PDA

View Full Version : Pacers starting 5 just isn't working - my thoughts on the Nets game



Unclebuck
11-17-2006, 11:17 PM
Just got back from the game tonight and a couple of things were clear to me.

I don't know if Rick needs to change the starting 5 or not, but it is clear to me that a lineup of JT, Jax, DG, Al and JO just isn't working. We've seen enough to know that it doesn't work. Not sure if it is even important to know why it doesn't work. But a couple of reasons are evident to me: Low energy and lack of ball movement. That lineup has 4 players who either like to dominant the ball or want to make their own plays. Are they selfish - no, they just try to do things on their own.

Another thing that is clear to me is Marquis and Foster need to play more (Armstrong needs to play more also, but I understand he just can't) I'm not sure if Jeff and Marquis need to start or not, but we need them on the floor, they need to play at least the minutes they did tonight.


I hope this is the last I ever have to say about Saras - he's reached a point where he isn't worth my key strokes.

Saras needs to be put on the inactive list for the rest of his contract, for reasons that I think are obvious. Unless and until JT, Marquis, Armstrong, and Greene all get injured, Saras should be sitting behind the bench in street clothes. Rick needs to go walk into Larry's office right now and explain he's done playing Saras, fire me if you must, but it isn't fair to the rest of the team and the fans who pay good money to see the Pacers play. Saras just isn't an NBA caliber guard. Enough is enough.


Let me make a few comments specific to tonight game. It isn't an accident that the best lineup tonight included Armstrong, Marquis and Jeff (with two of the three of DG, JO or Al) Jeff and DA are high energy players and that is one thing the Pacers sorely lack in the starting lineup. DA, Jeff, and Marquis also keep the ball moving and they come up with defensive plays that allow the Pacers to get out and run. Marquis played a great game tonight, he was really making things happen on both ends of the court.


OK, now I'm about to step in it. Please consider my point before you jump down my throat.

Yes Jamaal shot the ball well tonight, and yes he kept the Pacers close early on with his shot-making.

However, when JT came back in the game in the 4th quarter two things happened. Kidd got going, and the Pacers excellent ball movement stopped as JT starting pounding the ball as he's apt to do looking for the scoring pass instead of just moving the ball, running the offense. The Pacers play a much better team game when JT is on the bench, I just wish he were in another uniform. But right now the pacers need him, because Saras isn't NBA caliber, DA is too old, Greene has been out for 5 weeks.


Another conclusion I've made is that JO and Al really don't complement each other well. Not that they are bad together - but when they are in the offense boggs down.

Getting back to the starting lineup thing, the sad thing is that either JO or Al need to come off the bench - but neither will agree to it, neither will accept it and it would tear the team apart as players take sides about who should start. So the Pacers are stuck. Pacers are stuck at the point guard spot, they are stuck with the JO and Al thing, so that leaves DG and Jax as possiblities to come off the bench. Granger played very well tonight, and I want him to get 30-35 minutes - he is a player who is willing to accept his role - but he deserves to start. So I suppose the obvious change is Marquis for jax- although I don't think that will change the culture of the starting 5 and that is what needs to happen the culture needs to change.

So I don't have the answer who should start - but I do have the answer on which lineup gets me excited a lineup that IMO has played better than the starters in all but the Bulls game this season.

I love how the Pacers play when the following 4 are on the floor

Armstrong
Marquis
Granger
Jeff

and either JO or Al. If Armstrong were able I'd play him 35 minutes every game. If we could start that lineuop and bring either JO or Al off the bench, I'd be a happy man. But there is a better chance I'll be starting as that lineup. So there is no sense in dwelling on it

Those are some of my thoughts, sorry for its rambling nature

D-BONE
11-17-2006, 11:26 PM
Tins played pretty well compared to everything prior to now. So I will give him credit there. But another reason, and it's not a revelation, that the combo you mention at the end of your post is good is the defensive energy. Most noticeably at PG.

Of course, Quis was on Kidd during that period if I recall correctly. Although Jack is struggling mightily shooting the ball. I kind of like he and Quis on the court at the same time. We had a decent run with those two, Tins, Foster, and Baston in the 2nd quarter.

Anyway, the Al-JO things seems to becoming more evident with each passing second.

Cornrows
11-17-2006, 11:27 PM
Interesting thoughts. I really don't think any one combination of players is the answer but rather they need to rely on 8-9 guys playing well in different combinations.
The current starting line-up certainly can't carry this team to a win (see:chicago, boston games). In earlier wins the bench had an impact much like tonight in keeping the Pacers in a game when they weren't playing particularly well. DA's injury tweak has been huge. No coincidence he's been limited in the last three losses.

D-BONE
11-17-2006, 11:27 PM
EDIT: But, as you point out, there's a major lethargy with our starters as a unit.

indygeezer
11-17-2006, 11:30 PM
Another conclusion I've made is that JO and Al really don't complement each other well. Not that they are bad together - when they are in the offense boggs down.



Sorry UB, this is not aimed at you or your comments, but...No Duh!!

It is what many of us who did not want the trade to happen said from the start. They are too similar and do not cover each other's weaknesses. They would be a great 1-2 punch if one would come off the bench but we knew THAT wasn't gonna happen.

I'm trying to figure out what happend to the team I saw play earlier in the year (how early could THAT have been?). They played with energy and moved and shared the ball.

That seems to have faded way pretty quickly.

I'm putting this out there now....I'm ready for RC and even LB to find a new gig. RC for not handling this mess and LB for creating it.

Unclebuck
11-17-2006, 11:40 PM
I'm trying to figure out what happend to the team I saw play earlier in the year (how early could THAT have been?). They played with energy and moved and shared the ball.

That seems to have faded way pretty quickly.

I'm putting this out there now....I'm ready for RC and even LB to find a new gig. RC for not handling this mess and LB for creating it.



Two points:

1) Does Rick have the authority to do what he wants with the team. We know Bird forced him to fire his best friend KO (perhaps that was the right decision, but it was still forced on him) I don't believe for one moment that Rick wants to play Saras, but I wonder if Larry is strongly encouraging Rick to play Saras - that is why I posted what I did in my first post in this thread.

2) Geez, I think the energy hasn't really changed except for the Wiz and Celts game. Every game I've seen the starters have lacked energy and togetherness, the bench comes in and picks up the energy and team play. Don't get me wrong the starters are more talented - but the bench plays the right way

indygeezer
11-17-2006, 11:44 PM
Two points:

1) Does Rick have the authority to do what he wants with the team. We know Bird forced him to fire his best friend KO (perhaps that was the right decision, but it was still forced on him) I don't believe for one moment that Rick wants to play Saras, but I wonder if Larry is strongly encouraging Rick to play Saras - that is why I posted what I did in my first post in this thread.

2) Geez, I think the energy hasn't really changed except for the Wiz and Celts game. Every game I've seen the starters have lacked energy and togetherness, the bench comes in and picks up the energy and team play. Don't get me wrong the starters are more talented - but the bench plays the right way


That being the case then UB, I refer to my last sentence and ask that it be BOLDED.

LG33
11-17-2006, 11:52 PM
(re-repost) After how many games is it appropriate to stop calling it a slump and start calling it a bad player?

Quis
11-17-2006, 11:54 PM
Quis is everything I've ever said he was. He's so much better than Stephen Jackson it's scary. I'm not saying it's the total cure, but one of the first things I'd love to see done is Quis getting 35 minutes a game and Jackson getting 20-25, tops.

I also wanna see a trade, perferably for an under the radar point guard we could blossom into a good starter. God, I wish we would've signed Mike James. He's such an incredible shooter, probably top-5 in the league.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 12:10 AM
Quis is everything I've ever said he was. He's so much better than Stephen Jackson it's scary. I'm not saying it's the total cure, but one of the first things I'd love to see done is Quis getting 35 minutes a game and Jackson getting 20-25, tops.

I also wanna see a trade, perferably for an under the radar point guard we could blossom into a good starter. God, I wish we would've signed Mike James. He's such an incredible shooter, probably top-5 in the league.

I said all summer, I wanted a good shooting and good defensive point guard to team with Marquis in the backcourt. We didn't need a playmaking point guard because marquis can do that.

Daniels did play over 33 minutes and the only time he was on the bench was at the start of the game and the start of the third quarter. Once he came in he did not come out.

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 12:17 AM
I don't believe for one moment that Rick wants to play Saras, but I wonder if Larry is strongly encouraging Rick to play Saras - that is why I posted what I did in my first post in this thread.

Saras only played 2 minutes tonight.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 12:19 AM
Saras only played 2 minutes tonight.

Yes I realize that

speakout4
11-18-2006, 12:49 AM
Just got back from the game tonight and a couple of things were clear to me.
Another conclusion I've made is that JO and Al really don't complement each other well. Not that they are bad together - but when they are in the offense boggs down.

I think they have anointed themselves 1 and 2. Yes Al should come off the bench. Notice that Al has more fouls than rebounds and 0 assists again.

joeyd
11-18-2006, 12:54 AM
I too just got home from the game and agree with much of the initial Uncle Buck review. In fact, the guys behind me were making similar statements, so similar they were scary, so if you were in Sec. 18 and are a nearly 300 pound African American man that was on his cell phone when he wasn't critiquing, then I think I know who you are, Uncle Buck!

I had doubts about DA initially. Now I'd definitely like to see him play more. I think he is capable of playing more minutes. He seems like an unselfish player who will try to pass inside before taking a mid- to long- range jumper, unlike some other player(s) we know.

Granger needs to play more minutes. He's a smart player, full of energy, and it was nice to see him get on himself for letting Carter drive in on him, though from my view, it looked like he played Carter well. I look forward to seeing him match up again against Carter if given the chance.

It was also nice to see Foster attempt some shots that he looked relaxed taking.

The thing that pissed me off the most, however, were those mid- to long- range jumpers that resulted from poor decisions and not making the extra pass. The team also woke up to late in terms of playing D.

Anthem
11-18-2006, 01:03 AM
Saras only played 2 minutes tonight.
He missed three shots without a single assist in just two minutes?

No wonder UB hates him.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 01:05 AM
joeyd - no I wasn't in section 18. I never bring my cell phone into the game. An emergency can wait until after the game.

Jeff did hit a 16 footer and he almost made a three it was in and out.

Anthem
11-18-2006, 01:05 AM
I said all summer, I wanted a good shooting and good defensive point guard to team with Marquis in the backcourt. We didn't need a playmaking point guard because marquis can do that.
What would you think of playing Marquis and Jack together?

LG33
11-18-2006, 01:07 AM
Sarunas does not get enough minutes to shoulder any blame...I'll be the first to admit he hasn't lived up to my expectations (which were undoubtedly very high) but before we point the finger at the foreigner because we expected more of him, perhaps we should consider other players who haven't lived up to their potential, on or off the court...?

LG33
11-18-2006, 01:09 AM
joeyd - no I wasn't in section 18. I never bring my cell phone into the game. An emergency can wait until after the game.

Hahahaha...I don't know what definition of emergency you are using, but I must admit, I like it!

Just
11-18-2006, 01:09 AM
Tins and Jack flat-out need to be off of the team. Both plays well sometimes, but still *removed*.

Quis needs to start at SG alongside Danny. I don't agree with you guys about the Al/JO stuff. The main problem I see is not that they don't fit together, but that our PG spot blows.

I wish we could jettison Tinsley and Jackson and sign Chauncy Billups in the offseason. :drool: Billips/Quis/Danny/Al/JO as a starting five.... hey, I can dream.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 01:13 AM
What would you think of playing Marquis and Jack together?

I'm not sure it would be the best thing if Marquis is the only ball handler on the court. I'd like to see a lineup where Marquis and the other guard are almost completely interchangible. And the only player on the team who could be teamed with Marquis and be interchangible is Greene. And I look forward to seeing that lineup. But I don't know if Greene will ever be more than either a spot player or an 8th or 9th man.

I just wonder if at some point this season the Pacers will make the decision to play the younger guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting going for the lottery, not at all - but Pacers look like a 43 win team to me, and I just wonder if we should play the younger guys ample minutes and I contend the Pacers could win about the same number of games. I'm not suggesting we start a team of Marshall, Greene, Daniels, Powell and Harrison. No that team would win 30 games maybe, but I certainly want Greene, marshal and Powell to get minutes this season as backups

Pacerized
11-18-2006, 01:20 AM
UB:
I agree with almost everything you're saying, but I'd still rather see Granger come off the bench. I just like Al better at the 3, and he could move over to the 4 when J.O. isn't on the floor. As far as Foster, and Daniels, I'd also like to see them play this much, and I think it's just as important that they do so early on. When we're out rebounded by 20 boards, one player can't make up that difference by picking up another 10 min., but that one player can really set the tone early for other players. Other players will feed off a great defensive effort. I think it's better to set that tone early on, if we wait until the 3rd, or 4th. quarter then the team becomes too desperate for offense, and has to go with the offensive lineup.

Just
11-18-2006, 01:24 AM
I don't want Foster to play any more than 18-20 minutes a game.

Jeff is the kinda guy who looks like Hercules in 18-20 minutes a game, but play him any more than that, and you start wondering if maybe the coach is a Zoolander fan or something.

I don't want him playing big minutes.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 01:29 AM
I don't want Foster to play any more than 18-20 minutes a game.

Jeff is the kinda guy who looks like Hercules in 18-20 minutes a game, but play him any more than that, and you start wondering if maybe the coach is a Zoolander fan or something.

I don't want him playing big minutes.

Jeff played 29 minutes tonight and he looked good for the full 29 minutes. Ideally, I like him playing between 25 and 29 minutes.

Pacerized. I just worry about Al guarding small forwards, like Vince tonight, I don't think he can do that consistantly, especially with todays small forward that are smaller than they were 5 year ago.

Pacerized
11-18-2006, 01:30 AM
I don't want Foster to play any more than 18-20 minutes a game.

Jeff is the kinda guy who looks like Hercules in 18-20 minutes a game, but play him any more than that, and you start wondering if maybe the coach is a Zoolander fan or something.

I don't want him playing big minutes.


I couldn't disagree more. Jeff has always played his best games when he's had around 30 min. If we limit our best rebounder, and big man defender to 18 min., look for a lot more games where we're outrebounded by 20 boards, and we have a mediocre players like Chandler go off on us. We have to have Jeff on the floor for 28+ minutes, and we need him out there early on.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 01:35 AM
I just wish we knew what all JO said to Rick, DW and Larry after the Celtics game. We know he said he wants more low post touches and he got a lot more in the Nets game (I don't recall one pick and pop tonight) But I figure JO also gave his opionion on who should be playing and how much they should be playing. Maybe Vescey will tell us in the next week or so

Kegboy
11-18-2006, 01:37 AM
But, but, but, what happened to Peck's sunshine and love team? :(

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 01:40 AM
But, but, but, what happened to Peck's sunshine and love team? :(



I knew that was a huge mistake, the Pacers were just fine until he wrote that. Well, not really fine, but things have fallen off.

The scary thing is if you look at the schedule the next few weeks, things could get ugly for quickly if they don't start playing better

BlueNGold
11-18-2006, 01:40 AM
Why not go with a bigger lineup with more defense.

Quis, Granger, Al, JO and Foster

Obviously we need someone else in the frontcourt. Foster played more than 20 min. for the first time...and of course we played better and about matched them on boards....

Quis could certainly disrupt the opposing PG and present a match up problem on the other end. Why not have him start since Tinman is bound to come up lame soon anyway.

EDIT: AJ was our starting PG last year. Certainly Quis can do just as well or better. I would argue that Quis is actually a better play maker...


Granger guards the opposing SG half the time anyway. Why not have him start at SG since Jack might be going to the slammer anyway. Except for tonight, DG has been pretty good from 3pt land. This frees up Al to take SF. It goes both ways, of course, but Al will be a big time matchup problem for any small forward. JO finally is relieved from taking most of the banging. He gets big time help from Jeff on the boards. Jeff would effectively replace Jack in the starting lineup and focus purely on the dirty work...our weakest area.

Fireball Kid
11-18-2006, 01:44 AM
You guys think Boston would want Al Harrington? Probably not. Theres gotta be someway to get our hands on Delonte West. I mean, they really don't need him.

Oh yeah, and this team is just not made for small-ball.

Just
11-18-2006, 01:45 AM
You guys think Boston would want Al Harrington? Probably not. Theres gotta be someway to get our hands on Delonte West. I mean, they really don't need him.

Whaa? I want West too, but no way I'm giving up Al for him.

Arcadian
11-18-2006, 02:54 AM
I think I would be more upset if I thought this was a finished product. The answers to our problems aren't on our bench.

I like JO, AL and Granger. I don't think it is a good starting frontcourt. Our rotation would be much better if we brought in a front court player who meshed better and brought one of the three off the bench. I'd vote Al. Jo is the most natural big man and Granger is more a natural SF. Al is a great sixth man and will always be because of his ablility to play both forward spots. It is a shame that nowadays there is a stigma about coming off the bench.

Steven still isn't a good enough ball handler to give us what we need from the SG spot especially if we want to run. Daniels is much more of the mold of SG we need. Management also has to decide if Tinsley is our PG. If not we need a new a pg capable of playing starting minutes.

If we believe that JO is our franchise and can live with Tinsley I'd move for a big man to pair with JO and Granger and another backcourt player. Outside of JO, Granger, Al, Marquis and Tins (depending on your feelings about him) everyone would be on the block. We should be working towards a two year window at being contenders.

If JO isn't our franchise player we need to trade him and fish for another all-star big man keeping only those who we feel like are going to be Pacers in 5 years.

Also if we are serious about running we should get a different coach. Having Rick now is like asking Don Nelson to coach a half court East Coast team.

gilpdawg
11-18-2006, 02:57 AM
This team just doesn't look like they have any chemistry right now. Sometimes they look like world-beaters, and sometimes they look like total shyt. Usually in the same game. Most of our problems would be solved by JO and Harrington learning to co-exist better, which may come with time, and Quis needs to be playing 30 per game, minimum. It doesn't help that both of them are usually in foul trouble. THAT is a defensive flaw. I haven't figured out if it's team defense breaking down causing them to foul or if they are just playing a step slow and getting burned too often. Either way it's bad.

larry
11-18-2006, 03:05 AM
Seems to me that if Jax shoots the ball well we win. He stretches the D and the offense just looks better. Problem is Jax is below a 50% shooter so the team is below a 50% team. I agree with Buck on the point guard thing. Its just ugly and Rick Bucher called that out back when we were threatning to hit the Finals w/ Artest. He said things like "they really need a PG to take that next step."
JT is fine on offense (I guess) but he can't stop any other PG in the entire league except Saras... Go figure. This team needs something shook up. I guess Carlisle wants them to play through this and gel. I'm worried that we are going to miss the Playoffs. Insert Jim Mora here...

Bball
11-18-2006, 03:49 AM
If Tinsley doesn't hurry up and get sick/injured he is going to ruin his reputation.

When he's on the bench in a suit and tie his legend grows... But on the court, not so much.

I didn't see tonight's game. I was actually close and considered walking down and watching a couple of quarters but figured I wouldn't have time to watch it to the end. I didn't bother to record this one either so I couldn't come home and watch. I don't even know who won! I've read several posts in a few threads and nobody has actually managed to mention that little snippet.

So what I say has nothing to do with tonight.

Altho I have some disgreement with UB on Foster's use, for the most part I agree with his overall Pacer assessment! I wonder if that is as shocking to him as it is to me? ;)

Rimfire is probably reading this thread and shaking his head in amusement with a "told you so" half-grin on his face. Acquiring Al offered us the possibility of finding lightning in a bottle but not without some severe alternate possibilities. I didn't think the chance of it working was very hight BUT it also opened the door IMHO to having an answer for what would we do if we moved JO. We'd no longer be leaving the cupboard bare. I think Al would more than be an acceptable subsitute for JO, and could we improve other areas of the team by trading JO? Areas that would make more of a difference rather than just trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

And call me crazy but maybe TPTB see that possibility too. Maybe that's why they kept Powell, signed Baston, and have stuck with Harrison. Maybe they had bigger plans for Al besides rolling the dice on a 'fan pacifier' move.

-Bball

Seed
11-18-2006, 05:14 AM
I don't know if Rick needs to change the starting 5 or not, but it is clear to me that a lineup of JT, Jax, DG, Al and JO just isn't working. We've seen enough to know that it doesn't work.

Another thing that is clear to me is Marquis and Foster need to play more (Armstrong needs to play more also, but I understand he just can't) I'm not sure if Jeff and Marquis need to start or not, but we need them on the floor, they need to play at least the minutes they did tonight.
I agree about Quis. But Foster will only ease the pain, he won't cure anything. JO needs to be paired with someone who can defend as well as rebound. Foster can get us that far, but if we really want to be a stronger team, then Rick must do all efforts to help guys like DH / Baston make their way into the rotation.



I hope this is the last I ever have to say about Saras - he's reached a point where he isn't worth my key strokes.

When this team plays like a team, Saras is the 1st to flourish, but when they play like a bunch of individuals, then you have a guy who can't create his own shot, and is completely insecure, and will diminish into the 4th string.

Israfan
11-18-2006, 05:34 AM
I hope this is the last I ever have to say about Saras - he's reached a point where he isn't worth my key strokes.

Saras needs to be put on the inactive list for the rest of his contract, for reasons that I think are obvious. Unless and until JT, Marquis, Armstrong, and Greene all get injured, Saras should be sitting behind the bench in street clothes. Rick needs to go walk into Larry's office right now and explain he's done playing Saras, fire me if you must, but it isn't fair to the rest of the team and the fans who pay good money to see the Pacers play. Saras just isn't an NBA caliber guard. Enough is enough.




Look UB, I respect you but what you said about Saras is based on 2.36 minutes he played, and is PLAIN STUPID.

Beowulfas
11-18-2006, 06:00 AM
Look UB, I respect you but what you said about Saras is based on 2.36 minutes he played, and is PLAIN STUPID.

Pacers have 4 wins and Saras is responsible for 2 of these.
He should better think about it.
Saras is not a shooter, but it seems too hard to understand for Carlisle and some fans.

Seed
11-18-2006, 07:26 AM
Look UB, I respect you but what you said about Saras is based on 2.36 minutes he played, and is PLAIN STUPID.
I agree.

Obviously UB's opinion is based on more than these 2 minutes, but really, this goes farther. I think some posters here need to take a good look in the mirror, and ask themselves what kind of Pacers Digest they want to see.
You think Sarunas should be benched? fine. No problem.
But if you want to add stupid comments about him wearing street cloths or how you don't want to waste your precious typing, you are very close to being a troll, or at least, your'e not contributing anything to a good discussion culture in the Digest. When I read stuff like that, and admittedly I'm a Runi fan, it makes me not want to read further, and close PD for today. Not beacuse your'e criticising the guy, but because of the way you chose to do it.

And its so #@! predictable that this style will bring angry reactions, and those will bring other reactions and so forth. Really, why do we need that?!
That's my opinion at least.

Pitons
11-18-2006, 08:32 AM
When Pacers play team ball - they can play. When there are 3 "I'm the Man" on the court, who try only to score each to get their 25 points - we are in deep trouble. Such hard - worker as Foster have to be more time on the floor. Jacks sometimes needs to stop shooting bad shots - he's not Lebron to do it with 50 %. Because Pacers don't have any advantage on rebounding, steals or turnovers and is one of the worst shooting teams in the NBA at the moment, every bad and unprepared shot costs.

Something needs to be done with perimeter defending.

hoopsforlife
11-18-2006, 08:46 AM
I don't think Rick is using Saras correctly either. Saras is a playmaker and floor leader. When he is not on the floor he can't lead or make plays. When he gets on the floor he is used as a shooter. He really is not a shooter and so he wastes his talents. Saras has proven he can shoot when he gets into the flow of the game. His offense comes from playing and getting into a rythm. He needs to make other people look good to be successful. He can't do it when the other players only think about wanting to make themselves look good. When he is paired with other pass first, unselfish, shoot second players like DA or DG, he flourishes. We saw this twice earlier this year but as his minutes decreased the team reverted to last years style.

Last year AJ looked like crap for 10 games until he played through his mistakes. Rick let him play through them and he became a decent PG. At least tradable.

Rick doesn't like Saras for some reason and will not allow him to be what he really is. I wish Larry was coaching this team. It would be a night and day difference.

The Pacers need major changes in important positions, including coaching, if they are going to suceed this year. We won't win 40 games at this rate.

I think Rick is a great coach but he needs different style players to coach. I also believe these players could be very good but they need a different style coach to succeed.

Something has to give soon.

Alpolloloco
11-18-2006, 08:48 AM
I hope this is the last I ever have to say about Saras - he's reached a point where he isn't worth my key strokes.

Saras needs to be put on the inactive list for the rest of his contract, for reasons that I think are obvious. Unless and until JT, Marquis, Armstrong, and Greene all get injured, Saras should be sitting behind the bench in street clothes. Rick needs to go walk into Larry's office right now and explain he's done playing Saras, fire me if you must, but it isn't fair to the rest of the team and the fans who pay good money to see the Pacers play. Saras just isn't an NBA caliber guard. Enough is enough.


:banned:

:lynchmob:

J_2_Da_IzzO
11-18-2006, 08:53 AM
Iv said it before and Il say it again.

JO should start along with Tins, Jack, Granger and Foster and Al should come in off the bench with the 2nd unit. That way we keep to very good scorers and post players in the game at all times.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 09:14 AM
Iv said it before and Il say it again.

JO should start along with Tins, Jack, Granger and Foster and Al should come in off the bench with the 2nd unit. That way we keep to very good scorers and post players in the game at all times.

I think Al to the 2nd unit is the most necessary move. Don't know if it helps that much in the big picture. On the other hand, maybe they can work through it and learn to co-exist.

But the ego issue has been broached in this thread. Maybe Bird, RC, Al, and JO need to have another closed door meeting to work this out. It's really sad to think neither player would consider it if it would benefit the team. Of course that's reality these days.

Quis if he continues to play like the last two games definitely gets more minutes whether he actually starts or not. The fact that he was on the floor to end the game last night speaks volumes.

I actually do think we should experiement a bit more with Quis and Jack in the lineup together. Either as the two guards or in short bursts in a small lineup with one of them at the SF. DA, Foster, Quis, Jack, Al/JO?

Speed
11-18-2006, 09:23 AM
West = the marginally pretty new girl in school/back up quarterback for a bad team?

Speed
11-18-2006, 09:25 AM
I like MD alot, my question is can he guard starting 2 guards of the NBA. At times he got locked up with Carter and Kidd last night and didn't seem to be able to keep them in front of him.

Pitons
11-18-2006, 09:36 AM
I don't think Rick is using Saras correctly either. Saras is a playmaker and floor leader. When he is not on the floor he can't lead or make plays. When he gets on the floor he is used as a shooter. He really is not a shooter and so he wastes his talents. Saras has proven he can shoot when he gets into the flow of the game. His offense comes from playing and getting into a rythm. He needs to make other people look good to be successful. He can't do it when the other players only think about wanting to make themselves look good. When he is paired with other pass first, unselfish, shoot second players like DA or DG, he flourishes. We saw this twice earlier this year but as his minutes decreased the team reverted to last years style.

Last year AJ looked like crap for 10 games until he played through his mistakes. Rick let him play through them and he became a decent PG. At least tradable.

Rick doesn't like Saras for some reason and will not allow him to be what he really is. I wish Larry was coaching this team. It would be a night and day difference.

The Pacers need major changes in important positions, including coaching, if they are going to suceed this year. We won't win 40 games at this rate.

I think Rick is a great coach but he needs different style players to coach. I also believe these players could be very good but they need a different style coach to succeed.

Something has to give soon.

100 % agree. You can't blame a player when you don't give a chance to play him that he could use his strengths. And don't say anything about his defence. I saw Pacers defence in two past games and it didn't look good against Wiz or Bulls either. We shoot and rebound worse than most of the teams Pacers played (lucky we aren't in the West. West beats all the **** out of most teams from East).
When Pacers play "1-2 passes and a shoot from whatever position", they look horrible and we have -15 in 5 minutes.

And Al +/- was -18. That means in whatever unit he has played and no matter that he had his points, the team played bad in those minutes overall. And JO only -5 flew out (JO played with Al when the team began to sink) means he and other played better without Al on the floor. Baston had the highest +7 in his 4 minutes in a unit with Jack, Tins, DG and Daniels if I'm right. Danny had -13, but that's because he played most time with JO and Al, when this unit wasn't effective at all. Others +/- is acceptable and competitive. Saras was thrown to "1-2 pass unit" and was taken out before he (of course he couldn't fit in that style) did much harm (-6 in 2:36 is bad but not deadly).

If it lasts, Jack should be 1st of the bench. He could be more effective then. Al and JO together aren't effective at all. But Al didn't come to start of the bench, so they have to work that out. When there are 2 "I'm the man in offense and I will score", there have to be guys who can do the dirty job.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 09:53 AM
Look UB, I respect you but what you said about Saras is based on 2.36 minutes he played, and is PLAIN STUPID.

Do you really think I based my opinion of him on what I saw last night?

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 09:58 AM
I agree.

Obviously UB's opinion is based on more than these 2 minutes, but really, this goes farther. I think some posters here need to take a good look in the mirror, and ask themselves what kind of Pacers Digest they want to see.
You think Sarunas should be benched? fine. No problem.
But if you want to add stupid comments about him wearing street cloths or how you don't want to waste your precious typing, you are very close to being a troll, or at least, your'e not contributing anything to a good discussion culture in the Digest. When I read stuff like that, and admittedly I'm a Runi fan, it makes me not want to read further, and close PD for today. Not beacuse your'e criticising the guy, but because of the way you chose to do it.

And its so #@! predictable that this style will bring angry reactions, and those will bring other reactions and so forth. Really, why do we need that?!
That's my opinion at least.



That is a pretty good point. And I apologize if you my comments on Saras turned you off, That was certainly not my intent. I was just trying to be very clear in how I expressed my opinion. I could have posted several paragraphs on why I have this opinion of Saras, but I think I've done that so many times over the last 6 months that I don't want to bore anyone by repeating myself. And I really wanted to discuss other players.

To be honest I expected the most disagreement to be about my Tinsley comments

BlueNGold
11-18-2006, 10:17 AM
Iv said it before and Il say it again.

JO should start along with Tins, Jack, Granger and Foster and Al should come in off the bench with the 2nd unit. That way we keep to very good scorers and post players in the game at all times.

That's the right basketball decision. Let's see if TPTB are influenced by other considerations. If Al is truly an unselfish team player, we should find him coming off the bench soon. If not, we know TPTB do not think he would accept it and have buckled once again to the players' wishes.

I've said this before and will say it again: We need to at least try Quis at PG. Not for his offense, but for his defense to disrupt opposing PG's. Kidd, Deron Williams and others destroy Tinman. Also, Foster needs to be on the floor with this group...as you say.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 10:22 AM
That's the right basketball decision. Let's see if TPTB are influenced by other considerations. If Al is truly an unselfish team player, we should find him coming off the bench soon. If not, we know TPTB do not think he would accept it and have buckled once again to the players' wishes.

I've said this before and will say it again: We need to at least try Quis at PG. Not for his offense, but for his defense to disrupt opposing PG's. Kidd, Deron Williams and others destroy Tinman. Also, Foster needs to be on the floor with this group...as you say.

Two good points. And another thing on this hypothesized move of Al to the 2nd unit. If he and JO are truly leaders and best friends, you'd think they would recognize this and be capable to come to a compromise. If they are truly both commited to winning. It's not that Al's not valuable. It's just how the team is constructed. He'd probably be a front runner for 6th man of the year. No shame in that.

J_2_Da_IzzO
11-18-2006, 10:24 AM
I like MD alot, my question is can he guard starting 2 guards of the NBA. At times he got locked up with Carter and Kidd last night and didn't seem to be able to keep them in front of him.


I agree that at certain times he couldnt handle VC or Kidd BUT at times he played great defense on them. That shows he has what it takes to keep on par with some of the best in the game. Not every team has a VC and a Kidd in there team let alone both of them and there isnt a lot of players that can stop VC.

Kegboy
11-18-2006, 10:39 AM
You know, if somebody would just take :drama: and replace the popcorn with a head of cabbage, all would be right with the world.

Seed
11-18-2006, 10:52 AM
That is a pretty good point. And I apologize if you my comments on Saras turned you off, That was certainly not my intent. I was just trying to be very clear in how I expressed my opinion.

Thanks UB.
We have a saying here that comes into mind. I have no clue how it translates to English, but it goes something like: If even the tallest trees have started burning, what should the little bushes say?
I hope it came out somewhat understandable :blush: . I think for most PD readers your'e a 'tall tree'. So when you're starting to burn that's a bad sign for us little bushes.



To be honest I expected the most disagreement to be about my Tinsley comments
Well I kinda disagreed here too :). Give the guy a little more time. If he keeps improving we'll see more wins, for sure.

Speed
11-18-2006, 11:07 AM
I agree that at certain times he couldnt handle VC or Kidd BUT at times he played great defense on them. That shows he has what it takes to keep on par with some of the best in the game. Not every team has a VC and a Kidd in there team let alone both of them and there isnt a lot of players that can stop VC.

I'd like to see Jax take some games off to "heal his wrist" and see what MD can do, in a big way. Something has to give with this team.

LG33
11-18-2006, 11:30 AM
Small ball ain't working, lets go big!

PG - Jamaal Tinsley
SG - Daniel Granger
SF - Alfred Harrington
PF - Jermaine O'Neal
C - Jeffrey Foster

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 11:40 AM
OK. I'm just thinking of different permutations here that would serve to shake up the starting combinations.

Start: JO, Foster, Quis, Granger, Tins

2nd unit: Al, Jack, Rawle, Baston/Powell, whoever our back-up PG will ever be. (In this combination Quis and Jack could be reversed. As long as either way Quis ends up with AT LEAST 30 minutes)

Option 2:
Start: Al, JO, Tins, Quis, Jack
2nd unit: DG, Rawle, Baston, Powell, whoever our backup PG ever will be

Option 2:This assumes the Al/JO overlap quandry can't be solved via an abdication of a starting spot.

Another big issue, obviously, is who is going to play the backup PG role long term? Very complicated and confusion scenario currently.

What about this wild card?

Start: JO, Foster, Quis, Granger, Jackson

2nd unit: Tins, Al, Rawle, Baston/Powell, and somebody else (Greene?)

Or what about just putting DA in w/ the starters. Have Tins come off the bench but play more minutes. Might jump start our lethargic combo.

Just ruminating on the possibilities. And how are we ever going to know if Greene can actually contribute anything or not?

BlueNGold
11-18-2006, 11:59 AM
Small ball ain't working, lets go big!

PG - Jamaal Tinsley
SG - Daniel Granger
SF - Alfred Harrington
PF - Jermaine O'Neal
C - Jeffrey Foster

Small ball only works if you have deadly quickness and shooting. We have neither. TPTB are now discovering the league is filled with long, lean athletes who can shut down a running team that has neither of these characteristics.

Gone are the days when we had a 7'4" C, with a front court of all 6'11" or taller. Those days we actually went to the NBA finals and competed for a championship. Now we will compete for an 8th seed.

We have some talented players, but we don't have the right strategy and mix of players. This falls right on Donnie and LB.

It was all an experiment, and it is failing.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 12:17 PM
Whaa? I want West too, but no way I'm giving up Al for him.

Would they want Al? What if we somehow got West and Leon Powe out of the deal? Or maybe Ryan Gomes?

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 12:38 PM
I don't consider the Pacers starting lineup as "going small" if you want to see what going small is watch the Warriors. The Pacers starting 5 based on the rest of the NBA is an average lineup size wise. So I don't buy the argument that going small hasn't worked. Don't get me wrong the pacers haven't tried going big yet either.

Fireball Kid
11-18-2006, 12:58 PM
How would everyone feel with Powell starting beside O'Neal and benching Harrington? And then Harrington can come in for Powell or Granger and Foster can come in for O'Neal.

Sadly, this leaves David Harrison out of the picture. Josh to me might turn into a Haslem type player while David Harrison should get a fresh new start on a new team.

Just
11-18-2006, 01:05 PM
I think we're stashing Marshall and Powell until more moves are made. Let the guys we hope to trade play and build value, and then Josh and Rawle can eventually move in as primary backups.


Oh, and I just don't think that Saras is a NBA quality player. I've held out hope for him for a long time now, but it's just not there.

rimock31
11-18-2006, 01:09 PM
I just don't see how in a game like this, Saras, who plays 2 minutes can get any of the blame when other guys who play over 25 minutes are consistently making the same mistakes every game.

ALF68
11-18-2006, 01:12 PM
I just don't see how in a game like this, Saras, who plays 2 minutes can get any of the blame when other guys who play over 25 minutes are consistently making the same mistakes every game.

I made a similar post and it seems to have been deleted. I guess it is ok to blast certain players if you are a poster with a million posts.

Seed
11-18-2006, 01:44 PM
How would everyone feel with Powell starting beside O'Neal and benching Harrington? And then Harrington can come in for Powell or Granger and Foster can come in for O'Neal.

Sadly, this leaves David Harrison out of the picture. Josh to me might turn into a Haslem type player while David Harrison should get a fresh new start on a new team.
I think its worth a try, though I'd like to see some more of Baston to decide which combination is better (JO & Powell or JO & Baston).

As for Al, I think we must accept he's on the same spot as Danny. We can move Danny to SG for several minutes or Al to PF against smaller teams, but essentialy one of them should start as SF and the other come of the bench.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 02:28 PM
I just don't see how in a game like this, Saras, who plays 2 minutes can get any of the blame when other guys who play over 25 minutes are consistently making the same mistakes every game.

I don't think I blamed the loss on Saras, afterall he only played 2 minutes. The only point I was making is I don't think he should get any minutes. In no way was I blaming him for the loss.

Quis
11-18-2006, 02:36 PM
How would everyone feel with Powell starting beside O'Neal and benching Harrington? And then Harrington can come in for Powell or Granger and Foster can come in for O'Neal.

Sadly, this leaves David Harrison out of the picture. Josh to me might turn into a Haslem type player while David Harrison should get a fresh new start on a new team.

I think that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. You bench your best scorer and 2nd best player in favor of a scrub? And said scrub isn't even a good rebounder, which is the one thing we need more than anything else.

The answer lies in benching Stephen Jackson, giving Quis and Granger the SG minutes, playing Al more at SF, and getting Foster more minutes.


Point Guard
Tinsley 30
DA 18

Shooting Guard
Quis 35
Granger 10

Small Forward
Granger 25
Baby Al 23

Power Forward
JO 25
Al 13
Foster 10

Center
JO 10
Foster 20
Hulk 18

That is the PERFECT rotation, far better than anything Rick Carlisle's ever ran. It solves all of our rebounding and defensive issues, and it gets JO more shots by completely wiping the ball hog chucker Stephen Jackson out of the picture.

Quis
11-18-2006, 02:39 PM
Would they want Al? What if we somehow got West and Leon Powe out of the deal? Or maybe Ryan Gomes?

You realize Delonte West is a backup on an atrocious team don't you? Like someone said, he's the backup QB on the bad team. The guy you have it in your mind is the answer, when in actuality, he's garbage. That's Delonte West.

slyder
11-18-2006, 02:49 PM
well i know no one wants to hear it, but listening to rick's postgame comments he again says he is slow to tinker w/ starting lineup and hesitant to change, he says that the starting lineup is not the problem. i guess he feels it's mostly execution or lack thereof. he did acknowledge that the "slow starts" are killing us.

an earlier post mentions the "ego issue" again. could the ego issue really originate in LB's office? the sticking with sarunas, the sticking with RC. and yes, the sticking with ron back when.

so we have a team that needs a shake-up but a head coach unwilling to do so, and a management that just can't see that "cutting our losses" might just be the only way to "cut our losses" (games).

so, inertia being what it will, just expect more of the same, until fan support and attendance dwindles and they HAVE to move rick. and that WILL happen this season.

AesopRockOn
11-18-2006, 03:22 PM
I think that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. You bench your best scorer and 2nd best player in favor of a scrub? And said scrub isn't even a good rebounder, which is the one thing we need more than anything else.

The answer lies in benching Stephen Jackson, giving Quis and Granger the SG minutes, playing Al more at SF, and getting Foster more minutes.


Point Guard
Tinsley 30
DA 18


Shooting Guard
Quis 35
Granger 10


Small Forward
Granger 25
Baby Al 23


Power Forward
JO 25
Al 13
Foster 10


Center
JO 10
Foster 20
Hulk 18

That is the PERFECT rotation, far better than anything Rick Carlisle's ever ran. It solves all of our rebounding and defensive issues, and it gets JO more shots by completely wiping the ball hog chucker Stephen Jackson out of the picture.

Considering the kind of team we have, we neither should nor will do that because of the supposed/unrealized at this point depth at the swingman and pg positions. You're also getting carried away with the Jack stuff; he can be utilized to make good decisions and be a team player. Neither DH or DA should be playing that much and DG isn't even close to a SG and is actually more like a PF. There are some good ideas here but such radical change should not be expected from RC and doesn't usually procure positivity in the lockerrroom and on the court. RC should be tinkering with the lineup during the game to fit what we need out on the court; whoever's guarding Redd or Carter or Krstic best should guard him and whoever's getting it done offensively should be shooting and scoring. RC follows too much of a structured system like the poster above said. I don't think much will change so we just have to pray that we're clicking on all cylinders. Go Pacers.

Beowulfas
11-18-2006, 03:22 PM
Stephen Jackson out of the picture.

Wake up.
Daniel's play is hurting the team more than Jackson's.

The player, who hurts Pacers the most is Tinsley.
The second one is Marquis.
Wow, looked at +/- it's Harrington, and then Marquis.
Limit their minutes.

Find somebody, who can play next to JO.
Harrison, Baston, Powell - try everybody.
As far as I understand, neither Harrington, neither Foster compliments JO.
Try Harrington at SF or from bench.

Try Runi at PG :devil:
Give him 10 games, he'll do better than Tinsley, with no doubt. If not - try Green/Marquis.

SG is Jackson - Marquis is nowhere basketball player Jackson is. What the hell - try everything.

At All star break trade those, who can not help Pacers to win.
At the moment I see 4 players, who can help Pacers win.
JO, Granger, Saras and Armstrong.

Arcadian
11-18-2006, 04:03 PM
Also one of our problems with the style we are trying to play is that we don't have many multi-position players to create mismatches. Or maybe we do and Rick isn't the coach to try it.

Bball
11-18-2006, 04:36 PM
Find somebody, who can play next to JO.


Find combinations that work without JO.

-Bball

Israfan
11-18-2006, 05:04 PM
Do you really think I based my opinion of him on what I saw last night?
No, I don't but 2.6 minutes is not even worth to be the last drop.
He should be mentioned at all. He didn't play.

Pitons
11-18-2006, 05:26 PM
deleted post

And you are a big fan of Daniels. No? So you are not that different. He didn't prove yet anything. Saras played 2 games from first 3 also good. Daniels have a very low +/- though yes, he played past 2 games better.

Btw, "HE SUCKS" and other things leave at home, OK? You want to provoke other PD posters for a war of words?

Naptown_Seth
11-18-2006, 06:58 PM
Without getting to the rest of the thread yet, just for Buck's initial post.

I agree that the starting lineup doesn't seem to function well together. It feels like the skills don't compliment each other, though part of me wonders if RC just hasn't had enough time to figure out how to work them together.

I does seem like moving Danny to the bench for Foster might help. Granger is still learning and I don't think there is any shame in the switch for now. He's so green, and energy or not he still really F's up. I don't think average fans see it as much, but Danny got caught watching the ball a couple of times while his man got the jump on him (that one backdoor play) and this has been typical of his game.


Daniels is the glue that holds it together. I think I was right to start that MD=McKey thread because Daniels continues to show that he is an "any play you need" type of guy. But that still might lend itself more to the 6th man role.

I'm not sold that Jack off the bench would help. First, he is turning into more of an MD player anyway thanks to his poor shooting, so better to have him complimenting JO and Al with assists and defense than being a go-to scorer.

That let's you go Danny and MD in heavy bench minutes for Jack and the frontline (Danny could even pick up a few at the 4 which he looks decent at in the right matchups).


Armstrong does bring energy, but he's still not a great offensive CREATING/PASSING PG. He hits his shots, he moves well with the ball, but he's never been Knight or Nash by any stretch. His 3s actually give the bench a solid bang when they hit the floor.


Honestly they just need to get Tinsley going and to move Danny out of the starting lineup for now. He's been overmatched on many nights and with the rest of the issues (Tins, getting the offense to find a flow) I don't think they can handle his up and down learning process right now.

I've always liked Tinsley's A game, loved it in fact. I just haven't see it in awhile. Even in pre-season I mentioned that he was going through the motions (I thought). Not sure what he is doing or trying to do, but that's not the Tins we have seen in the past.

He has to get better or the team needs to move players to improve the spot.


Also, Sarunas has just about lost all trade value I think. They might take a loss if they move Tins, but I'm doubtful they can trade Sarunas at all.

I will give the guy credit though, he was on standing for much of the Nets games just like Armstrong has been, and while that sounds worthless to fans thinking about the bottom dollar, the fact is that this is a lot easier said than done. It takes pure will to just stay positive and supportive no matter what. I'm glad DA has rubbed off on him this way and I hope they both stick with it. Sooner or later I think it will have to catch on.

Fireball Kid
11-18-2006, 09:01 PM
My god has this thread taking a toll for the worst or what? Harrington should be better off as our 6th man and thats all I have to say.

Quis
11-18-2006, 10:53 PM
My god has this thread taking a toll for the worst or what? Harrington should be better off as our 6th man and thats all I have to say.

Al has been simply brilliant this year. Of everyone on the team, he's the last person to be blamed for the teams struggles. If anyone needs benched, it's Jackson followed by the disappointing Danny Granger.

Just
11-19-2006, 03:08 AM
I don't get why everyone wants to bench one of the members of our frontcourt. It's our pathetic backcourt that effs a lot of things up, and we have one solution for that in the emerging 'Quis. PG, though, is a different story.... we really need to clean house at PG. What were TPTB thinking bringing back Tins and Jack? I still don' get it.

Peck
11-19-2006, 03:47 AM
But, but, but, what happened to Peck's sunshine and love team? :(

That went out the window the night of the Boston game when I read Mike Wells report on J.O. having a heated meeting with Bird & Carlisle.:cry:

Trust me I'm doing my best to keep calm on this board, but needless to say my hopes & dreams were alive & well & in fact for the first time in years I actually liked the team & then in one WTHR report & then in an interview with Wilt's heir (at least he must think he is) my hopes & dreams did this.

http://www.primititootaa.com/Images/Hindenburg.jpg

Beowulfas
11-19-2006, 03:59 AM
Find combinations that work without JO.

-Bball

:devil:
Sounds kind of weird now :D

And what a coincidence - Saras had +5 tonight, Daniels -9.
Naaah. Not important :laugh:

Just somebody cannot believe that Saras makes others better. Beeing white slow ***, who cannot defend and dribble the ball :laugh:

Just makes everybody better around him.
Write it down and learn ;)

tdubb03
11-19-2006, 04:48 AM
I'd like to see DG come off the bench and move Al and JO down to the 3 and 4 with Jeff starting at the 5. Then rotate Al, DG, and Jeff into whatever positions fit the lineup; playing Al around 30mpg and Jeff and Danger between 20-25. It wouldn't even matter who starts, switch it up depending on matchups.

Then the just opens to door the Carlisle's set rotations though.

Peck
11-19-2006, 05:24 AM
How about we move Jeff into the starting lineup?

Then let's say we move Jermaine to the bench. Hey he's bound to win an award this way (6th man in the bag).

He then can be the primary offensive option of the second unit & he could tear up the other teams backup big men. Then if we are really lucky he could pound on Tree Rollins (sorry old joke).

Any lineup however that combines O'Neal & Foster as starters, unless Jermaine's dreams come true & he gets to play small forward, does not appeal to me unless you have a physical bruiser with them & no that person cannot be the small forward.

Naptown_Seth
11-19-2006, 09:54 AM
Just somebody cannot believe that Saras makes others better. Beeing white slow ***, who cannot defend and dribble the ball

Just makes everybody better around him.
Write it down and learn
Did you watch the game? It had NOTHING to do with Sarunas. He got beat like a drum on defense and did nothing special on offense.

This is where +/- ends up wrong on a 1 game basis. I like the stat in general, but just a week or so ago I noted that Tinsley's killer assists night still featured him in the red on +/-, even though he would make the AS team if he repeated the box score of that game 35 more times.


The rest of the team also shifted and those players started turning it around. Tinsley left the court the first time with the team down 9. His final +/- was +1. Either he got really, really great in the 2nd half or the team helped pull his number up.

Neither PG made the team better in tonight's game. The fact is that one of the 2 was always on the court to enjoy the benefits of other players getting things done (like JO, Daniels, Granger, Foster, Jack and Armstrong).

If fact, if you are trying to tell me that a guy playing HORRIBLE defense for 20 minutes, traveling twice after catching a pass in the half court, led the team in turnovers with 3 (tied with Tins) and in general doing very little outside of hitting 2 WIDE OPEN (ie, created by others) threes did more than a guy who just missed a triple-double by 2 blocked shots (and had 4 assists to boot, the same amount as PG Sarunas) then you aren't making a very good case for the +/- stat's usefulness on a single game, single player basis.

Sarunas +5, JO -2...yeah, JO on the court was the problem, 7 points more than Sarunas for sure. :rolleyes:

Cripes, not only all that but JO drew a full third of all the Bucks fouls, including several on rebounds and the turnover by Williams for charging (which is basically a steal AND a foul). It wasn't because he shot more. Players who fouled JO:

Bogut - 4
Williams - 2
Skinner - 2
Redd
Patterson

Sarunas drew zero fouls, but he committed 4. Surprising since he went out of his way to avoid contact with Blake, Bell or Williams all night.

Naptown_Seth
11-19-2006, 10:02 AM
That went out the window the night of the Boston game when I read Mike Wells report on J.O. having a heated meeting with Bird & Carlisle.:cry:

Trust me I'm doing my best to keep calm on this board, but needless to say my hopes & dreams were alive & well & in fact for the first time in years I actually liked the team & then in one WTHR report & then in an interview with Wilt's heir (at least he must think he is) my hopes & dreams did this.
Peck, pick up your Hitchhiker's Guide, flip it over, read carefully.

"DON'T PANIC"

:D

They aired it out behind closed doors (ie, not for the press despite Mike's reporting it anyway) and they did adjust the game plan to get JO in the low post more. It seemed to help. The team needed a bit more of an offensive anchor to work off of right now since everything else is a mess.

You think Bird never had anything to say to a coach? That Jordan never once got into it with Phil or Doug?

Growing pains hurt, but hopefully it should be worth it in the end. Even now I wouldn't call .500 ball Zep I. ;)

Pitons
11-19-2006, 10:10 AM
Did you watch the game? It had NOTHING to do with Sarunas. He got beat like a drum on defense and did nothing special on offense.

If fact, if you are trying to tell me that a guy playing HORRIBLE defense for 20 minutes, traveling twice after catching a pass in the half court, led the team in turnovers with 3 (tied with Tins) and in general doing very little outside of hitting 2 WIDE OPEN (ie, created by others) threes did more than a guy who just missed a triple-double by 2 blocked shots (and had 4 assists to boot, the same amount as PG Sarunas) then you aren't making a very good case for the +/- stat's usefulness on a single game, single player basis.



This is not for me, but I couldn't resist. ;)

Man, you really hate Saras.

The +/- isn't a stat who was better individually, but with whom on the floor the team plays better. Beowulfas didn't say Saras was the best player, but he said he makes a team play better.

And why the team plays better when Saras is on the floor and does 10 turnovers, playing just horrible defence, traveling and traveling, can't hit and so on and so on and the guy who plays against Saras hits 20/20 which means Pacers should go down hard and because when Saras is on the floor Pacers play 3 against 5 (because Saras is so bad it looks like so), but the team competes, it's beyond me. ;)

Pitons
11-19-2006, 11:41 AM
If fact, if you are trying to tell me that a guy playing HORRIBLE defense for 20 minutes, traveling twice after catching a pass in the half court, led the team in turnovers with 3 (tied with Tins) and in general doing very little outside of hitting 2 WIDE OPEN (ie, created by others) threes did more than a guy who just missed a triple-double by 2 blocked shots (and had 4 assists to boot, the same amount as PG Sarunas) then you aren't making a very good case for the +/- stat's usefulness on a single game, single player basis.


Now I understand. You prefer a play when everyone is playing one-on-one and if somebody shoots wide open (especially if that man is Saras) threes, created by others, it's not good. That's a reason why many of my friends aren't interested in NBA at all they like basketball though. Too many plays when a guy tries to overplay 4 guys and 2 opponents sitting on the bench at one time when there are more clever alternatives.

Peck
11-19-2006, 02:55 PM
Peck, pick up your Hitchhiker's Guide, flip it over, read carefully.

"DON'T PANIC"

:D

They aired it out behind closed doors (ie, not for the press despite Mike's reporting it anyway) and they did adjust the game plan to get JO in the low post more. It seemed to help. The team needed a bit more of an offensive anchor to work off of right now since everything else is a mess.

You think Bird never had anything to say to a coach? That Jordan never once got into it with Phil or Doug?

Growing pains hurt, but hopefully it should be worth it in the end. Even now I wouldn't call .500 ball Zep I. ;)

But you see Jermaine O'Neal is NOT Bird or Jordan. He's not even Scottie Pippen for that matter.

Panicing over the season is not my problem. You see when I made my post about the team being special I had no expectations of any form of deep playoff run. I just thought we were going to see a team that played the right way & that everybody was for everybody. That is the part that bothers me the most. I honestly thought that Jermaine O'Neal was fine with not being the leading scorer. I thought that he was happy that Al & Danny were on differant nights not only scoring as much as he was but sometimes outscoring him.

Little did I know.

You don't think he was just so upset after that one loss that he had to go talk to TPTB do you?

My guess is this had been building for awhile.

McKeyFan
11-19-2006, 03:16 PM
But you see Jermaine O'Neal is NOT Bird or Jordan. He's not even Scottie Pippen for that matter.

Panicing over the season is not my problem. You see when I made my post about the team being special I had no expectations of any form of deep playoff run. I just thought we were going to see a team that played the right way & that everybody was for everybody. That is the part that bothers me the most. I honestly thought that Jermaine O'Neal was fine with not being the leading scorer. I thought that he was happy that Al & Danny were on differant nights not only scoring as much as he was but sometimes outscoring him.

Little did I know.

You don't think he was just so upset after that one loss that he had to go talk to TPTB do you?

My guess is this had been building for awhile.

It's certainly a plausible option, but do we know for sure that the talk was selfishly about his touches?

It seems another thread parsed the phrase "touches in the low post."

That means JO is sick and tired of bad point guards and undisciplined offensive movement. I am too.

I'm not saying JO's talk with TPTB wasn't a selfish lambast. I'm just saying maybe it wasn't (and hoping it wasn't).

Peck
11-19-2006, 03:37 PM
It's certainly a plausible option, but do we know for sure that the talk was selfishly about his touches?

It seems another thread parsed the phrase "touches in the low post."

That means JO is sick and tired of bad point guards and undisciplined offensive movement. I am too.

I'm not saying JO's talk with TPTB wasn't a selfish lambast. I'm just saying maybe it wasn't (and hoping it wasn't).

Even if it was what you are saying I still don't like it.

I don't like it from the standpoint that he went in there concerned about his offense one way or the other.

I don't like it that he didn't go in there and apologize for being 6'11" tall and 255lbs of mostly muscle and not able to dominate the low post by sheer power and will.

I don't know about you but the last thing I want to see is a return to the low post offense that we have seen the last few years. I don't care if it wins or not, I can't stand watching it.

Also his "clear the air" talk with the press afterwards confirmed that he spoke about his touches.

"I'm a post-up player," O'Neal said. "I want to be able to mix it up a little bit more, get the ball in the low post and put teams in foul trouble. . . . Offensively, this team needs me to score, and I need to be a little bit more aggressive."

You see that just offends me to the very core. It is NOT his place to decide what the team needs.

I could only prey that either Walsh, Bird or Carlise said "your a big guy who makes more money than any other two players combined on our team. We gave you the player you wanted and frankly the fact that you can't control the paint with rebounding is just plain sad. We as a team don't need you to score, we need you to dominate the paint, rebound, set screens, set picks & be the physical force our team desperately needs. Yes your blocks are great & they can be game altering however your blocking out is pathetic. Frankly if all you want to do is score in the low post and make sure your being aggressive on offense then it's time for us all to part ways".

Of course that is my dream.

I am sure that at the end of the day we all agreed that Jermaine on five is probably the best way to go.

Bball
11-19-2006, 03:53 PM
Boy... Those last two posts by Peck...
I couldn't agree more. I generally frown on "me too" posts but considering the topic and timing I wanted to throw in some support.

-Bball

ALF68
11-19-2006, 09:47 PM
Even if it was what you are saying I still don't like it.

I don't like it from the standpoint that he went in there concerned about his offense one way or the other.

I don't like it that he didn't go in there and apologize for being 6'11" tall and 255lbs of mostly muscle and not able to dominate the low post by sheer power and will.

I don't know about you but the last thing I want to see is a return to the low post offense that we have seen the last few years. I don't care if it wins or not, I can't stand watching it.

Also his "clear the air" talk with the press afterwards confirmed that he spoke about his touches.

"I'm a post-up player," O'Neal said. "I want to be able to mix it up a little bit more, get the ball in the low post and put teams in foul trouble. . . . Offensively, this team needs me to score, and I need to be a little bit more aggressive."

You see that just offends me to the very core. It is NOT his place to decide what the team needs.

I could only prey that either Walsh, Bird or Carlise said "your a big guy who makes more money than any other two players combined on our team. We gave you the player you wanted and frankly the fact that you can't control the paint with rebounding is just plain sad. We as a team don't need you to score, we need you to dominate the paint, rebound, set screens, set picks & be the physical force our team desperately needs. Yes your blocks are great & they can be game altering however your blocking out is pathetic. Frankly if all you want to do is score in the low post and make sure your being aggressive on offense then it's time for us all to part ways".

Of course that is my dream.

I am sure that at the end of the day we all agreed that Jermaine on five is probably the best way to go.

OUTSTANDING POST!

ChicagoJ
11-20-2006, 06:30 PM
You see that just offends me to the very core. It is NOT his place to decide what the team needs.

Every rose has a thorn.

Good gracious, Peck. He IS the franchise player. He's the one with a max contract. And he's got enough sense to realize that if he's left on the perimeter to become Rik Smits 2.0 (an overhyped, oversized SF), that *this* team, as its made up, is going to lose many, many more games than it wins.

He's damned if he keeps his mouth shut and plays it as its called (just listen to Slick or the Boston announcers point out the obvious), and he's damned if he opens his mouth. For crying out loud, none of us were in that room and we don't know who said what? To arbitrarily blame one guy without actually witnessing the situation reeks of nothing but bias.

That's the problem with blaming him for all this. Rick put him in a no-win situation by mis-using him on the court in the first place. For all we know, Rick also put him in a no-win situation off the court, too. I could write a scathing opinion of Carlisle, too, based on my bias against him as a head coach.

The truth is certainly somewhere in the middle.

(Just like its true that Saras should not get any minutes, but his poor play in the limited number of minutes he's getting are NOT the reason this team has been losing.)