PDA

View Full Version : A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!



Alpolloloco
11-18-2006, 09:36 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6184096

able
11-18-2006, 09:47 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6184096


Pacers need to find some playmakers


Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com



The Pacers' 100-91 loss at home to New Jersey on Friday highlighted just what's wrong with Indiana.

Let's start with Jamal Tinsley. Going into the game, the Pacers have been outscored by the alarming total of 71 points whenever their starting point guard is on the floor. This is due to the three major knocks against Tinsley's game: His shaky outside shooting, his putrid defense, and his poor decision-making.


Surprisingly enough, the best aspect of Tinsley's performance against the Nets was his shooting — 8-15 for 16 points. True, he was 0-2 from downtown, and the Nets went under any screen/roll in which he was involved, thereby allowing him to freely fire away — but enough of Tinsley's shots fell to confound New Jersey's strategy in this regard.

On defense, Tinsley made one outstanding play — stealing a pass from Jason Kidd. Otherwise, Kidd absolutely destroyed him, repeatedly driving past Tinsley and penetrating deep into the paint. But whenever Tinsley was thusly beaten, he made no effort to recover and instead was content to passively watch the play come to its inevitable conclusion — an easy score for the visitors. When Tinsley was subjected to S/Rs, he rarely offered any serious resistance and was routinely nailed into submission.

By my accounting — which included shots, passes, and dribblings — Tinsley made a total of 14 good decisions with the ball, and ten bad ones. In the waning moments, with the game still on the line, Tinsley made a pair of atrocious choices — over-handling his way into a forced shot that missed badly, and then over-handling and foolishly throwing a pass out-of-bounds.

This guy is a loser. Period. So why on earth did the Pacers let Anthony Johnson leave town?

The spotlight next moves to Jermaine O'Neal: Just the other day he complained to the coaching staff that he wasn't getting enough touches — and he was right on. The first play of the game was designed to feed O'Neal the ball on the left box, where he missed a baseline turn under moderate pressure. And then the offense was aimed at Al Harrington and Tinsley. In fact, O'Neal didn't tally his first field goal until the start of the third quarter. For the next few minutes, however, he simply took over the ball game; scoring on jumpers, reverse moves in the low-post, and even finding his way to the hoop through an aggressive double-team. O'Neal scored 13 of his 17 points in that period, but was strictly an afterthought before and after.

For the Pacers to succeed, this guy needs to be the center of their offense. The more touches he gets, the better he rebounds, passes, blocks shots, and hustles. Since O'Neal is not averse to passing the ball (he had three assists), Indiana can play inside-outside basketball when the offense runs through him.

Al Harrington playing the center-spot can only work against the league's weak sisters. Indeed, the Nets had Nenad Krstic repeatedly attack Harrington in the low post, a tactic which saddled "Baby Al" with foul trouble and limited his daylight to 25 minutes. Also, in a critical end-game sequence, Harrington failed to box out Krstic and the resulting put-back was devastating.

For sure, Harrington can fill the basket from near and far — 7-13, including 2-4 from beyond the arc, for 18 points. But he was a timid rebounder (snatching only four), and was disinclined to pass (zero assists). In the best of all possible worlds, Harrington would be the designated scorer off the Pacers' bench, filling in at both the small- and the power-forward positions.

Stephen Jackson is reputed to be a streak shooter, but if he's not streaking — 3-11, 7 points — then he does the Pacers more harm than good. It says here that Jax should be benched, traded, or simply told to go home (as the Bulls did last year with Tim Thomas), and Marquis Daniels should be given a full-shot at the shooting guard. (It almost goes without saying that Jackson isn't exactly a model citizen either.) Danny Granger has a lively body, good hops, and a nifty stroke — 5-13, 4 blocks, 12 points. What he can't do is play defense. Twice he was burned to a crisp when he turned his head and allowed Bostjan Nochbar to cut backdoor for a pair of dunks. On his solitary free throw, Granger also practically jumped backwards as he released the ball — not surprisingly, the shot was way off.

Still, the youngster has the necessary skills to succeed while he learns the NBA game, and is therefore well-worth the heavy-duty playing time he's receiving. With Harrington serving as the Pacers' sixth man, Granger would consequently become more involved in the offense and his education would be greatly accelerated.

So, then, if Harrington becomes a super-sub, who should start in his stead?

Jeff Foster, who contributed 11 tough rebounds (3 offensive) in 29 minutes, also added solid screens, nifty rolls, clever ball reversals, excellent defense, and he even hit a mid-range jumper. Foster showed big-time on the Nets' S/Rs, made some terrific rotations, and after Krstic had abused Harrington, Foster came in and put the Nets' young center in a box. Foster's retrieval of one of O'Neal's free throws also led to an extra possession wherein O'Neal had the opportunity to bag a 10-foot jumper.

Foster played most of Harrington's minutes late in the third and early in the fourth quarters. When he was replaced by Harrington midway through the last period, the Pacers had rallied and were ahead 75-71. When Foster returned to the action, the Pacers trailed by 82-79, and their flow had been irretrievably disrupted.

Foster doesn't need the ball to be effective, and thereby enhances O'Neal's game.

Marquis Daniels showed flashes of brilliance — 5-10, 7 rebounds, 3 assists, 5 steals, 14 points. His on-the-ball defense stymied Kidd, but he did lose his focus when defending on the weak-side. In any case, the Pacers would be best served if Daniels inherited Jackson's starting position.

Sarunas Jasikevicius is too slow afoot to play acceptable defense, but his court awareness can sometimes compensate for this. Darrell Armstrong can still play effectively for short stretches. With both of these gents unable to sustain any degree of excellence at the point, and with Tinsley's fatal flaws, the Pacers most immediate need is to trade for a real-live playmaker. Any of the following would provide a vast improvement: Earl Watson, Brevin Knight, Steve Blake, or Jose Calderon.

Overall, the Pacers' offense featured lots of flex action, some cross- and down-screens, a few flimsy staggered-screens, and when O'Neal was on the bench, some rather casual S/Rs. The lack of flow in their offense resulted in several forced plays (including shots, drives, and passes). The biggest culprits were Jackson (5), Daniels (4), Harrington (3), and Tinsley (2). And because the Pacers can't run effectively, easy buckets are hard to come by.



How bad was Indiana's defense? So bad that Kidd easily scored a layup on a 1-on-2 fast-break against Jackson and Tinsley. So bad that the Pacers played most of the second half in a 1-2-2 zone that attempted to double all of the Nets who caught the ball in the pivot (including the rather harmless Jason Collins). So bad that even their zone could be easily penetrated from the top (by Kidd), and from the baseline (by almost everybody in a Nets uniform). So bad that in the endgame, Daniels got absolutely no help when New Jersey resorted to isos by Vince Carter.

In sum, the Pacers have to be firing on all cylinders to compete with the NBA's elite teams. And because they're stuck with Tinsley and Jackson, not even Rick Carlisle's excellent coaching can turn this jalopy of a roster into a hot-rod contender.

Charley Rosen is FOXSports.com's NBA analyst and author of 13 books about hoops, the current one being "The pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA."

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 09:47 AM
I will comment more later, but at first read I agree with much of what he writes - although I think Granger is a good defender

Pitons
11-18-2006, 09:50 AM
I agree almost with everything that is written here. But Tins didn't play that bad yesterday. He had +/- -5 (team average -9). But overall yes - when he's on the floor the team usually plays bad and as PG he have to take much of responsibility. His defence is usually bad also. That doesn't help either.

BBALL56HACKER
11-18-2006, 09:56 AM
A great read. Had to agree with everything he said. I am tired of watching J.T. lack of hustle and bad play making. Jackson got benched for the fourth and so should have Tinsley. I would also look at giving Granger minutes at the 2 spot. But FOSTER needs to get more minutes. He has got his hop back after 2 years of injuries and is playing great.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 10:01 AM
Seems like a pretty accurate assessment. I don't know if RC will actually move Al and/or Jack to the second unit. As has been discussed, I think getting Al there is probably the most needed move due to the fact he and JO don't complement each other well.

Strong continued play from Quis may or may not lead Rick to elevate him to the starter. If so, that's fine. More importantly than starting the game in his case, however, is finishing and getting at least 30 minutes or more. In other words, a minutes played distribution like what he had against the Nets.

BlueNGold
11-18-2006, 10:05 AM
I will comment more later, but at first read I agree with much of what he writes - although I think Granger is a good defender

Exactly how I feel. I am not even a big Foster supporter, but he is needed in there simply to stop the bleeding.

...and I think starting Quis at PG should be a consideration. I know he is unproven on offense and we might lose a little, but just think about how much better our perimeter defense would be.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 10:10 AM
So exactly how realistic are our chances for these PGs he mentions would be upgrades and what would it take to acquire someone of their general level?

We've got guys like Powell, Marshall, and Baston who are basically riding the pine that I think could be could 2nd unit energy guys and all of which are the type of guy that does not require we run offense for them. Sure, they all could probably use enough minutes to get adjusted. If we moved other guys out, could these guys cut the mustard off the bench? Or are they, in fact, part of the trade bait?

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 10:16 AM
Otherwise, Kidd absolutely destroyed him, repeatedly driving past Tinsley and penetrating deep into the paint. But whenever Tinsley was thusly beaten, he made no effort to recover and instead was content to passively watch the play come to its inevitable conclusion — an easy score for the visitors. When Tinsley was subjected to S/Rs, he rarely offered any serious resistance and was routinely nailed into submission.

By my accounting — which included shots, passes, and dribblings — Tinsley made a total of 14 good decisions with the ball, and ten bad ones. In the waning moments, with the game still on the line, Tinsley made a pair of atrocious choices — over-handling his way into a forced shot that missed badly, and then over-handling and foolishly throwing a pass out-of-bounds.



Let me start with Tinsley's offense. His overhandling in the 4th quarter killed our offense, and that one pass he threw out of bounds reminded me of something you might throw in the first quarter of the first preseason game, not the last few minutes of an important regular season game. He was trying to make the scoring pass. Jamaal please just make the easy pass, run the offense, stop dominating the ball.


The part that really makes me lose my mind is the part about Tinsley's defense, the part I bolded. That is exactly what has driven me crazy about Tinsley for going on 6 season now. He often just gives in on defense, if he gets beat by the initial move, he just stops, he's doen it for 6 seasons and I can't stand watching it.

indyman37
11-18-2006, 10:36 AM
Don't get me wrong...i really like tinsley as our starting pg....but we really need to consider picking up a quality point guard that can play defense, be a play-maker, and shoot the 3 ball on occasion when needed.

MagicRat
11-18-2006, 10:54 AM
Let me start with Tinsley's offense. His overhandling in the 4th quarter killed our offense, and that one pass he threw out of bounds reminded me of something you might throw in the first quarter of the first preseason game, not the last few minutes of an important regular season game. He was trying to make the scoring pass.

Trying to dump it Marquis outside the 3 point line is a scoring pass?

If Marquis had played in the preseason they may have had a little better feel for what each other was going to do. How much time have they spent on the court together?..........

Speed
11-18-2006, 11:00 AM
Let me start with Tinsley's offense. His overhandling in the 4th quarter killed our offense, and that one pass he threw out of bounds reminded me of something you might throw in the first quarter of the first preseason game, not the last few minutes of an important regular season game. He was trying to make the scoring pass. Jamaal please just make the easy pass, run the offense, stop dominating the ball.


The part that really makes me lose my mind is the part about Tinsley's defense, the part I bolded. That is exactly what has driven me crazy about Tinsley for going on 6 season now. He often just gives in on defense, if he gets beat by the initial move, he just stops, he's doen it for 6 seasons and I can't stand watching it.

I would love to Greene get a full game, start, play good D, I would like him to chase Redd tonight, in fact.

I would love to see a game that features no Jackson, no Tinsley, with those minutes going to Greene and Marquis.

Foster gets the start and yes, Granger comes off the bench, which I was against in the start of the season.

When Danny comes in off the bench now, in a game, he immediately is a difference maker with his energy.

I'd like to see Armstrong, Granger, and Rawle off the bench and watch the D intensity and pace explode. You can keep JO or Al in as the anchor while the other rests.

The problem with this is Al playing defense on the quicker small forwards, but if Granger is coming in fresh late in the first quarter, Al can hold it down against most any player by punishing the Tayshawn Princes in the low post.

Greene (Bulldog) gives you top notch physical D, can get the team into it's offense with no flash or thoughts that he has to do it all on his own. That's really all you need.

I kept saying it's too early, blah, blah, but 3 games in a row of spiraling becomes a trend, imo.

This article is right for this game, and right in some generalities.

Calling Tinsley a loser is harsh, I think he's trying to run the team, but he's is a liability when he's the only guy, who is hung to dry, thats left to create offense all on his own.

I don't think this all falls on him, but it is disturbing when he's on Granger, constantly about everything, or thats they way I see it.

For example, when they long pass from Tinsley to JO was made, but Granger stepped in and thought it was for him, a true point guard gives DG props for running the court, but Tinsley and JO jumped on him by telling him it was intended for JO. Um, ya he understood that after the play, but he had no way to know JO was ahead of him, I think.

As always, I think its the psychology of it all. JO never played college ball, Tinsley got free reign in college, they all don't get the whole sacrifice for the team by doing all the little things, not for the glory of blocking a shot or the pretty pass, or looking up at the stat board at the end of Conseco to see how many points you got, as Tinsley did repeatedly, after every score. Its about boxing out a guy, running out at a jump shooter and another teammate covering your man, it's about elevating your teammates psyche, not harping on obvious mistakes.

Lastly, I don't think Jackson could seem any less interested. I fear collectively they are starting to fall right back into old habits. I would bench him until his wrist gets better (or that's the tact I'd use in the media and with him)

Carlise should get a bonus just having to deal with some of these boneheads.

What's JO doing in the coaches office yelling at his bosses when he should be in the lockeroom lifting the team up.

Is Armstrong the only guy on the team that gets it and has the nads to do whats right?

I wish Carlise would play the guys who show interest and really want to give effort and be team guys.

How about this play your 5 best defensive guys the most minutes and let the rest pout. The problem is he can't; he has to just keep trying to hope that the lightbulb goes on, but at what point do you realize is will never come on.

For instance, Al getting worked by Krstic. I can see if it happened once, maybe twice, but if the coach is going to leave Al out to dry, come over and feign a double team to at least disrupt Krstic's post up, but this team, like in the recent past, has such a low B ball IQ, they don't get it.

It's either stupid or selfish and either is unacceptable.

The whole thing confounds me.

You can't tell me, Rik Smits, Mark Jackson, and Chris Mullin, and Reggie Miller could hold their own defensively and this group can't stop the game from looking like a dunk and lay up drill.

Why do they not know how to play basketball??


.....but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 11:20 AM
The one noticeable falling back into bad habits is this: We seemed to have good harmony, support, camraderie, energy, etc. when we came out early and one a few games.

Obviously, as soon as the going gets tough, the team vibe begins to head down the toilet. Some responsibility falls on everyone. Tins and Jack are obviously problematic. They were already isolated by the fans, and deservedly so. So you've got that to deal with. Not to mention your options for dealing them aren't particularly sweet.

But I'd also say where's the leadership from the top players? Al and JO have to find a way to lead the team. Al plays hard while he's out there but got T'ed up last night due to his frustration about the officiating. That was just an extension of his lost focus b/c of foul trouble. Yes maybe there were some tough calls, but as the leader you've got to maintain positivity as an example for the rest of the squad.

JO played with a lot of energy last night but I just don't see him commanding the effort from other players in a positive way. Or maybe in any way for that matter. The only consistent positive presence is DA. Sure it helps some but we need somebody else to step up and take that on with him. Preferably somebody identified as one of our top players.

We're 9 games in. At this point, I'd say some tinkering with the starting lineup at least. Then give it about ten more games. If that doesn't seem to have much impact, then prepare to really turn things upside down. Play some of these new and/or young guys more minutes to see what they've got. Start seriously persuing any and all trade options.

Although I'm not against seeing some of the Powell/Baston/Greene/Marshall guys getting longer looks sooner rather than later either.

Just
11-18-2006, 01:18 PM
Sign me up for some Jose Calderon!

This was a surprisingly fair article from Rosen, except for the part about Danny's defense. However, Rosen tends to make hasty jusdgements based on one game, and I think this was a product of that.

It's not hard to see just how badly Tinsley, Saras, and Jackson are stinking it up out there. We've got some guys who desperately need to be off of this team. TPTB made great moves in adding Quis and Al, but they flubbed by now removing who needed to be removed over the offseason. They've got to fix that, and quick. And Quisy needs to be starting.

sweabs
11-18-2006, 01:53 PM
Hey, looks like he stole my Jose Calderon idea!

Anyway, for that to happen Jose is going to have to keep up his stellar play and also become disgruntled with the lack of playing time (in comparison to TJ Ford). Jose is out-performing TJ at the PG spot, but getting less minutes because of the pressure on Sam Mitchell to play TJ (especially after signing that big contract).

During last night's game against the Lakers, Jose pretty much brought the Raptors back from a deficit in the 2nd quarter. He sat until the 4th quarter where he got some more playing time. He was playing well again, but missed a shot or two he usually makes. Once he went off in favour of TJ, he was noticiably upset with himself on the bench...yelling and stuff. I'm not sure if it had to do with getting pulled because he was playing well, or if it had to do with him missing a shot or two that he usually makes.

Roy Munson
11-18-2006, 02:10 PM
Hey, looks like he stole my Jose Calderon idea!

Anyway, for that to happen Jose is going to have to keep up his stellar play and also become disgruntled with the lack of playing time (in comparison to TJ Ford). Jose is out-performing TJ at the PG spot, but getting less minutes because of the pressure on Sam Mitchell to play TJ (especially after signing that big contract).

During last night's game against the Lakers, Jose pretty much brought the Raptors back from a deficit in the 2nd quarter. He sat until the 4th quarter where he got some more playing time. He was playing well again, but missed a shot or two he usually makes. Once he went off in favour of TJ, he was noticiably upset with himself on the bench...yelling and stuff. I'm not sure if it had to do with getting pulled because he was playing well, or if it had to do with him missing a shot or two that he usually makes.

Calderon is real good, but I doubt Toronto would be anxious to move him considering how fragile TJ Ford has been throughout his career. With TJ, you really need a solid backup because he'll end up playing major minutes sometime during the season.

That said, Calderon would be a signifcant upgrade for the Pacers.

J_2_Da_IzzO
11-18-2006, 02:19 PM
At least me and few others on here are not the only ones that believe Al should be coming off the bench. It should eventually get through to Carlisle.

The JO situation was very true. Not scoring till the 3rd (and when he did he owned the Nets) is something that should never happen to our best player and one of the best in the league in his position. We will not get anywhere with Harrington being our primary scorer BUT I think we could become on of the best teams in the East if he was coming off the bench with the 2nd unit. Little changes make big differences.

sweabs
11-18-2006, 02:41 PM
Calderon is real good, but I doubt Toronto would be anxious to move him considering how fragile TJ Ford has been throughout his career. With TJ, you really need a solid backup because he'll end up playing major minutes sometime during the season.

That said, Calderon would be a signifcant upgrade for the Pacers.
Yep - it would take Jose to actually complain to coaching/management on his own terms. He's a real nice kid, so I don't see it happening. But if he continues to outplay TJ like he has - only to end up sitting on the bench, I can hope that something materializes.

Earl Watson, however, is another guy that was mentioned in the article and is also upset with his role as a backup. I think I read a couple articles earlier on about how he was not speaking with Bob Hill after games, and how he was disappointed he didn't get to play out 4th quarters. I don't want to get UB started, but he would also be a significant upgrade on both ends of the floor compared to Tinsley. He also has more of a consistent jumper.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 03:12 PM
I've wanted Earl Watson for a couple of seasons now. Not that he's that great (and I'm a little troubled that he seems to have trouble with some of his coaches) but I'd like to bring Earl aboard. He doesn't solve our problems, but he'd help

AesopRockOn
11-18-2006, 03:28 PM
Question: who have Al had good chemistry on the court with? We seem to know whom not to pair Al with but who has been working well with Al such that we could utilize that particular pairing/lineup? Guys who watch the games are especially welcome to chime in.

Quis
11-18-2006, 03:33 PM
Earl Watson wouldn't help with anything. Really, some of you are way off base on how you view this turd.

You think Tinsley can't shoot? Wait until you see Earl Watson. He makes Tinsley look like Reggie Miller :lol:. Seriously, Earl Watson has no more of a shooting touch than Jeff Foster. And you think Tinsley is too turnover prone? Earl Watson is just as bad. Rebounding is one of our biggest weaknesses. Tinsley's actually a good rebounder for his position. Not Earl Watson. He's a poor rebounder.

Earl Watson is no better than Orien Greene, and atleast Orien could have some untapped potential.

Calderon doesn't do much for me either. So-so porudcton as a backup on an atrocious team doesn't impress me much.

Arcadian
11-18-2006, 03:56 PM
Rosen hates everybody. People just agree with him because they are down on the Pacers right now.

sweabs
11-18-2006, 03:58 PM
So-so porudcton as a backup on an atrocious team doesn't impress me much.
Have you seen him play this year? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because he has looked like a legit starting PG in almost every minute has played.

So yeah - I guess a guy like Gilbert Arenas in his first year at Golden State didn't impress you much (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Boris Diaw didn't do much for you either (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Kevin Martin didn't impress you much in his first year in the league (2.9ppg). I guess T-Mac didn't impress you much in his first couple years either. And the list goes on.......

But you're right. Maybe we should just wait until guys blossom into stars before we make a trade. That way we can be absolutely sure, and end up giving a lot more in return. It's not like scouting hidden talent is part of being a good GM.

No one is saying Earl Watson is going to be the solution to all of life's problems. He would be, however, an upgrade over Tinsley at this point. Of course, you can go back to your RealGM tradechecker and start seeing if a Saras/Baston/Harrison package can pull off a deal for Steve Nash, seeing as though he'd be a much better replacement for Tinsley. But some of us are trying to look at who would be available for a reasonable price, to make a basic upgrade over Tinsley.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 04:24 PM
Have you seen him play this year? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because he has looked like a legit starting PG in almost every minute has played.

So yeah - I guess a guy like Gilbert Arenas in his first year at Golden State didn't impress you much (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Boris Diaw didn't do much for you either (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Kevin Martin didn't impress you much in his first year in the league (2.9ppg). I guess T-Mac didn't impress you much in his first couple years either. And the list goes on.......

But you're right. Maybe we should just wait until guys blossom into stars before we make a trade. That way we can be absolutely sure, and end up giving a lot more in return. It's not like scouting hidden talent is part of being a good GM.

No one is saying Earl Watson is going to be the solution to all of life's problems. He would be, however, an upgrade over Tinsley at this point. Of course, you can go back to your RealGM tradechecker and start seeing if a Saras/Baston/Harrison package can pull off a deal for Steve Nash, seeing as though he'd be a much better replacement for Tinsley. But some of us are trying to look at who would be available for a reasonable price, to make a basic upgrade over Tinsley.

Save yourself the aggravation, rcarey. There's no trying to reason with Quis's type of disrespect. Ignore list ASAP.

Quis
11-18-2006, 04:30 PM
Have you seen him play this year? I can almost guarantee you haven't, because he has looked like a legit starting PG in almost every minute has played.

[quote=rcarey;504892] So yeah - I guess a guy like Gilbert Arenas in his first year at Golden State didn't impress you much (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Boris Diaw didn't do much for you either (so-so production as a backup on an atrocious team). I guess Kevin Martin didn't impress you much in his first year in the league (2.9ppg). I guess T-Mac didn't impress you much in his first couple years either. And the list goes on.......

But you're right. Maybe we should just wait until guys blossom into stars before we make a trade. That way we can be absolutely sure, and end up giving a lot more in return. It's not like scouting hidden talent is part of being a good GM.
Delusional Toronto Raptor fan comparison Jose Calderon to Gilbert Arenas and Tracy McGrady. :laugh:

Calderon has looked ok. Nothing special. he can't shoot, can't rebound, can't defend. Is a slightly above average passer and a good free throw shooter.

He's not a future star. He's not a future above average starting PG. He's a future backup or, like Tinsley, a future sub-par starting point guard. I'd only welcome him to Indiana if he came dirt cheap.


No one is saying Earl Watson is going to be the solution to all of life's problems. He would be, however, an upgrade over Tinsley at this point. Of course, you can go back to your RealGM tradechecker and start seeing if a Saras/Baston/Harrison package can pull off a deal for Steve Nash, seeing as though he'd be a much better replacement for Tinsley. But some of us are trying to look at who would be available for a reasonable price, to make a basic upgrade over Tinsley.

No he wouldn't. You're thinking with the ignorant "grass is greener on the other side" logic. Tinsley may not be great, but Earl Watson is in no way anywhere near Tinsleys level. Every flaw Tinsley has, Earl Watson is even worse. Earl even has a bigger attitude problem.

Naptown_Seth
11-18-2006, 04:33 PM
What he can't do is play defense. Twice he was burned to a crisp when he turned his head and allowed Bostjan Nochbar to cut backdoor for a pair of dunks.
Sorry, but you can't cherry pick on his assessment to fit your needs/opinions, "I agree with it all except...". What this comment by Rosen says is that it's exactly like any Rosen breakdown...based soley on a single game he sees and heavily dependent on how that game goes.

I do like his SINGLE GAME assessments. I feel that if he presented it as only a single night issue as we spoke over a post game beer that I would typically totally agree with him.

But the problem is that if he had seen one of Sarunas great games his opinion would be to move Tinsley and make the "super playmaker" Sarunas the starter, and regular fans that see many games realize this isn't a good option. Or in this case thinking AJ was an answer that Tinsley isn't. Come on. Maybe vs the Nets but that's about it.


The fact is that in the Nets game (and other games too) Granger was AT TIMES badly beaten like the still pretty green player that he is. He is LEARNING. This is the year of serious pain as he is forced into the foreground rather than the safety of only being a bench player.

Any regular fan knows that Danny is actually a bit more talented (physically) on the defensive end, but the fact is that good starter-quality defense requires an immense amount of understanding. Rick knows Danny better than Rosen, which is why he put Danny on Vince Carter a lot more in the 2nd half.

Danny can be beaten away from the ball, as Rosen mentioned he was backdoored on one play when he got caught snooping the ball instead, but on the ball he's pretty talented already.

And maybe Rosen missed the part where DANNY took EIGHT 3PAs. Eight. He shot it 25%. Okay, if I change that to Jackson then PD has a freaking riot and burns the dude's house down because he's a ball-hogging chucker. The fact is that if Rosen thought Danny was effective on offense he didn't watch the same game I did. The team DEFERRED to him on many plays, passed up shots to move it his way, handing him 6 3PAs in the 2nd half alone (for 2 makes).

Danny MISSED as many 3pt shots as Jack TOOK from outside the paint (not the arc, outside the paint). So let's review shot selection and who needs to be benched for Daniels...it ain't Jack. He knows how to pass up shots he won't make.


Tinsley actually had an improved game IMO, he's getting it together. Forget the shots, I mean he finally showed some sparks of his old self last night. Before the Nets game Tinsley had been REALLY struggling to find his quality level of play. But it was the 2 Tins behind the backs to AL that set him up for wide open jumpers (which Al nailed), and its that abilty when it gets back to full-game output (instead of brief snippits) that will help open things up late in a way that no other PG does (not even DA, who honestly isn't a great interior creator though I love his overall game/effort).

Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

Vince did have a great night, but when his first 3 came with a behind the head 2 hand fall-away flick with Jack's hand in his face, I don't put the blame on Jack's defense. Vince's next 3 ball came with Daniels and Granger on the floor and he was left wide open on a switch...that's not how Jack had been defending him. It killed me to hear Buckner apparently not watching the game when he said stuff like "they need to have a body on him" since most of Vince's shots with Jack on him involved pretty impossible looking makes.


And since when is getting 16 shots, the most on the team, considering going away from a guy? Um, Al was 7-13 and JT was 8-15, both better FG% than JO. JO got his shots and he did tear up the 3rd. But he got 4th quarter touches that were far from impressive too (which was part of the downfall even). I see 16, 15, 13, 13, 11, 10 as GREAT BALANCE.

Maybe Rosen hasn't heard, but Indy fans were sick of turtle paced JO in the post basketball and wanted more TEAM ball. If you agree with him now, could you explain why you've changed your minds after years of ranting? I know it was there because I used to defend JO's game against it.

note - the rest of JO's effort and game was once again strong, and his scoring in the 3rd was very impressive. He didn't lose the game, he just didn't make big 4th quarter baskets. And Rosen is really confused about the Pacers going away from JO as he got SEVEN FGAs in the 4th, the most on the team. He hit 2. Al got six and hit 4 of them. No one "went away from" JO on offense, other than JO's own shooting touch.



Look, I'm frustrated with the inconsistant team offense. It simple isn't clicking yet, guys aren't reading each other well, they don't see the options with each other. Forget the typical scapegoats and let's talk FOSTER. No one thinks he's lazy or a big problem. Okay, so he made what should have been a great bounce pass in the lane to a cutting Al on the baseline. Ball goes flying out of bounds. Why? Because Al didn't expect it, period.

There is only one fix for that stuff, keep playing together. The 2000 team everyone loves knew each other like the back of their hand. These guys have now started 8 games together EVER. This is not the 2000 team with 8000+ minutes together (at least Jax, Rik, Reggie, McKey and Dale).


I just wish the hard stretch of the schedule was now so they could take the learning lumps in games they might not have won anyway.

In the meantime we need to also remember one thing - they were LEADING in the 4th quarter of 3 of their 5 losses. The NJ game they were down by 1 point with under 3 minutes to go.


So the only thing they REALLY need is a legit go-to scorer/play for the final 2 minutes of games. That would have won the Chicago game, the NJ game and maybe the OKC game.

sweabs
11-18-2006, 04:41 PM
Delusional Toronto Raptor fan comparison Jose Calderon to Gilbert Arenas and Tracy McGrady. :laugh:
First of all, I'm a Raptors fan?

Second of all, where was the comparison? The point that I made was that guys come into this league and don't always put up stellar numbers but have the potential to be good players. That's the opportune time to trade for them...before it becomes painfully obvious to other GM's in the league that he's worth trading for.

But you missed my point - and that doesn't surprise me. You remind me of another (banned) poster.

Naptown_Seth
11-18-2006, 04:47 PM
Al and JO have to find a way to lead the team.
One moment bothered me (Al's tech was a joke, one of the worst examples of how the new enforcement is stupid), when the long pass to JO was screwed up when trailer Danny jumped in and stole it from JO. JO was ahead of him and should have been very visible to Danny, it was clearly a Granger mistake.

You see JO get on him after the play, but you never see him back off with some understanding, something positive to keep spirits up. Maybe if Danny was mouthing off he deserved it, but it didn't look that way. It came across as MILDLY petty on JO's part.

All he had to do (and maybe did off camera later) was to pat him on the back and say "well, okay, it was just a mistake, it happens, we'll get 'em next time". That's what a leader does when a guy makes an EFFORT mistake. JO's got to treat Danny like the sophmore he is.

Again, unless behind the scenes Danny is a cocky jerk that talks up his game, etc. Something I'm pretty doubtful about.


Armstrong - I agree about his fire and leadership. It really, really shows. He does what I just mentioned. He could be driving his car off a cliff into a burning pit of molton lava and the dude would be clapping and saying "well, let's figure out how to get out of this". This is what JO needs to learn, he needs to move past being himself, to set those interests aside, and focus on being the leader, which is more anonymous.

What that means is that "leader" isn't discussing himself, puts his interests totally out of the picture, and focuses on everyone else. He loses the luxury of covering his own butt, he doesn't get to defend himself or his mistakes, he has to move past the worries of bashing in the press and ONLY think of how his teammates feel and what they need to hear next to get themselves on track.



That's where Mark Jackson was so effective and how he was able to lead where Reggie wasn't. Armstrong isn't going to be around next year (probably) so JO (or someone with enough PT) needs to become that guy and soon.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 04:55 PM
One moment bothered me (Al's tech was a joke, one of the worst examples of how the new enforcement is stupid), when the long pass to JO was screwed up when trailer Danny jumped in and stole it from JO. JO was ahead of him and should have been very visible to Danny, it was clearly a Granger mistake.

You see JO get on him after the play, but you never see him back off with some understanding, something positive to keep spirits up. Maybe if Danny was mouthing off he deserved it, but it didn't look that way. It came across as MILDLY petty on JO's part.

All he had to do (and maybe did off camera later) was to pat him on the back and say "well, okay, it was just a mistake, it happens, we'll get 'em next time". That's what a leader does when a guy makes an EFFORT mistake. JO's got to treat Danny like the sophmore he is.

Again, unless behind the scenes Danny is a cocky jerk that talks up his game, etc. Something I'm pretty doubtful about.


Armstrong - I agree about his fire and leadership. It really, really shows. He does what I just mentioned. He could be driving his car off a cliff into a burning pit of molton lava and the dude would be clapping and saying "well, let's figure out how to get out of this". This is what JO needs to learn, he needs to move past being himself, to set those interests aside, and focus on being the leader, which is more anonymous.

What that means is that "leader" isn't discussing himself, puts his interests totally out of the picture, and focuses on everyone else. He loses the luxury of covering his own butt, he doesn't get to defend himself or his mistakes, he has to move past the worries of bashing in the press and ONLY think of how his teammates feel and what they need to hear next to get themselves on track.



That's where Mark Jackson was so effective and how he was able to lead where Reggie wasn't. Armstrong isn't going to be around next year (probably) so JO (or someone with enough PT) needs to become that guy and soon.

I agree with you. And the T last night may have been bogus, but I felt that he allowed the officiating/foul trouble to get to him too much. So, if he's to be a leader, he has to be able to shut that out and focus.

I'm concerned it's just the frustration starting to boil over as it did last year. They knew the early season would be tough. It's hard to drop three straight but they need to find a way to stay somewhat even keel and Al and JO should be the guys spearheading it.

ALF68
11-18-2006, 05:16 PM
Sorry, but you can't cherry pick on his assessment to fit your needs/opinions, "I agree with it all except...". What this comment by Rosen says is that it's exactly like any Rosen breakdown...based soley on a single game he sees and heavily dependent on how that game goes.

I do like his SINGLE GAME assessments. I feel that if he presented it as only a single night issue as we spoke over a post game beer that I would typically totally agree with him.

But the problem is that if he had seen one of Sarunas great games his opinion would be to move Tinsley and make the "super playmaker" Sarunas the starter, and regular fans that see many games realize this isn't a good option. Or in this case thinking AJ was an answer that Tinsley isn't. Come on. Maybe vs the Nets but that's about it.


The fact is that in the Nets game (and other games too) Granger was AT TIMES badly beaten like the still pretty green player that he is. He is LEARNING. This is the year of serious pain as he is forced into the foreground rather than the safety of only being a bench player.

Any regular fan knows that Danny is actually a bit more talented (physically) on the defensive end, but the fact is that good starter-quality defense requires an immense amount of understanding. Rick knows Danny better than Rosen, which is why he put Danny on Vince Carter a lot more in the 2nd half.

Danny can be beaten away from the ball, as Rosen mentioned he was backdoored on one play when he got caught snooping the ball instead, but on the ball he's pretty talented already.

And maybe Rosen missed the part where DANNY took EIGHT 3PAs. Eight. He shot it 25%. Okay, if I change that to Jackson then PD has a freaking riot and burns the dude's house down because he's a ball-hogging chucker. The fact is that if Rosen thought Danny was effective on offense he didn't watch the same game I did. The team DEFERRED to him on many plays, passed up shots to move it his way, handing him 6 3PAs in the 2nd half alone (for 2 makes).

Danny MISSED as many 3pt shots as Jack TOOK from outside the paint (not the arc, outside the paint). So let's review shot selection and who needs to be benched for Daniels...it ain't Jack. He knows how to pass up shots he won't make.


Tinsley actually had an improved game IMO, he's getting it together. Forget the shots, I mean he finally showed some sparks of his old self last night. Before the Nets game Tinsley had been REALLY struggling to find his quality level of play. But it was the 2 Tins behind the backs to AL that set him up for wide open jumpers (which Al nailed), and its that abilty when it gets back to full-game output (instead of brief snippits) that will help open things up late in a way that no other PG does (not even DA, who honestly isn't a great interior creator though I love his overall game/effort).

Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

Vince did have a great night, but when his first 3 came with a behind the head 2 hand fall-away flick with Jack's hand in his face, I don't put the blame on Jack's defense. Vince's next 3 ball came with Daniels and Granger on the floor and he was left wide open on a switch...that's not how Jack had been defending him. It killed me to hear Buckner apparently not watching the game when he said stuff like "they need to have a body on him" since most of Vince's shots with Jack on him involved pretty impossible looking makes.


And since when is getting 16 shots, the most on the team, considering going away from a guy? Um, Al was 7-13 and JT was 8-15, both better FG% than JO. JO got his shots and he did tear up the 3rd. But he got 4th quarter touches that were far from impressive too (which was part of the downfall even). I see 16, 15, 13, 13, 11, 10 as GREAT BALANCE.

Maybe Rosen hasn't heard, but Indy fans were sick of turtle paced JO in the post basketball and wanted more TEAM ball. If you agree with him now, could you explain why you've changed your minds after years of ranting? I know it was there because I used to defend JO's game against it.

note - the rest of JO's effort and game was once again strong, and his scoring in the 3rd was very impressive. He didn't lose the game, he just didn't make big 4th quarter baskets. And Rosen is really confused about the Pacers going away from JO as he got SEVEN FGAs in the 4th, the most on the team. He hit 2. Al got six and hit 4 of them. No one "went away from" JO on offense, other than JO's own shooting touch.



Look, I'm frustrated with the inconsistant team offense. It simple isn't clicking yet, guys aren't reading each other well, they don't see the options with each other. Forget the typical scapegoats and let's talk FOSTER. No one thinks he's lazy or a big problem. Okay, so he made what should have been a great bounce pass in the lane to a cutting Al on the baseline. Ball goes flying out of bounds. Why? Because Al didn't expect it, period.

There is only one fix for that stuff, keep playing together. The 2000 team everyone loves knew each other like the back of their hand. These guys have now started 8 games together EVER. This is not the 2000 team with 8000+ minutes together (at least Jax, Rik, Reggie, McKey and Dale).


I just wish the hard stretch of the schedule was now so they could take the learning lumps in games they might not have won anyway.

In the meantime we need to also remember one thing - they were LEADING in the 4th quarter of 3 of their 5 losses. The NJ game they were down by 1 point with under 3 minutes to go.


So the only thing they REALLY need is a legit go-to scorer/play for the final 2 minutes of games. That would have won the Chicago game, the NJ game and maybe the OKC game.

Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

I guess we watched two different games, because the game that I watched Vince tore Jax a new one. Vince simply abushed your hero all night long and how you come up with your assement is beyond me. OH, I assume you also know more about the game then Quin Buckner, simply amazing.

D-BONE
11-18-2006, 05:33 PM
Jack defended Vince better than anyone on the night which is why I want him in the game. Jack is also the closest thing to a complete playmaker they have, followed by Daniels (if his outside shots keep falling). He again made plays for other players without giving the ball up (4 assists to 1 TO), and complain all you want about his shooting but the SELECTION is very improved. Only 11 FGAs, and FIVE of them were in the paint (4 were misses). He's trying to get the good shots but just can't find it right now. He only took ONE 3PA.

I guess we watched two different games, because the game that I watched Vince tore Jax a new one. Vince simply abushed your hero all night long and how you come up with your assement is beyond me. OH, I assume you also know more about the game then Quin Buckner, simply amazing.

I originally stated the article was fairly accurate. I should say as far as a review of last night's game. Some of the things he extrapolates aren't totally off base. But it is not perfect. For example, there's no mention that Quis got worked at least once on a back door cut where he totally lost track of the ball.

So, at any rate, some of the extreme anti-Jackson agendas going on around here make it extremely difficult to have any balanced or worthwhile dialogue. It's OK to not like his game, but you can't deny that he has some things to offer if he plays within the team structure, which he has improved on this year.

Now, I would have no problem if Quis replaces him as a starter or if Jackson stayed the starter but had his minutes reduced somewhat. Still, he's durable, passionate about winning, and plays decent D. He also leads the team in steals, is second in assists while just fourth in turnovers (and only 3 more than both DG and Quis), and has taken the most FT attempts along with Al at 29. The only thing I'd ask for is cutting down on the 3PT attempts a bit.

But to think if he continues to work within his role and control himself that he cannot contribute to the team somehow seems absurd. And the issue is Jack is essentially here for the near future regardless. I personally am not a huge fan of Tinsley's game but I can't deny that he has to get significant minutes on this team b/c we don't have anybody proven or noticeable superior behind him. And I have to think we must continue to play these guys also if we wish to keep trade options open down the line.

ALF68
11-18-2006, 05:46 PM
I originally stated the article was fairly accurate. I should say as far as a review of last night's game. Some of the things he extrapolates aren't totally off base. But it is not perfect. For example, there's no mention that Quis got worked at least once on a back door cut where he totally lost track of the ball.

So, at any rate, some of the extreme anti-Jackson agendas going on around here make it extremely difficult to have any balanced or worthwhile dialogue. It's OK to not like his game, but you can't deny that he has some things to offer if he plays within the team structure, which he has improved on this year.

Now, I would have no problem if Quis replaces him as a starter or if Jackson stayed the starter but had his minutes reduced somewhat. Still, he's durable, passionate about winning, and plays decent D. He also leads the team in steals, is second in assists while just fourth in turnovers (and only 3 more than both DG and Quis), and has taken the most FT attempts along with Al at 29. The only thing I'd ask for is cutting down on the 3PT attempts a bit.

But to think if he continues to work within his role and control himself that he cannot contribute to the team somehow seems absurd. And the issue is Jack is essentially here for the near future regardless. I personally am not a huge fan of Tinsley's game but I can't deny that he has to get significant minutes on this team b/c we don't have anybody proven or noticeable superior behind him. And I have to think we must continue to play these guys also if we wish to keep trade options open down the line.

While I agree with some of your points, I do not agree that there is a an extreme ant-Jax agenda and if a certain poster would not be blinded in his opinion of Jax then a fair dialouge could take place. Hell, this Rosen has no ties to the Pacers and he made a honest assement of the game and of the Pacers, so get real.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 06:14 PM
Marquis got beat twice on backdoor cuts and Granger got beat once.

DG4mvp
11-18-2006, 06:18 PM
the key point of that article was the indefensible way Tinsley plays..... defense when he is behind. If you cannot catch up, at least cover for the guy who is trying to bail you out ( JO or Foster most of the time). Or at least pretend....Kidd is 34 and he seems to have 10X the drive and energy than Tinsley had....Jeeez.

Trader Joe
11-18-2006, 07:17 PM
I agree with most of the article except for the assertion that the loss of AJ has anything to do with our sturggles.

Mourning
11-18-2006, 07:19 PM
Christ! Let's just start Al every game and then after 1 or 2 minutes get someone off the bench, so we don't have to hear this "I want to be a starter, I AM a starter!"-crap. Yes, he IS a quality starting player, but the make up and personnel on this team make him a perfect match for 6th man.

I'm not out on Stephen yet. He's not a great shooter, but he stretches the floor atleast a little bit. He should rebound more, make a few better decisions with the ball and particularly drive more, so we get more free throws and thus our opponents gets more fouls.

I have been a Tinsley supporter until early last year. I agree with by far most of the article, except about the part regarding Danny not beying a good defender, however particularly his assesment of Tinsley sounds very spot on. And, yes, I would trade him for Brevin Knight and Earl Watson in a mili-second. Add Antonio Daniels to that btw.

Normally I would say patience, which is what I have done, but I have been saying something should be seriously changed at PG for quite a while now. IF we do that ... we better do it this year. We are not going to be a contender anyway and half the team is new, so the time to integrate a new PG, one of if not THE most difficult positions, is this year. Do we really want to go through a period next year again where we have to go through growing pains that are not needed.

On the other hand, we are not going to get anything valuable for Tinsley, so it's tough.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Naptown_Seth
11-18-2006, 07:47 PM
Marquis got beat twice on backdoor cuts and Granger got beat once.
Hmm, I do remember one on MD also, and both Danny and MD had troubles when facing Vince.

I should be clear, one time for certain I remembered DG getting backdoored, I wasn't really saying he got backdoor beat twice (or whatever). I remember other times he just rotated poorly or lost his man. He's done it in other games as well. He's not lazy, nor will this continue. He's just learning.


In fairness it wouldn't hurt to review the game as I only went through it once so far.



On the other hand, we are not going to get anything valuable for Tinsley, so it's tough.
Yep. The most likely solution is for him to get things figured out. Will that happen? Man, who knows. I sure freaking hope so. He can play better than this, and the Pacers need better PG play. DA makes a great backup, so does Greene. Neither are your starting solutions.

JayRedd
11-20-2006, 05:29 PM
So Tinsley "is a loser. Period", "What [Danny] can't do is play defense," and if Jack is "not streaking then he does the Pacers more harm than good," despite the fact that he's had six 4+ assist games (and three games with 6) while playing the best perimeter D on the team so far this year.

The only question I have after reading this is...Why was this a MUST READ?

Pretty sure you lose all journalistic credibility when you call someone a loser in the fifth paragraph.

Naptown_Seth
11-20-2006, 05:41 PM
Pretty sure you lose all journalistic credibility when you call someone a loser in the fifth paragraph.
Yes, next time he should go with the more proper - "Tinsley is a winner.....NOT!"

Sorry, we just saw Borat the other day. :D


(ps - I'm a Tinsley fan mostly so I'm not agreeing with the loser comment of course)