PDA

View Full Version : Post game thread



McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 11:23 PM
Great win guys.

We needed it.

Interesting that we won without Al. JO clearly had a monster game (I didn't see it, listened to Mark and Slick.) Jax apparently had some good moments down the stretch, and Tins got salvaged by a Foster put back.

I'd like to hear some guys explain what were the reasons for the great comeback tonight.

P. S. Sorry to ask a conspiracy question in a post game thread but . . .
someone give me a reason to not think that perhaps Rick told Al he wasn't starting and Harrison he wasn't dressing and injuries were concocted for both.

owl
11-18-2006, 11:27 PM
I don't know how anyone else feels but I believe based on last year
and with the way he is shooting this year that DG is the Pacers best 3 point
shooter. When he shoots the ball I believe it is going in where as just about anyone else, except maybe DA, it is usually a miss. Granger justs looks good
shooting it. Tonight was another good example. Good win tonight but
it was about time.

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 11:31 PM
I've felt danny to be inconsistent at times. You know, I felt that way last year and then as the season progressed, he got better and better. By playoffs, I felt the same way you do.

I didnt' see tonight's game, so can't comment on danny's shooting.

sweabs
11-18-2006, 11:33 PM
I'm happy to see Danny has developed a fairly reliable 3 point shot. However, I don't necessarily like seeing him rely so much on it and being camped out behind the 3pt line.

Lamar Mundane
11-18-2006, 11:34 PM
DG's form is text book, but he seems to hesitate or maybe doesn't have full confidence in himself when he shoots. This game should do wonders for that though. Plus, he has that mid range jumper as well. If he keeps developing, we might actually see some semblance of a decent team w/ JO, Al and DG.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 11:35 PM
P. S. Sorry to ask a conspiracy question in a post game thread but . . .
someone give me a reason to not think that perhaps Rick told Al he wasn't starting and Harrison he wasn't dressing and injuries were concocted for both.

No


I have a few quick thoughts on the game. Why is it the Pacers defense is so bad in the first half of these games? I don't understand it. And it doesn't really seem to matter who starts.


Why did FSN cut away from Rick's press conference. Isn;t this supposed to be the Pacers station. I mean it isn't like they have to go to a repeat of "Full House" or anything. Pacers is what they do. Oh wait I guess they had to go to the UCLA game


That was probably JO's best game he's played this season. His shot blocking in the 3rd quarter keyed the comeback, got the Pacers running, and seemed to energize the whole team. Defensively JO was a monster tonight. (I'll even overlook his lack of blocking out, thankfully Bogout got into foul trouble)

Maybe Jax liked coming off the bench - he played very well tonight, sure he hit shots and that helped, but his overall game was good.

Should I comment on Tinsley, let me just say he played well in the second half (except for two horrible shots late in the 4th, one from 35 feet that Jeff saved him on,{yes the shot clock was down, but he had time to make a pass or dribble into better position} and another shot with 10 seconds on the shot clock in the last minute when the Pacers were trying to run the clock) But Tinsley played a good second half.

Don't forget about Jeff's two huge plays late in the game, the strip in the lane and the putback.

Overall the team was horrible again in the first half, but really good in the second - not sure why that has been the trend this season, but it was.

Huge win, they really needed it.

Edit: one thing that I've realy, really liked this season is the way the bench is always into the game, they are up and cheering on their teammates. And Jax deserves special mention, he could have sulked about being taken out of the lineup, but he didn't. Oh and I loved his three point shot late in the third, the way the ball just died on the rim - that is the new ball, I've seen probably 6 or 7 other shots that have done the same thing, with the old ball none of those shots go in


Another edit: I sincerely hope the coaching staff doesn't consider Granger and Marquis as similar players. Granger is a good spot up shooter, Marquis just isn't, they are in a lot of ways polar opposites on offense.

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 11:38 PM
Ah, no.


I probably deserved that, but I still didn't get a reason.

BlueNGold
11-18-2006, 11:41 PM
DG's form is text book, but he seems to hesitate or maybe doesn't have full confidence in himself when he shoots. This game should do wonders for that though. Plus, he has that mid range jumper as well. If he keeps developing, we might actually see some semblance of a decent team w/ JO, Al and DG.

The hesitation is common for young players. Just look at Al's stroke now. DG's release will become more fluid as he gains experience and confidence.

Unclebuck
11-18-2006, 11:42 PM
I probably deserved that, but I still didn't get a reason.

Do really want one

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 11:50 PM
Do really want one

Yes.

Hasn't it been established that injuries have been concocted in the past to cover up players getting angry about such decisions?

That being the case, these sudden back injuries, etc., just make me wonder.

McKeyFan
11-18-2006, 11:59 PM
The box score is interesting.

I didn't see the game, but the stats don't look so good for Granger except for the 3-4 three point shooting (3-7 overall). Only 2 rebounds. He did have 2 steals. Marquis stats don't look so good either. (Not saying either played bad, I'm just talking stats).

Tins and Runi's stats look about the same to me.

Armstrong's stats look phenomenal for only 11 minutes played.

Foster stats look great, and his 5-6 free throws seem pretty encouraging.

Jaydawg2270
11-19-2006, 12:02 AM
Yes.

Hasn't it been established that injuries have been concocted in the past to cover up players getting angry about such decisions?

That being the case, these sudden back injuries, etc., just make me wonder.

didnt al sit out pre-season games with a back injury?

Unclebuck
11-19-2006, 12:07 AM
Yes.

Hasn't it been established that injuries have been concocted in the past to cover up players getting angry about such decisions?

That being the case, these sudden back injuries, etc., just make me wonder.

But DH hasn;t been playing much if at all anyway, so why would they need to make up an injury, and for Al, to make up a back injury for what reason. He wasn't on the bench tonight (At least I didn't see him) I don't think even Bball would believe this theory

bnd45
11-19-2006, 12:08 AM
As I mentioned in the game thread, I think that Armstrong should be the PG late in games. Tinsley pounds it way too much down the stretch. Plus DA is the better defender (Sarunas' weakness on D eliminates him from this discussion) and can stick the 3. Tinsley played well tonight, but the last few minutes shouldn't have been so close. Our offense stopped and relied on bombs. Meanwhile Mo Williams scored all of the Bucks points accept for the 2 by Bogu which he got the assist on. Luckily, Jack made a big 3, Foster was in the right place for a crucial putback, and Redd or Williams didn't touch the ball on the final play.

Not having a go to guard who can create his own shot down the stretch puts a bigger emphasis on ball movement during critical possessions. Tinsley played a solid game, but DA needs to run the show for the final 2-3 minutes of game.

Elsewhere: Jack responded positively off of the bench and JO dominated everywhere but the FT line. BIG WIN. 5 out of 10 to start. 6 out of the next 10 would be my goal.

PaceBalls
11-19-2006, 12:16 AM
Big win with a new look. Maybe this will shake things up a bit and get everyone stoked... Still, 6 out of the next 10 would be nice... but I'm thinking it will be more like 3 out of the next ten. I think the early part of this season is gonna be really tough. February will be the time when this team starts clicking, if at all, IMHO

Evan_The_Dude
11-19-2006, 12:37 AM
Al really did have an injury. I noticed him stretching his back, and sorta limping around during the New Jersey game. He also didn't start the second half that game, and wasn't even on the bench at the start of the second half.

Another tidbit, I see Danny's 3-point shooting has been mentioned, but do you guys realize he's shooting 55% beyond the arc as of now? Peja who?

Anthem
11-19-2006, 12:51 AM
Another tidbit, I see Danny's 3-point shooting has been mentioned, but do you guys realize he's shooting 55% beyond the arc as of now? Peja who?
Peja makes $10,800,000.
Danny makes $1,417,800.

Somebody's not earning their money.

Frank Slade
11-19-2006, 12:58 AM
FWIW this early in the season...

Only 5 teams have played as many road games as the Pacers have, which is 6.
None of those have a better road record than Indiana (3-3)

Only two teams have played more road games (7).
NO/OKC at 4-3 on the road and Portland 2-5

Just
11-19-2006, 02:12 AM
Al really did have an injury. I noticed him stretching his back, and sorta limping around during the New Jersey game. He also didn't start the second half that game, and wasn't even on the bench at the start of the second half.

Another tidbit, I see Danny's 3-point shooting has been mentioned, but do you guys realize he's shooting 55% beyond the arc as of now? Peja who?

Yeah, you could tell that he was hurting. Left for the locker room at one point.

Peck
11-19-2006, 03:02 AM
I can't say anything about Al because I don't know. But I did see Harrison in street cloths on the inactive list vs. N.J.

I didn't see him during the Bucks game but then I didn't see anybody on the I.L. either.

I assume that Williams, Harrison & Harrington were on the I.L. & both Powell & Baston were active.

BTW, I am so glad the NBA did away with that idiotic I.R.L. thing. Being able to activate & de-activate players nightly is nice.

rel
11-19-2006, 03:13 AM
wow...it's odd seeing peja's FT% @ 79% (even if its still early in the season)

owl
11-19-2006, 07:58 AM
My main point with Grangers shooting is that it needs to be cultivated.
He is the best outside shooter the Pacers have. His 3 point shooting is very
good for player in his second season.

Naptown_Seth
11-19-2006, 08:10 AM
FWIW this early in the season...

Only 5 teams have played as many road games as the Pacers have, which is 6.
None of those have a better road record than Indiana (3-3)

Only two teams have played more road games (7).
NO/OKC at 4-3 on the road and Portland 2-5
Yeah, but @BOS is barely a road game. They have much less winnable road games left on the schedule, though WSH and CHI were reasonable ones to drop for sure.

I've been torn. They've had leads in the 4th of 3 of their losses. They do some things pretty well (defense for one) and at times they kinda click. Mostly it's ugly and disjointed. I keep coming back to that term because it really does apply well I think.

Right now they aren't a great TEAM, but they have the spirit and makeup to perhaps become one once they figure each other out a little bit. Gotta see them together at game 21 to really size up what they are going to be. Until then I'm hoping for .500 ball, or better considering the teams they face.


For tonight, quick grades

JO - A+, monster on the blocks, played a great all around game. Note that in the 4th they intentionally started running PnRs with Redd and JO's man to pull JO away from the lane. They also ran a ton of drive and kicks. Nobody wanted to put it up on the glass with JO around.

Granger - B. Yes, you like the makes. Yes, you like the defensive plays. But Danny also had a SarJas moment where he literally couldn't find his man after a rebound, and had many other rough mental mistakes on the night. Said it after the last game, same here - he's green and it shows. I'd kinda like to see him as a bench guy instead.

Please note that the 7 FGAs had a lot to do with him not finding his way into the offense, not that the team couldn't have used him. He takes himself out of plays still and needs to find his way into the flow because the passes will be there for him to get.

Daniels - B+. Made some mistakes too and got beat off the dribble a few times, but he creates so well going into the lane and is the most likely to be in every single play.

Foster - B+. Early on he was running a C. He slapped one rebound right out of JO's hands, off his head and out of bounds. He just wasn't really in the flow at all. But he found it big time in the 2nd half and really helped.

Armstrong - A-. Only because he didn't play more. But man does he get things going. Love his attitude on the bench, love it more in the game. He makes things happen.

Jack - B+. Showed some signs of finding his shot, but then he still forced a couple. At least once it was because they dumped the ball into his hands with 2-3 seconds on the clock, so not his fault there. He had a couple of crap TOs, but then he created some TO's himself. He also gave Redd the most trouble on the night (though Granger did get Redd into an up and down once). His attitude is 180 from last year, I'm impressed.

Tinsley - D-. Wow, he was pretty flipping awful most of the night. He struggled to really make clean offensive plays, especially in the first half. I know he's not a great jump shot guy or defender, but where is the crafty dribbling and passing?

Sarunas - F. Like Tinsley, but worse. He hit a couple of open 3's. But he was also the main reason that first round of subs couldn't cut into the lead, as someone would make a great score and then Sarunas would watch his man go right past him to the lane for a score of dish.

Powell - C. Didn't really play enough, but he showed some signs of life. Mostly though he was still a step behind the action. Playing time will eventually fix that I think. He flashes talent from time to time.

Marshall/Baston - incomplete. Rawle looked a little overmatched in the 2nd, but it could have been the general run that MIL was on. Baston fumbled one pass IIRC, but basically didn't get a chance to do anything bad or good.


Summary - almost all the damage by the Bucks came from the PG breakdowns. Maybe Greene is still hurting (I saw the brace on his hand during one shot), but I was desperate to see him in tonight's game. They need some PG defense and they need it badly.

D-BONE
11-19-2006, 08:31 AM
Overall a much needed win. Even better evening the road record. You have to consider that the Bucks were down their two starting forwards. So, despite it being on the road, that would have emphasized a loss even moreso.

Two concerns I have at this point:

-The much discussed penchant for lethargic starts.

-Our perimeter D: Tinsley had a reasonably solid game but we know his D will always be a weak point and it nearly did us in. I agree that his decision making running the O in the last few minutes was not stellar.

Beyond that, I have this impression that DG, Jack, and Quis are solid defenders, and maybe I'm off base on this, they give great effort but seem to also be getting beat a lot off the dribble in the early season. Of course, they're often matched on the league's top scorers so it's no easy feat, but in other words, I feel like people are penetrating our D an awful lot and outside JO help and rotation are often lacking. You can also throw defensive rebounding under this topic, too.

Last night's positives were many, in the 2nd half anyway. Despite mistakes and/or deficiencies in certain areas or stretches of the game, I thought everybody who saw the floor contributed in some significant way and everyone brought intensity.

I agree that DG is turning into our most consistent long range threat. Add in Armstrong and hopefully Jack finding his stroke again and we should have enough to get by in that area.

Foster's presence with the starters (or whatever unit) is a major defensive upgrade. He and JO together make a good tandem with their ability to compensate for our many perimeter defensive lapses and deficiencies.

I'd take .500 in our first 20 given the difficulty and the integration of new elements within the team.

Mourning
11-19-2006, 08:32 AM
I'm happy to see Danny has developed a fairly reliable 3 point shot. However, I don't necessarily like seeing him rely so much on it and being camped out behind the 3pt line.

:amen:

D-BONE
11-19-2006, 08:54 AM
Yeah, but @BOS is barely a road game. They have much less winnable road games left on the schedule, though WSH and CHI were reasonable ones to drop for sure.

I've been torn. They've had leads in the 4th of 3 of their losses. They do some things pretty well (defense for one) and at times they kinda click. Mostly it's ugly and disjointed. I keep coming back to that term because it really does apply well I think.

Right now they aren't a great TEAM, but they have the spirit and makeup to perhaps become one once they figure each other out a little bit. Gotta see them together at game 21 to really size up what they are going to be. Until then I'm hoping for .500 ball, or better considering the teams they face.


For tonight, quick grades

JO - A+, monster on the blocks, played a great all around game. Note that in the 4th they intentionally started running PnRs with Redd and JO's man to pull JO away from the lane. They also ran a ton of drive and kicks. Nobody wanted to put it up on the glass with JO around.

Granger - B. Yes, you like the makes. Yes, you like the defensive plays. But Danny also had a SarJas moment where he literally couldn't find his man after a rebound, and had many other rough mental mistakes on the night. Said it after the last game, same here - he's green and it shows. I'd kinda like to see him as a bench guy instead.

Please note that the 7 FGAs had a lot to do with him not finding his way into the offense, not that the team couldn't have used him. He takes himself out of plays still and needs to find his way into the flow because the passes will be there for him to get.

Daniels - B+. Made some mistakes too and got beat off the dribble a few times, but he creates so well going into the lane and is the most likely to be in every single play.

Foster - B+. Early on he was running a C. He slapped one rebound right out of JO's hands, off his head and out of bounds. He just wasn't really in the flow at all. But he found it big time in the 2nd half and really helped.

Armstrong - A-. Only because he didn't play more. But man does he get things going. Love his attitude on the bench, love it more in the game. He makes things happen.

Jack - B+. Showed some signs of finding his shot, but then he still forced a couple. At least once it was because they dumped the ball into his hands with 2-3 seconds on the clock, so not his fault there. He had a couple of crap TOs, but then he created some TO's himself. He also gave Redd the most trouble on the night (though Granger did get Redd into an up and down once). His attitude is 180 from last year, I'm impressed.

Tinsley - D-. Wow, he was pretty flipping awful most of the night. He struggled to really make clean offensive plays, especially in the first half. I know he's not a great jump shot guy or defender, but where is the crafty dribbling and passing?

Sarunas - F. Like Tinsley, but worse. He hit a couple of open 3's. But he was also the main reason that first round of subs couldn't cut into the lead, as someone would make a great score and then Sarunas would watch his man go right past him to the lane for a score of dish.

Powell - C. Didn't really play enough, but he showed some signs of life. Mostly though he was still a step behind the action. Playing time will eventually fix that I think. He flashes talent from time to time.

Marshall/Baston - incomplete. Rawle looked a little overmatched in the 2nd, but it could have been the general run that MIL was on. Baston fumbled one pass IIRC, but basically didn't get a chance to do anything bad or good.


Summary - almost all the damage by the Bucks came from the PG breakdowns. Maybe Greene is still hurting (I saw the brace on his hand during one shot), but I was desperate to see him in tonight's game. They need some PG defense and they need it badly.

I agree Granger off the bench wouldn't be all that bad an idea. I also have no problem with Jack and/or Al off the bench either for that matter. Also really liked the way Powell was willing to get in their and play a junkyard dog role underneath. He wasn't overly successful but there was an all-out agression in his play that has been lacking on this team. Don't know if he can bring it consistently and also improve all around as you allude to. Perhaps playing just short spurts on a fairly regular he can have some positive impact and continue his development.

I understand your game grades and generally agree. Although I probably would knock Daniels down to say a B for the game. I realize he does a lot of things that aren't necessarily overt but are important. My rationale would be that Jackson and Foster in this game had more impact IMO so I don't see all three quite meriting the same mark.

Also, I don't know if I'd go quite so low on Saras and Tins, but I definitely think your criticisms are quite valid. Especially on D. We are getting absolutely smoked night in and night out from that position. And as you note that's probably the main factor in what I said in my first post about the perception of a very unstable perimeter/team defense. I, too, hope Greene will get into the mix for just that purpose.

And on that same theme regarding last night, if I were RC I would have at least given Quis a shot on Mo Williams to see if he could be effective. Mo probably would have had a major quickness advantage but Quis couldn't have fared any worse than the others. It appears RC is not sold on Quis's ability to man the point offensively I surmise. The way things are going I think it's worth a brief experiment.

Eindar
11-19-2006, 09:37 AM
Dribble penetration was a major problem for us, obviously. Then again, we know that Tinsley and Runi are going to struggle against teams that have quick guards. It also seems to me that our SG position is long but a little slow, but then again most SGs look slow when trying to guard Michael Redd. A game like tonight really gets you itching to see spurts of Oriene Greene, but given how tight the game was, and Greene's lack of floor time up till now, I can definitely see why he didn't play.

Good win. I'll be happy as long as we can hang around .500 till the All-Star Break. Then hopefully we'll be a better team and will be able to make a push for a good seeding.

Mordecaii
11-19-2006, 03:43 PM
I didn't see the first half, but I thought Tins did well in the 3rd and the first half of the 4th (had to leave halfway through the 4th).

AesopRockOn
11-19-2006, 04:06 PM
Tinsley - D-. Wow, he was pretty flipping awful most of the night. He struggled to really make clean offensive plays, especially in the first half. I know he's not a great jump shot guy or defender, but where is the crafty dribbling and passing?

I didn't watch the game like most of you but Tinsley's line is pretty impressive: 15 points, 7 assists, 5 boards, 3 TO's; although his shooting was bad it doesn't seem like he did that badly. The thing that hurts Saras is his turnovers because he is supposed to be a decision maker but he's at Bush league right now.

Eindar
11-19-2006, 11:22 PM
I didn't watch the game like most of you but Tinsley's line is pretty impressive: 15 points, 7 assists, 5 boards, 3 TO's; although his shooting was bad it doesn't seem like he did that badly. The thing that hurts Saras is his turnovers because he is supposed to be a decision maker but he's at Bush league right now.

There's no stat for sloppy D or bad shots in crucial situations. If there were, his line would look a fair bit worse. I actually thought Tinsley did decent in the game, but I can see where others would be more critical.

pizza guy
11-19-2006, 11:44 PM
You know, if I didn't know better, this thread would make me think we lost.

I'll join the growing group of Tinsley-haters, though I've always been in it. He took some bad shots, and plays a very odd version of the Matador defense. Sarunas is struggling, mightly. I'm not sure what to do with him. I'm not sure he played quite as badly as some are saying against the Bucks. He plays the same kind of D that Tinsley does. It's hard to judge what he's doing, because it's an odd role. I think when he and DA, or 'Quis are playing together, the offense runs more smoothly, more passing, and usually better shots.

Our PGs have their problems, and I'd love to see a couple of them out the door. But, for now, let's enjoy a win...they may be few and far between if a few players don't pull their heads out of their rears.

Isaac
11-20-2006, 11:44 AM
The second half was very encouraging, but I'm still very worried about our rebounding. Regardless of how well Jermaine played in a lot of different areas, I was still very disappointed in his overall game, because he fails to box out again and again. When I'm watching a game this season I find myself screaming box out at the TV so often, it makes me feel stupid, because that is a thing I should be yelling at the 5th and 6th graders I coach, not an NBA team. It is inexcusable for a big man to do that.

I have one other negative thing to say before the positives. We have to figure out why we can't play well on both sides of the floor consistently. If it's a lack of effort early in games then we have a serious, serious problem, but I don't think it is. Remember last season how we would often build a big lead and then blow it late? Well, I definitley prefer getting the problems out of the way early in the games as we have been this season, but I want this problem to be figured out. We haven't had a game yet where we've really looked good all the way through, and when we play top level teams we'll be in trouble because we aren't good enough to be able to turn it on and off and still win against the elite. I think if we can put it all together and figure out what we're doing right when we're playing well and do that all game, we can be one of the elites.

I have fallen in love with Marquis Daniels the last few games, and I really want to see him play more point guard. God is he good at penetrating, and he makes it look so effortless. However, I have a small problem with the way Rick is using him. I feel like Marquis and Danny are great on the floor together. They both have very complete games, and they both can do a lot of things on the floor, but they also compliment each other very well, but every time Rick brings in Quis it seems like he's coming in for Danny. I know we got off to a slow start with both of them on the floor, but I think that was unrelated to the two of them.

I LOVE Jack off the bench, let's keep it that way.

able
11-20-2006, 04:18 PM
Can someone please explain to me how ONE person can A: block a shot and B: "box out" at the same time ??

Isaac
11-20-2006, 04:58 PM
Can someone please explain to me how ONE person can A: block a shot and B: "box out" at the same time ??

Obviously when someone takes a shot from inside and JO challenges it it's different, but there is no excuse when someone takes an outside jumper and JO just watches it and waits for it to come off. I'm not harping on JO, he's not the only guilty one.

Bball
11-20-2006, 05:00 PM
Can someone please explain to me how ONE person can A: block a shot and B: "box out" at the same time ??

Why would anyone ever do them at the same time? Not every shot comes inside the paint... let alone when a player is in position to block. When the ball is in the air, get position, block out.

By blocking out, you might not get the rebound but you keep someone from the other team from getting it and enable your own team to grab it (or sure increase the chances).

I guess I don't get your point.

-Bball

able
11-20-2006, 05:48 PM
bball for clarification purposes:

1: if he's going for the block, he can never be on time to block out as well as go for the rebound on the shot/ layup/ dunk he's blocking.
2: if the shot is from long range, chances are the rebound is long, JO is usually (see his shotblocking) low, so won't be able to get the rebound and IF he was to block out then the player who he's blocking out is likely to get the long rebound anyway
3: if he's blocking out a player for a perceived missed shot/rebound then he can not block a shot, but leaves open the path to the rim.

These things are mutually exclusive, as simple as that.

(though rebounding and blocking out are not per se)

Bball
11-20-2006, 06:13 PM
bball for clarification purposes:

1: if he's going for the block, he can never be on time to block out as well as go for the rebound on the shot/ layup/ dunk he's blocking.
2: if the shot is from long range, chances are the rebound is long, JO is usually (see his shotblocking) low, so won't be able to get the rebound and IF he was to block out then the player who he's blocking out is likely to get the long rebound anyway
3: if he's blocking out a player for a perceived missed shot/rebound then he can not block a shot, but leaves open the path to the rim.

These things are mutually exclusive, as simple as that.

(though rebounding and blocking out are not per se)

If JO is going for the block on every defensive trip then we've got fundamental problems somewhere in our defense and execution.

If the ball goes long on a rebound then that is just a chance we take, but we do have guards and there is no law that says they can't grab the long board.


3: if he's blocking out a player for a perceived missed shot/rebound then he can not block a shot, but leaves open the path to the rim.

I'm not quite with you on this. It sounds like you are saying he can't block out because we have to assume the other team will get the offensive rebound and he has to prepare/position to block that putback attempt. I know you aren't saying that but that is all I can make out from it.

If the shot's in the air, and he's blocking out, and the other players are blocking out... what path to the rim are you worried about and why should JO be ready to block a shot?

But for me it comes down to this: If JO isn't blocking the shot then he should be boxing somebody out. And not just JO but everyone should account for a man.

-Bball

Isaac
11-20-2006, 06:59 PM
But for me it comes down to this: If JO isn't blocking the shot then he should be boxing somebody out. And not just JO but everyone should account for a man.

Exactly.

ALF68
11-20-2006, 09:19 PM
bball for clarification purposes:

1: if he's going for the block, he can never be on time to block out as well as go for the rebound on the shot/ layup/ dunk he's blocking.
2: if the shot is from long range, chances are the rebound is long, JO is usually (see his shotblocking) low, so won't be able to get the rebound and IF he was to block out then the player who he's blocking out is likely to get the long rebound anyway
3: if he's blocking out a player for a perceived missed shot/rebound then he can not block a shot, but leaves open the path to the rim.

These things are mutually exclusive, as simple as that.

(though rebounding and blocking out are not per se)

I think that the great Bill R., you know that great Celtic with all of those rings, might be an exception to your theory. IMO

able
11-20-2006, 09:42 PM
I think that the great Bill R., you know that great Celtic with all of those rings, might be an exception to your theory. IMO


Wasn't he a "man in green" ?


Ask Jay@sectionmovesaboutquiteabitnowadays' daughter what we think of them ;)

Anthem
11-20-2006, 10:02 PM
I think that the great Bill R., you know that great Celtic with all of those rings, might be an exception to your theory. IMO
He's not as good as one of the top 3 centers to ever play the game!

Off with his head!

ALF68
11-20-2006, 10:08 PM
Wasn't he a "man in green" ?


Ask Jay@sectionmovesaboutquiteabitnowadays' daughter what we think of them ;)

Yes that's for sure. I remember his classic struggles against Wilt, man those were the days. Russ would not only block the shot he would also retrieve it and that is a skill that today's big men don't have. I guess by today's standards he wouldn't be considerd a big man.