team, a common thing, I would say. Conversely, Sarunas fans are only Sarunas fans and have only been Pacers fans since last year and take little to no pride in the rest of the team.

No offense to Saras, but also, Jack and JO are proven good players in this league and they rightfully get more support - Saras is unproven and has not had nearly the NBA productivity.
Surely you are not saying that if your a Sarunas fan then you are not a Pacer fan. Let me tell you bub, I have been a Pacer fan since the very beginning and I am also a fan of Sars. I put the team first and individual players second so go back to the drawing board.

ajbry
11-17-2006, 09:46 PM
Congratulations.

I'm merely saying that the majority of Sarunas fans are basically following him wherever he ends up and they have no previous loyalty to the Pacers. I don't think anyone can doubt that.

Mourning
11-17-2006, 10:36 PM
Congratulations.

I'm merely saying that the majority of Sarunas fans are basically following him wherever he ends up and they have no previous loyalty to the Pacers. I don't think anyone can doubt that.

I don't care, they are here, deal with it. And from their perspective towards you, samething. And that they weren't Pacersfans before Sarunas came here doesn't mean they might have very well become Pacersfans after that. Nothing wrong with that as long as we can all, fans of whomever, relativate a little and put players and players capabilities in perspective and can respect other fans with other opinions, don't have to agree with one another, but you can respect each other without having to throw out snipets at each other.

:cheers:

Mourning :cool:

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 01:11 AM
I think their are five or six very vocal Saras fans that may fall into your category of Saras only fans, not necessarily Pacer fans.

I think there are scores of others who are Saras fans and were Pacers fans years before.

It doesn't mean a few obnoxious posters don't cause a problem. But don't fool yourself that true Pacers fans can't be Saras fans. There's a bunch of them.

P. S. I also think that we need to continue exploring Saras as a solution to our mailaise. He looked to be that solution in a couple of the first three games. The luggage injury was unfortunate, because he has not recovered from it.

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 01:14 AM
Regarding Mark Aguire, he was one of my alltime favorite post players.

I noticed a serious improvement when he started tutoring JO, and I noticed a significant regression when Aguire left.

Alpolloloco
11-18-2006, 06:49 AM
I'm a big Saras fan but was a Pacer fan long before joining the Saras bandwagon. Actually, I didn't know Saras accomplishments in Europe because, although I'm from Europe, I don't follow Euro Bball. But after the Pacers signed him I got interested in him (my basketball skills are pretty much the same as Saras) and I found out that we received a guy who could be the missing part on our team to get to the final step of getting a title.
I still think he can be that guy that is very valuable to the Pacers or any other NBA team. If he got traded eventually, which I don't hope, I will follow his whereabouts but will always remain a Pacer fan.

indygeezer
11-18-2006, 10:19 AM
Speaking on behalf of Jack's fans, it's pretty simple. We are Pacers fans first and Jack fans second. Same with the JO fans. They are our favorite players on our favorite team, a common thing, I would say. Conversely, Sarunas fans are only Sarunas fans and have only been Pacers fans since last year and take little to no pride in the rest of the team.

No offense to Saras, but also, Jack and JO are proven good players in this league and they rightfully get more support - Saras is unproven and has not had nearly the NBA productivity.

I nominate this for the dumbest comment of the year. (never said anything like that before). I'm a Saras fan. But have been a Pacer fan since ..oh, 1966 or 1967...lessee, when did they announce the formation of the team?? Anyway, long before either you or Saras were born. Don't make such chauvanistic comments.

Naptown_Seth
11-18-2006, 05:23 PM
Does this read,

JO said he WANTS MORE TOUCHES in the low post?

or,

JO said he wants more touches IN THE LOW POST?

Big difference, IMO.

I agree with #2, quite strongly, BTW. We've become a bit of a donut team and that's not necessary. JO in the low post is still our #1 play, but we need to see quick-hitters, off the ball movement, etc. Not a "stand around and watch JO play" offense. But also not a "oooh no, let's overreact and never use JO in the low post ever again" offense.

And, for the record, this sounds like nothing more than "growing pains" to me. Patience, everyone. Including JO and Rick.
QFMFingT

(taking QFT to a whole new level ;) )

They had rarely been running any plays that posted up JO. The Nets game actually looked different they added so many of them, and was still far from being the most run play.

Still waiting to get at least 15 games into the season. So far it's been as unsteady as you could have expected. At least half the time things look pretty good. That beats the 10% good the final month of last year's games showed (basically only things JO did).


Jay, I think the only thing we really typically disagree on is that you blame Rick (if I have read things right), where as I see most of the issues being of circumstance. You can't say Rick doesn't know how to use JO when it was Rick that had the 2nd best Pacers season ever (most wins, HC, lost to NBA champs in ECF) with 98 being a very close 3rd. 2000 of course is #1 since it was the only Finals appearance.

The last 2 years have been roster wrecks and have created real havoc on the playbook and consistancy. Clearly it shows. When I see the gameplans I see a coach trying to find clarity in the aftermath. He does bench Jack (people say he doesn't, but he just did), he does listen to players (tried to run last year too till if flopped, did go to JO plenty vs Nets), and he is trying to establish some consistancy of rotations and roles.

It's just that "how things have always been" can't become reality till enough time has passed to meet the "always been" part. The team has faced extreme roster turnover, plenty of new tools are in the box, and Rick is just starting to get a handle on what can be done with all of them. Of course it's going to be problematic.

I don't fault Rick, and I don't fault JO either. It's the process of sorting things out. If they were clear the team would already have been winning last year.

Really the 98-2K teams were also a product of plenty of struggles, like 2 ECF losses, then a 1st round upset, then no playoffs at all. They didn't just start at the top. I think this team can find its way as long as patience is the rule.




Fair enough.

I've not noticed an agenda; but you have.
Dillon got himself banned at Star (and came back as WhiteOne) for doing just what he did that you responded to with the above..."I'm not saying Seth is a racist, I'm just saying read what he says and that tells you all you need to know". Other posters would ask him to make his terms CLEAR, to plainly state his accusation (many, many times).

Guess what? Never happened. He just kept on his Karl Rove method:

"Just read, you can see what he means. I think we all know what he means by 'NBA athlete's body'."
"So you are saying he's racist?"
"No, I never said that, that's not my point at all?"
"So what is your point?"
"Just read the posts, it's all there."

Rinse, repeat. He's a troll. He race baits (pro-white) at the Star like there is no tomorrow, and not just in the Sports forums, and most definitely not just with me. I tuned him out once I realized his methods.

Of course that debate went just as far with Dillon. And on top of it he came back from his ban with the "interesting" name choice "WhiteOne", which in no way fueled the fire.

And now he's brought that joy to PD. :shakehead

EDIT - unless this poster is just the very unfortunate victim of name choice coincidence. If so then I strongly apologize for assuming you are the same person, but you addressed me in the exact same manner that this Star version did.

Naptown_Seth
11-18-2006, 05:54 PM
But why Saras turnover is the turnover of the year and nobody sees Tinsley turnovers?
Because he threw the ball in-bounds directly into the BACKBOARD!

How much plainer does it need to get. Don't make me rip this vid and post it because you don't want people turning it into a GIF to post everytime another Saras-only fan defends him on here.

I agree with Geezer that plenty of Saras fans were Pacers fans first, BUT the fact is that a bunch of new "fans" joined here and at the Star right after Saras joined the Pacers. I'm fine with that too, whatever makes you a fan of the TEAM. But it's not being a good Pacers fan to defend a player's actions when they hurt the team.

You don't see me talking up Tinsley's game this year. He's been way down and I've seen some poor turnovers (though forcing a pass into traffic isn't bad as much as its just trying to do too much). I considered the Nets game a freaking breakthrough for him and even that was well off the standard he set for himself 2 seasons ago around the brawl period (before and after).

I'm not ignoring his +/-, I think its an issue. I just don't think the team has a better option right now.

That crap stretch by Runi I just mentioned at the start of this thread was NOT WITH SCRUBS. Sarunas was on the court with the full starters (besides Tinsley) when he made 3 of his 4 awful plays (including the backboard thing). So enough with the circumstances, playing time, shot attempts and every other lame spin doctor angle. His +/- IMO would be hella worse than -75 that Tinsley has.

I'll admit that the Pacers need PG help and I'm concerned that Tins might not be turning it around like they need him too. Just don't force that into proof that Gill Jr (aka Saras) should start. I want the PG situation to get BETTER, not worse.


Jack's shot stinks, but at least the guy is one of the TOP 10 in NBA steals so far and is a top 10 assists guy among shooting guards. And his shot selection has greatly improved, as in the 5 to 1 ratio of shots in the paint to shots from the arc vs the Nets. He's trying to make the right plays.

That's not a blind defense of his game, it's just tempered by the fact that his positives have outweighed the negatives by a good amount. He can't make a bucket, but he's trying to find it. If he was going 0-6 on forced 3s every night, I'd be ripping him more. I said he got pulled DESERVEDLY in the first vs Boston. But he has to play bad before I mention it.

Plus didn't I just post in a different thread the fact that Saras takes MORE SHOTS PER MINUTE than Jack, Tins, Daniels and Armstrong. Okay, MORE. He's throwing it up all the time, he's not left as some side note to the offense.

This crap really gets me because it flies in the face of reality so badly. Sheesh, I was HUGE Cabbages fan in DEC 2005. It's plays like the other night that got me off that wagon.



So far at PD this season I have criticized every player except perhaps Daniels (and Rawle who hasn't played enough to get knocked much). I've also praised every player (including SarJas) when they have played well or made good choices.

indygeezer
11-19-2006, 12:04 AM
Because he threw the ball in-bounds directly into the BACKBOARD!

.

He's not the first player I've ever seen do that, not even the first NBA player.

Naptown_Seth
11-19-2006, 08:42 AM
He's not the first player I've ever seen do that, not even the first NBA player.
Perhaps, but I can't think of one, and the times it has happened it's been rare enough to take notice of I'm sure.

The response you quoted was of course to explain why Tinsley throwing a pass out of bounds or forcing something in traffic gets less discussion than the Sarunas TOs. His get noticed because they are particularly bad in a discomforting way, as in he looks out of place bad, not just an NBA caliber player not playing great ball.



Again, I was jocking SarJas bigtime at Star just one year ago. I'm not anti-players. I am anti-fan boys in denial though. Sarunas has played his way into this opinion from me. Just the same as he played his way out of the #2 PG role last season after it was handed to him despite AJ's effort in the brawl/injury season the year before.

"Wasn't given a chance" is not a term that applies to Sarunas in the least. If Rawle had played like SarJas did in the preseason, Rawle would not be with the Pacers right now. But Sarunas never had to give it a second thought and still remained the #2 PG right off the bat.


The defense that he and Tinsley play demands that they keep their A/TO close to 3 at least and their assists at 7-8 per 32 minutes (IMO). Currently (including MIL game):

Tins 2.07 A/TO - 6.51 A/32 min
Sarunas 1.38 A/TO - 4.43 A/32 min

Both are failing to be good enough on offense to make up for the weak defense, but Tinsley is still outplaying him and Tins also comes up with more steals (1 every 26.82 minutes to Sarunas getting 1 every 43.33 minutes).


Being almost as good as Tinsley isn't a strong defense considering where Tinsley's game is at right now.




First of all, I don't post at the Star,
I call shennanigans on this. You just happen to be a totally different poster using the exact same username and with the exact same attacks directed toward me.

I've been done with you at Star for months now, and I'm done with you here too. I only responded this much for the sake of the PD people who don't know the history behind this crap. The rest of our debates at PD will be one-way at most. I have no interest in it and I'm 100% certain the rest of PD doesn't want to hear it.

Hicks
11-19-2006, 10:41 AM
You want to know who else threw the ball into the backboard?

The man with eleven (!) championship rings:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PHO/AAFQ036.jpg

And do you want to know when he did it? At the end of a game. An NBA FINALS game, no less. He was inbounding, and he threw the ball into the wire connected to the backboard. That is the turnover that lead directly to "Havlicek stole the ball!!!"

That is why I will never get upset with anybody doing that. It can truly happen to anyone at any time. Even the most winning player in NBA history (as well as one of the most intelligent players ever).

SycamoreKen
11-19-2006, 07:15 PM
Regarding Mark Aguire, he was one of my alltime favorite post players.

I noticed a serious improvement when he started tutoring JO, and I noticed a significant regression when Aguire left.

It is interesting how much progress the Knicks' young bigs have made this year under Aguire.

I hope that the team gets things together and that JO can find a happy medium in the offense. I have not seen enough games to give grades one way or the other, but the transition time is still in effect.

I also hope people start taking things around here a little less seriously. It is only basketball after all. I finally got caught up on this thread and have enjoyed most of it. The ignore feature works wonders on cleaning up and saving head aches.

By the way, we are tied for 4th in the East right now.:)

McKeyFan
11-19-2006, 11:06 PM
It is interesting how much progress the Knicks' young bigs have made this year under Aguire.

I hope that the team gets things together and that JO can find a happy medium in the offense. I have not seen enough games to give grades one way or the other, but the transition time is still in effect.

I also hope people start taking things around here a little less seriously. It is only basketball after all. I finally got caught up on this thread and have enjoyed most of it. The ignore feature works wonders on cleaning up and saving head aches.

By the way, we are tied for 4th in the East right now.:)

I wonder if JO can get lessons from Aguire on the side? Or, at least during the offseason?

Naptown_Seth
11-20-2006, 05:36 PM
Hicks, not to continue to derail the topic too much, but I need to reiterate that the backboard moment was just the coup de grace of a string of awful plays that ran all of 2 minutes. You can't have 3 TOs, a foul and no defense in 2 minutes. And when they are traveling (which he did again later), throwing the ball 10 rows into the stands and also putting it in-bounds off the backboard it's much worse.

A charge, a pass that was just a little wide, a tipped ball that gets stolen...okay, I get that. And even still when it happens is about 6 possessions, denying your 4 teammates even the slightest chance to impact the game during that span, then it's a LOT worse than Russell having his pass clip the wire for a steal so amazing that it's one of the legendary plays in NBA history.


If it had been Foster after a hustle rebound and score, a nice bit of defense maybe, and then this silly backboard thing, then I would have chuckled about it. Guys do have those moments. You just can't have them 50% of the time you are on the court.

imawhat
11-29-2006, 04:24 PM
Quick update:


Since his post game meeting in Boston...


58 of 104 shooting for 55.7 FG%.


I think FG% is easily the most important statistic for Jermaine. It shows how he's playing over an extended period of time. He's getting better shots and has played great since Boston.

Peck
11-30-2006, 12:22 AM
How about the team?

I could give a rats @ss about Jermaines individual stats. How is the team playing since then?

Let me see we've had to have two differant lineup changes at the shooting guard now a change at the center position, oh & btw per Rick that change alone will probably result in less of a running offense & more of the good old low post offense. I wonder who benefits from that?

The team record since that date 4 wins 3 losses. Our record prior to that game 4 wins 3 losses.

In the mean time Al Harrington who was on an aboslute tear prior to this meeting has since lost his offensive touch & has had to change positions. Now could it be back injurys? Sure. But could it also be that he has now been move farther from the basket & since we don't get out & run as much he is no longer the first big man down the court getting easy baskets because somebody had to have more low post touches.

I know this is going to come across as some stuck in the mud old man but I'm going to say it anyway. There is no I in team.

However you can't spell multiple all-star without an I so I guess that counts for something.

Don't let last nights win in Portland fool you to much. We shot over 50% from the field. Do you really think that will happen often?

Then not only does he want more low post touches he now wants to make sure he gets the ball at the end of games to draw fouls. Of course in his mind everytime he shoots he is fouled so I guess I can understand that.

Maybe it's just me but (& I'm sure I've seen this somewhere before) team ball beats Jermaine ball everyday.

Anthem
11-30-2006, 12:31 AM
Maybe it's just me but (& I'm sure I've seen this somewhere before) team ball beats Jermaine ball everyday.
Absolutely. What makes you think anybody here wants Jermaine iso-ball?

Last night Jermaine got his touches in the post instead of 20 feet out, and he played a great team game.

Not sure what there is to argue about. Even BBall said he played a great game.

Peck
11-30-2006, 01:04 AM
Absolutely. What makes you think anybody here wants Jermaine iso-ball?

Last night Jermaine got his touches in the post instead of 20 feet out, and he played a great team game.

Not sure what there is to argue about. Even BBall said he played a great game.

Never said a thing about him being bad last night.

I won't argue about whether or not he played a great team game or if the team had to change their game to fit him but I will say he had a great individual game & yes it ultimately helped the team so therefor if you wanna claim he played team ball then feel free.

I will just say now what I said over the last few seasons about another player.

Character matters.

If your idea of good character is when the chips are down for one or two games that the "leader" goes to the management & complains of him not getting his offense where he wants it then great.

However it's just the final straw in the "me" contest that I have seen him wage for years & years.

Character comes out more, IMO, when the chips are down.

My thought is that the teams leader should be looking for ways for everyone to improve, not just how he can improve & thus improve everyone else. A rising tide lifts all boats but an isolated stream can cause a hole.

Gee, am I doing a good job of trying to hide my feelings for him? Beleive it or not I am being very very very tame compared to what I want to say & how I really truely want to break free & post.

Anthem
11-30-2006, 01:36 AM
Beleive it or not I am being very very very tame compared to what I want to say & how I really truely want to break free & post.
Oh trust me, I think we all know that's true. :laugh:

imawhat
11-30-2006, 01:29 PM
Jermaine gets all of his touches in the flow of the game. It's ridiculous that any claim besides team-ball involving Jermaine is made, especially since Boston.

ALF68
11-30-2006, 01:44 PM
Never said a thing about him being bad last night.

I won't argue about whether or not he played a great team game or if the team had to change their game to fit him but I will say he had a great individual game & yes it ultimately helped the team so therefor if you wanna claim he played team ball then feel free.

I will just say now what I said over the last few seasons about another player.

Character matters.

If your idea of good character is when the chips are down for one or two games that the "leader" goes to the management & complains of him not getting his offense where he wants it then great.

However it's just the final straw in the "me" contest that I have seen him wage for years & years.

Character comes out more, IMO, when the chips are down.

My thought is that the teams leader should be looking for ways for everyone to improve, not just how he can improve & thus improve everyone else. A rising tide lifts all boats but an isolated stream can cause a hole.

Gee, am I doing a good job of trying to hide my feelings for him? Beleive it or not I am being very very very tame compared to what I want to say & how I really truely want to break free & post.


Great post, and I agree with your assessment of JO.


Gee, am I doing a good job of trying to hide my feelings for him? Beleive it or not I am being very very very tame compared to what I want to say & how I really truely want to break free & post.[/quote]
Me too!

Naptown_Seth
11-30-2006, 02:47 PM
I agree, using the low-post is one part of team play, no different than running baseline screens for the Reggie curl or a Stockton-Malone PnR.

The issue is that if Peck didn't like Karl Malone then everytime they'd run the PnR he would have said "here we go again, more Karl Malone iso plays and less team ball. PnR so Karl can take his shot".

You have skills, shots and moves from players that you can rely on, and you runs sets that hopefully put players in those spots. Working the ball into the low post is one method of doing that, which is why JO's assists have been going UP, and also why the team looks better since they made 2 changes - more work to the low post and swapping Foster and Granger.



Look, the GS game was a disaster in the running game, but outstanding in the HC game. I was all for the team TRYING to be up-tempo, but I strongly stand by the opinion I've had for years, the main talent THIS team has stinks at running. They do. They want to do it, they put effort in, but they just aren't that good at it.

Who cares if you can pick apart teams with a killer low-post threat and some pretty good penetration guys, paired with some decent HC defense of your own.

The point was made for GS last night that who cares if you give up 45% when you hit at 49%. That's the game they want to play because it plays to their skills. In the end I think the truth is going to be that while moving the ball up quickly is good for EARLY offense, it's still going to feature more proper sets than traditional fast breaking/RUNNING teams.

Get it up quickly and have someone posted at 17 on the clock. That gives you plenty of time to probe and find a choice scoring opportunity, rather than forcing a sloppy running game that just results in you scrambling the other way hoping for a missed goaltending call to bail you out.


I don't think JO needed to rant so much about the issues and I question HOW he handled it, but I do think that there was some merit to the points and that RC has acted on them for the improvement of the team.


Still waiting to get at least 15 games into the season.
Note that at the 15 game point the team started - Tins, Jack, Al, JO, Foster with a solid bench rotation of Danny, Saras, Daniels, DA. No 5 man backup units on the floor all night (or in game 16), always 1 starter in the game.

Most low post work as well. Increased PnRs for Sarunas, many double PG sets.

I think the team has started to find it's norm for the year and is moving toward it's BEST identity, rather than one they were trying to create.


Big deal, they beat a couple of teams they should beat. It was still on the road and back to backs with travel. The slow starts have ended. Things look like they are being figured out and improved. Still plenty of stuff left to fix, but it's a good start IMO.

Naptown_Seth
11-30-2006, 03:04 PM
Since I ripped into Sarunas play, as well as Tinsley's, I should add a note here that I have mentioned elsewhere. Both are starting to play better.

Not just saying that because Tins put up numbers last night. He also still made some silly mistakes. Sarunas never really got seriously involved in the GS game but I still thought his approach was much more poised and that he looked much more like he belonged.

Both have looked better that last 4 games or so. I think the PG situation is coming around, which is a great thing. The team really needs good play from both of them to be successful in the long term.