PDA

View Full Version : Jackson to see fewer minutes. | Indianapolis Star 11-20



Roaming Gnome
11-20-2006, 08:31 PM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061120/SPORTS04/611200478/1088&GID=U8O+5K0D/dMRWRwMY5b7wfuIQ/sOC+CfXkYrUQf3h6E%3D

Jackson to see fewer minutes
Jackson will come off the bench while wrist heals

By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com

Even Indiana Pacers shooting guard Stephen Jackson admits something had to change.


Jackson, a player who rarely complains about an injury, showed up to practice and games without speaking of his injured right wrist, which he hurt when he was hit by a car outside a strip club on Oct. 6.

That's because playing through injuries is nothing new for him.
Last season, Jackson was on the court three days after going to the hospital for a hard fall against the Los Angeles Lakers. Coach Rick Carlisle had to talk Jackson into missing his only game last season because of a sprained left ankle. Last month, Jackson was back practicing with his teammates just days after being hit by the car.

Jackson was on the court, but he had a hard time putting the ball in the basket. He has struggled from the field, shooting a career-worst 34 percent.
Rather than sit Jackson in attempt to let his wrist heal, the Pacers are letting him play through his injury -- coming off the bench. Jackson came off the bench for the first time this season against Milwaukee on Saturday in the Pacers' 102-100 win.

"When you're hit by a car you're going to have injuries that linger on," Jackson said. "At the same time, I'm able to play. I've never been one to sit around and complain about being hurt. If I can walk, I'll be on he court.
"I've just been in a slump. It got to the point where something had to change in order for us to win games. If it's me coming off the bench, then I have to do it. Nobody is ever happy with making a change like that. But we're professional and do what we have to do."

Jackson responded to his demotion by scoring 17 points on 7-of-17 shooting in 32 minutes against the Bucks. He played the entire fourth quarter.
"He's going to keep working," Carlisle said. "It showed a lot of professionalism on his part to accept coming off the bench and being able to come in the game the way he did and play at the level he played at. I'm real proud and pleased for him."

Jackson, whose conduct on and off the court has rubbed many people the wrong way, routinely stood up and cheered on his teammates during Saturday's game.

"We talked about it (Saturday morning)," forward Jermaine O'Neal said. "It's a long season and there's a lot of ups and downs. You have to be ready to play no matter if it's coming off the bench or not. If we don't play well, we're vulnerable to be taken out of the starting lineup. Or if coach feels there's another way to get a win, then we have to accept it. At the same time, our preparation and dedication toward the game has to stay that way. Jack came out ready to play."

Carlisle said he wants to see Jackson back in his starting position. Jackson, however, said he doesn't mind coming off the bench if the Pacers can string together some victories.

"It feels good that coach has faith in me," he said. "But if it ain't broke don't fix it. I'm with it if we can get on a roll and keep it like this. If we're winning, I'm with it."

PaceBalls
11-20-2006, 08:42 PM
this guy is playing the right way (aside from missing shots) and saying the right things. I can't see JO or AL being like that after losing their starting spots

ajbry
11-20-2006, 09:03 PM
this guy is playing the right way (aside from missing shots) and saying the right things. I can't see JO or AL being like that after losing their starting spots

Amen to that.

However, the other night he still saw his usual amount of minutes coming off the bench, so the title of the article is a bit misleading. Jack will still get at least 30 every game until his wrist heals, and then hopefully it'll be back around 35.

Isaac
11-20-2006, 09:10 PM
I want all the people who said Jack would never accept coming off the bench to come in to this thread and admit they were wrong.

ChicagoJ
11-20-2006, 09:34 PM
Let's make sure his play matches his words - there is frequently a disconnect with this guy - before insisting that his critics admit to anything.

imawhat
11-20-2006, 09:37 PM
Amen to that.

However, the other night he still saw his usual amount of minutes coming off the bench, so the title of the article is a bit misleading.


Look at who the writer is and no further. As negative as can be stretched.

lumber man
11-20-2006, 09:44 PM
<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">
[quote=ajbry;505744]Amen to that.

quote]
i'm with you guys. i don't see how anybody can say anything negative about Jack.
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quis
11-20-2006, 09:45 PM
Just plain awesome news. Quis should not only make a bigger impact with his superior talent, but less of a negative impact with his superior basketball IQ.

ajbry
11-20-2006, 09:49 PM
Just plain awesome news. Quis should not only make a bigger impact with his superior talent, but less of a negative impact with his superior basketball IQ.

http://www.thoughttheater.com/upload/2006/04/troll%20doll.jpg

This is not about Marquis and using this as yet another avenue to display your blind hatred of Jack is really beginning to irritate me, and I hope I am not alone.

Anthem
11-20-2006, 09:50 PM
Just plain awesome news. Quis should not only make a bigger impact with his superior talent, but less of a negative impact with his superior basketball IQ.
Yeesh. It's like bizarro-ajbry.

lumber man
11-20-2006, 09:50 PM
<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">right, i love daniels too, but c'mon.
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quis
11-20-2006, 09:59 PM
http://www.thoughttheater.com/upload/2006/04/troll%20doll.jpg

This is not about Marquis and using this as yet another avenue to display your blind hatred of Jack is really beginning to irritate me, and I hope I am not alone.

Nope. This is all about Marquis. Even in Dallas I knew Quis was a big time impact player waiting for the chance to breakout. Remember, Quis was once considered a better Mavs prospect than Josh Howard. J-Ho got his chance to breakout, now we're gonna give Quis his.

Give him 35 minutes a game and he'll give us 16/6/5 on 48% shooting with some stellar defense. No more 4-14 games from our shooting guard, yay!

OT: but its hilarious you think Im a troll because I prefer one player to another, yet you're perfectly ok with going completely off topic and randomly flaming people by baiting them with a picture of trolls. :laugh:

ajbry
11-20-2006, 10:02 PM
All you do is sing the unjustified praises of Marquis. That's literally all I've seen from you. I like Marquis and I want him to do well here, however he is simply not up to Jack's level at this point. You can take that as my opinion, I am not stating it as fact.

I am not fabricating "16/6/5 on 48% shooting," as you have just done, for example. You can't extrapolate statistics in order to make an argument and attempt to put Marquis over Jack due to your personal estimate.

Quis
11-20-2006, 10:07 PM
Quis started a significant amount of time in Dallas, and he put up similar numbers to the ones I listed. There's no reason he cant and wont do it here, and if he does, he'll be several levels above Stephen Jackson, who's a shooting guard who cant even shoot.

Evan_The_Dude
11-20-2006, 10:08 PM
It's nice to see someone that's a fan of a particular player. But your love for Quis is like the love for Sarunas from the Lithfans last season, it got downright annoying.

McKeyFan
11-20-2006, 10:10 PM
Once again, an "injury" is associated with the benching of a Pacer.

And Stan Van Gundy stepped down as Miami's coach for more time with the fam.

ajbry
11-20-2006, 10:13 PM
Quis started a significant amount of time in Dallas, and he put up similar numbers to the ones I listed. There's no reason he cant and wont do it here, and if he does, he'll be several levels above Stephen Jackson, who's a shooting guard who cant even shoot.

Since when is 62 career starts (out of 188 games played) - roughly 1/3 - a significant amount of starting time? Jack has started 316 of 402 career games- that is significant.

Slick Pinkham
11-20-2006, 10:19 PM
no big deal, replacing one of the bottom 10 starting shooting guards in the league with someone who may have the potential to be better but probably isn't any better right now.

Quis
11-20-2006, 10:23 PM
Since when is 62 career starts (out of 188 games played) - roughly 1/3 - a significant amount of starting time? Jack has started 316 of 402 career games- that is significant.

Quis stated those 62 games for a world champion contender. Jackson started his games for the terrible Hawks or an injury riddled Pacers team. Big difference.

And....and this is the most important part...in those 62 games Quis has proved himself to be a success. Whereas in those 316 games, Jackson has proved himself to be a failure.

ajbry
11-20-2006, 10:25 PM
And....and this is the most important part...in those 62 games Quis has proved himself to be a success. Whereas in those 316 games, Jackson has proved himself to be a failure.

Yet another shallow argument. Where the hell are your facts?

Get yourself together, this is embarassing.

Quis
11-20-2006, 10:26 PM
no big deal, replacing one of the bottom 10 starting shooting guards in the league with someone who may have the potential to be better but probably isn't any better right now.

Why don't you think he's any better right now?


3 Point Shooting? Jackson
Slashing? Quis
Overall Scoring? Quis
Defense? Quis
Passing? Quis
Handling? Quis
Rebounding? Quis
BBall IQ? Quis
Overall? Quis, easily

You think Jackson missing nearly 70% of his shots is really helping the Pacers win? You think Jackson selfishly taking shots away from JO and Granger so he can throw up a few more bricks is helping the team? I don't.

Quis
11-20-2006, 10:26 PM
It's nice to see someone that's a fan of a particular player. But your love for Quis is like the love for Sarunas from the Lithfans last season, it got downright annoying.

Then put me on ignore.

rabid
11-20-2006, 10:30 PM
Quis stated those 62 games for a world champion contender. Jackson started his games for the terrible Hawks or an injury riddled Pacers team. Big difference.

And....and this is the most important part...in those 62 games Quis has proved himself to be a success. Whereas in those 316 games, Jackson has proved himself to be a failure.

(Why I'm bothering, I have no idea):

Um, Stephen Jackson was a starter for an NBA CHAMPION team (Spurs) and won a ring as the starter. Not that it means anything, but if that's the criteria you're using...

Quis
11-20-2006, 10:44 PM
(Why I'm bothering, I have no idea):

Um, Stephen Jackson was a starter for an NBA CHAMPION team (Spurs) and won a ring as the starter. Not that it means anything, but if that's the criteria you're using...

Player - % Responsible for Spurs Title
Tim Duncan - 70%
David Robinson - 10%
Manu Ginobili - 7%
Tony Parker - 6%
Bruce Bowen - 5%
Stephen Jackson - 1%
Everyone Else Combined - 1%

ChicagoJ
11-20-2006, 10:51 PM
For the Spurs, he was the de-facto starter, because Pop had the luxury of replacing him with a pretty damn good rookie whenever SJax played like, well, SJax. There were many games where he started, but played very few minutes. Pop had two luxuries Carlisle hasn't had: (1) more, uh, discipline, and (2) a capable alternative when SJax was stinking up the gym.

Look, I can't think of much that SJax does that is a positive. He shoots a terrible percentage even when his wrist is healthy. He's a turnover waiting to happen, and his court smarts are nil.

Daniels may not have played especially well yet for the Pacers, but he did miss almost all of training camp. Meanwhile, Daniels has all the right ingredients of a high quality SG, he just hasn't put them all together at once.

Daniels has a tremendously high bball IQ, he's an excellent near-the-rim player, is a superior ballhandler, and seems to know his limitations. I thought he'd be better defensively, so I don't know what to make of that yet.

This is a win-win for Pacers fans - we get to see SJax in a smaller role, where he should be more comfortable and more capable of making positive contributions instead of negative ones, and we get to see a young player like Daniels grow up right in front of our very eyes.

I'm excited about Daniels and Granger at the wing positions - should be a lot of fun to watch them grow up.

I'll admit that SJax is gritty and tough. Too bad that he doesn't bring smarts, under-control play, better shot selection, and he brings all his other baggage. He should be one of the most likeable Pacer players, with the adversity he's overcome, but he's burned a lot of bridges with his (dumb) play and his on-court demeaner and decision-making.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Quis, on a personal note, you're finding an interesting way to say lots of things that I agree with in a manner that is probably over-the-top. I'm sure that I'm not alone in wondering if there is a more effective way to say what you're saying?

Anthem
11-20-2006, 10:53 PM
Then put me on ignore.
Ok, help me understand. What makes somebody like you tick? I don't understand it.

You're the same as our Lithuanian/Israeli friends, but with a man-crush on Marquis Daniels instead of Sarunas. Logic? Not needed. Understanding? Nope. The desire for dialogue? Not even close.

You (plural) don't come on here for conversation. You come on here to pimp your favorite player. You (plural) have no idea how tiring it is for the rest of us. You (plural) haven't broken any rules, which means we can't ask the mods to ban you (plural). And that tears me up, because the forum was better before you (plural) were here. And it will be better after you (plural) leave.

Come on, man. You're not here to discuss. You're just here to troll. Do us all a favor and go post here instead:

http://www2.indystar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11

ajbry
11-20-2006, 10:54 PM
Player - % Responsible for Spurs Title
Tim Duncan - 70%
David Robinson - 10%
Manu Ginobili - 7%
Tony Parker - 6%
Bruce Bowen - 5%
Stephen Jackson - 1%
Everyone Else Combined - 1%

:laugh:

How did you formulate those percentages? You're killing me over here. Thanks for the laugh.

ChicagoJ
11-20-2006, 11:00 PM
:laugh:

How did you formulate those percentages? You're killing me over here. Thanks for the laugh.

You got another alternative?

Do you want me to pull out SJax's playoff/ Finals box scores again?

He may have been in the starting lineup, but he was the equivalent of their sixth/ seventh man.

How can you possibly argue that SJax had more to do with that team winning a title than Duncan, Robinson, Ginobolli and Parker?

Maybe he's on-par with Bowen, but Bowen is much more consistent than SJax and therefore had a much more consistent role than SJax.

If that's true (its debateable), that puts SJax fifth, instead of sixth. Is that really laughable?

Maybe we need an official Saras/ Daniels thread for you two to hash this out without contaminating too many more threads with your over-reactions to each other? This one, however, seems to be a legit place since you actually are on-topic here. :shrug:

SycamoreKen
11-20-2006, 11:00 PM
Player - % Responsible for Spurs Title
Tim Duncan - 70%
David Robinson - 10%
Manu Ginobili - 7%
Tony Parker - 6%
Bruce Bowen - 5%
Stephen Jackson - 1%
Everyone Else Combined - 1%

OK, what little cred. you had just went out the window. Did you even see that series or were you too young to remember it? Jackson was STARTING then with Manu coming off of the bench. He hit some big shots in the playoffs before the finals and averaged more points than Manu did. Oh yes, some guy named Robinson was in that bottom 1% as well.:rolleyes:

Anyway, I like this move for 3 reasons. First, this gives us instant offense off of the bench and lets SJ heal up.

Second, this lets MD start giving us a pentrator and person that can help advance the ball.

Third, and I don't bring this up as a put down on Jax, but just as a look at reality, it lets us prepare for the worst that could happen in Jamuary. I love that Jax is playing well and improving on what many of us complained about, but I have also had this worry about how we would deal with losing him for a while in January. Replacing him coming off the bench would be easier than replacing him in the starting lineup. At least it will not be new if it happens. I hope it doesn't though.

ajbry
11-20-2006, 11:08 PM
You got another alternative?

Do you want me to pull out SJax's playoff/ Finals box scores again?

He may have been in the starting lineup, but he was the equivalent of their sixth/ seventh man.

How can you possibly argue that SJax had more to do with that team winning a title than Duncan, Robinson, Ginobolli and Parker?

Maybe he's on-par with Bowen, but Bowen is much more consistent than SJax and therefore had a much more consistent role than SJax.

I'll let an unbiased and reputable source do the talking on this one:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA110506.10C.NZ.BKNtop30.spurs.2c2db9d.html

Fireball Kid
11-20-2006, 11:08 PM
Quis, this thread is not about Marquis Daniels. Why are you turning it into one?

Seriously man, your not making any friends here.

SycamoreKen
11-20-2006, 11:12 PM
I'll let an unbiased and reputable source do the talking on this one:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA110506.10C.NZ.BKNtop30.spurs.2c2db9d.html

I would say check the box scores too. Bowen may have been doing his D thing, but Jax was scoring more. His turnovers were high, but they don't win it without him. His game 6 against the Mavs was overshadowed by Kerr.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/history/

ajbry
11-20-2006, 11:15 PM
I would say check the box scores too. Bowen may have been doing his D thing, but Jax was scoring more. His turnovers were high, but they don't win it without him. His game 6 against the Mavs was overshadowed by Kerr.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/history/

I agree about his turnovers and his his shaky Game 6 performance. However, Jack hit a couple threes in the 4th quarter of that game to give the Spurs the lead and they never relinquished it.

His overall postseason performance was a deciding factor as you said, they don't win it without him. He was indeed the 3rd-leading scorer and stepped up his game from the regular season.

SycamoreKen
11-20-2006, 11:24 PM
Sorry to drag this thread further off course, but how the Spurs responded to that playoff out put when it came to his contract demands showed they understood his real value though. Instead of "Croshere-ing" him and giving him a contract for more than his true value, they made him a decent offer that he and his agent thought was too low and turned down.

sixthman
11-20-2006, 11:32 PM
Third, and I don't bring this up as a put down on Jax, but just as a look at reality, it lets us prepare for the worst that could happen in Jamuary. I love that Jax is playing well and improving on what many of us complained about, but I have also had this worry about how we would deal with losing him for a while in January. Replacing him coming off the bench would be easier than replacing him in the starting lineup. At least it will not be new if it happens. I hope it doesn't though.

I thought this was a good point.

Right now it makes sense to give Marquis a chance to show what he can do as a starter. I had always heard that Marquis was a weak shooter, but his stroke to me looks like his shooting from the outside will continue to improve.

ChicagoJ
11-20-2006, 11:33 PM
He played six totally typical SJax games in the NBA Finals.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18791

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24017

:sleep:

AesopRockOn
11-20-2006, 11:56 PM
As an admin, Jay isn't setting much of an example. I'd expect this from someone named Quis or one of the Saras lovers, but that a 'respected' poster would carry on a petty argument concerning the umpteenth (spelling?) topic on Jack vs. Saras, or Jack vs. Quis, or Jack vs. Indianapolis, or Jack vs. the clubbing of baby seals ;), it's getting ridiculous and dissappointing. I'm surprised there are some many people reading this thread and not inputing the :censored: smilie. On the topic, it's good that we're both trying out new lineups and trying to keep our injury situation under control. I'm content with Jack as long as he's giving his all on the defensive end and playing team ball, especially if he's still feeling it after getting hit by a car! We still need to mess around more with the lineups to get more people rebounding and playing hard defense; other than that, we're in the top five in the East and not even close to completely meshed and set. We're doing fine but that doesn't seem to be enough for some who just need to have these pointless heated arguments about things that mostly aren't relevant. Props to those who try to keep the peace and not spark needless fury and conflict. Keep ya head up PD members and cheer for your team; they're going to kick *** this year.

larry
11-21-2006, 12:44 AM
Well like I said in Uncle Buck's last thread its pretty simple... if Jack is on we win if Jack is off we lose. Jack doesn't shoot 50% so do the math. I think he should come off the bench. We could use his scoring off the bench. We have too many scorers in the starting lineup. I do like Jack's toughness and this will make the fans enjoy him more. I think it would releive pressure off of Jack and his shooting could improve because of it. It would be nice to be able to cheer for Jack. I've always liked his toughness and I like this kind of for the best of my team attitude. It makes basketball sense to me as well, so this is a feel good read to me. I'm not going to beleive it until I see it though.

pizza guy
11-21-2006, 01:15 AM
This thread has been ridiculous. Sure, I'm not a fan of Jackson, and I am of 'Quis. But there's no reason for blind love or hate towards either. Neither is LeBron, or Kobe, or DWade, but praise the Lord, they're not Jamison Brewer either.

I don't think we should necessarily bench one for the other, but play them together. It would move Danny to the bench, so one (preferably Jax) can slide to SF where his size can be used better. For his 3pt%, he should be shooting a little less than a SG, but works well inside. 'Quis has better handles, and is a better creator with the ball; making him a better fit at SG. We'd have a hideous outside shooting team, but we do anyways...

The simple answer, which unfortunately is not as easy to do, is with apologies to ajbry, trade Jackson for a good shooter. I've wanted to do it for a while now, but with the addition of 'Quis, it seems to be a bigger need now than ever.

Just
11-21-2006, 01:52 AM
:yes:

I'm just excited that Jax is playing less.

Alpolloloco
11-21-2006, 02:57 AM
All you do is sing the unjustified praises of Marquis. That's literally all I've seen from you.

Coming from someone who only talks about his manlove Jackson? :crazy:

CableKC
11-21-2006, 03:18 AM
Oyyy....why must I always be the one to get things back on track?

If a player has a wrist injury......is it a good idea to continue playing ( despite the fact that SJax is willing to play through it )?

I would think that its a good idea to simply rest his shooting wrist to allow it to heal :shrug:

I'm not saying that he isn't capable and glad that we have someone that is willing to play through an injury....but I would think that it would be better (A) to let it heal quicker so that he's capable of shooting at 100% and (B) because of his knack for taking too many shots with a injured wrist, it may hinder his effectiveness.

Israfan
11-21-2006, 03:37 AM
:rolleyes: SARUNAS!!!
(being sarcastic)

Jose Slaughter
11-21-2006, 05:08 AM
When I turned on the Bucks game I saw that Daniels was getting the start over Jackson, due to an injury .

Then Jackson plays 32 minutes. His season average is just was just under 31 going into the game.

I don't get it.

But this is the Pacers, theres a lot I don't understand about this team anymore!

spazzxb
11-21-2006, 05:37 AM
Nope. This is all about Marquis. Even in Dallas I knew Quis was a big time impact player waiting for the chance to breakout. Remember, Quis was once considered a better Mavs prospect than Josh Howard. J-Ho got his chance to breakout, now we're gonna give Quis his.

Give him 35 minutes a game and he'll give us 16/6/5 on 48% shooting with some stellar defense. No more 4-14 games from our shooting guard, yay!

OT: but its hilarious you think Im a troll because I prefer one player to another, yet you're perfectly ok with going completely off topic and randomly flaming people by baiting them with a picture of trolls. :laugh:

He called you roll since you had to make a backanded comment towards jack. Just sa you happy, and why. No need to raag on people who are doing right by this team

Slick Pinkham
11-21-2006, 09:23 AM
When I turned on the Bucks game I saw that Daniels was getting the start over Jackson, due to an injury .

Then Jackson plays 32 minutes. His season average is just was just under 31 going into the game.

I don't get it.

But this is the Pacers, theres a lot I don't understand about this team anymore!

Yep, I don't get why people are so agitated. We have a really lousy starting shooting guard, bottom 10 in the league, that most of us would like to give away for next to nothing, with tons of "issues" and he suddenly comes off the bench but still plays 30 minutes. His unproven replacement has some intriguing skills but is certainly that: UNPROVEN.

a non-issue- replacing crap with possible crap to try to get a potential 40 win team to be a potential 42 win team. I much prefer Marquis because I'm not 100% sure that he is crap. But I'd prefer Jackson's minutes to be about 12 not 31.

It's like an argument over rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and speculating which arrangement helps it get by the iceberg better.

Or to use another analogy, we got used to having a hall-of-fame SG the past 20 years. We were spoiled by having filet mignon every night. Now the choices are a chicken frank and a turkey frank.

dannyboy
11-21-2006, 12:06 PM
Look, I can't think of much that SJax does that is a positive. He shoots a terrible percentage even when his wrist is healthy. He's a turnover waiting to happen, and his court smarts are nil.

Aww, man. You switched it up on me. I always look forward to reading your replies to anything on the subject of one Stephen Jackson so that I can, nearly every time, see the following phrases: streaky, turnover prone, and low bball iq. I get a kick out of the consistency of the appearance of those exact phrases. And you go and change the wording.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
By the way, I don’t mean to be inflammatory. Even though Steve is my guy, I enjoy reading what you have to say because I can tell that your interest in the Pacers success as a team overrides any personal bias against individual players. (I guess instead of including that last part, I could've just used that wretched :flirt: smiley).

pacerwaala
11-21-2006, 12:17 PM
Even if SJax contributed or did not contribute to the Spurs championship, that does not have any bearing on his merits/demerits with the Pacers on and off the court. With the Spurs, he was a guard trying to make it in this league and had a disciplinarian for a coach. Also, the coach had the luxury of pulling the trigger on SJax and putting Ginobbli in. So hopefully, Marquis will be our Manu and straighten out SJax.

SJax would be good if he was a third or fourth option on any team(which was what he was on that Spurs team), not when he has it in his head that he is a primary offensive weapon on this team. He flourished in a bad team in Atlanta where he had the green light and was in a contract year. He has no concept of team basketball. He really has a set shot for a shooting guard, constantly whines to the refs, talks back to the coaching staff and launches shots outside of the offensive game plan when his dick itches. His concentration level is less and he is not disciplined which is reflected by him picking up the uncessary technical. Don't even get me started on the brawl, If I were Stern I would easily have suspended SJax for the season and Artest for 30-40 games.

That is where I stand.

Anthem
11-21-2006, 01:19 PM
Coming from someone who only talks about his manlove Jackson? :crazy:
:potkettle:

Thirtysomethin
11-21-2006, 01:50 PM
Jax and Quis are both better than fred jones

OneHappyFan
11-21-2006, 02:34 PM
Or AJ for that matter.

imawhat
11-21-2006, 02:46 PM
When I turned on the Bucks game I saw that Daniels was getting the start over Jackson, due to an injury .

Then Jackson plays 32 minutes. His season average is just was just under 31 going into the game.

I don't get it.

But this is the Pacers, theres a lot I don't understand about this team anymore!



The only reason he got his minutes is because he played so well.

Who knows why Marquis was inserted in place of Stephen...::shrugs::. I'm not saying Marquis is better or worse, but the areas where Stephen struggles are not areas where Marquis is significantly better. Carlisle said Daniels earned it with his good play..maybe that's it.

D-BONE
11-21-2006, 02:50 PM
This debate will apparently rage forever. IMO it brings out more subjectivity and agendas than any other on the board. Maybe not the whole Sarunas deal but surprising none the less when the two players involved in this one are really not very far apart in terms of overall impact to the team as currently composed.

It's a given Jack's many issues off and on the court the past two seasons will understandably affect some people's opinion of him. For me though, to make an attempt at objectively weighing each players relative offering as of now, one must take into account what each player has shown this season and where the team is and is going.

As I've said before, given where the team is at now, in my mind we need both of them playing significant minutes. Say around 30. Meaning that they will spend considerable time on the court together. Who starts or doesn't is of relatively little importance. Who plays big minutes and is on the court at the ends of games is of importance. Based on our overall backcourt situation, both these guys need to play.

Quis obviously has more potential up side. But potential is a very unstable and dangerous word sometimes. Still it's important he get the opportunity to see if it can be developed. My honest opinion is that both will ultimately turn out to be approximately similar in impact in the long term even though they might have somewhat different skill sets but who knows.

To fail to at least recognize Jack's 10 games of solid play and team play (including curtailing his whining and outbursts) and/or say well it may not last is roughly equivalent to saying Quis is better based on potential-something that also may never materialize. It's too difficult to predict. What can be said is they both are good enough to help us as of today.

Bottom line, I agree with those who've brought up the fact that neither is our prefered long-term option at SG. In addition, I strongly believe that one way to get Quis, Danny, and Jack significant minutes is to let Quis get some minutes at PG.

CableKC
11-21-2006, 03:04 PM
I know that ( outside of Marquis ) we are short on any real SGs in the lineup ( unless we shift some SFs or PGs to the SG rotation ).....but I still don't know if its a good idea to continue to play a player with a wrist injury ( given what happened in the Club Rio incident, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that it is a real injury ) or if ( in general ) the best method to speed the healing process for an injured wrist is to simply play and shoot more.

Is there a doctor in the house that can answer this?

I'm not going to go into all this "SJax sucks and Marquis should get minutes" BS that have taken up this entire thread.....but unless we have ZERO players that can backfill the SG rotation....then I think that for the benefit to the team as a whole and to SJax himself....its more important to get all of our players back to 100% rather then play a player that is injured.

I know that SJax ( and his supporters ) prides himself on being an ironman....but if SJax is a streaky scorer ( at best ) when his wrist is 100%...then won't his effectiveness be limited if his wrist is bothering him?

I'm not saying that he sucks or anything....I just would much rather have SJax play at 100% then have him play through an injury running at 75% ( likely as a detriment to the team ).

ajbry
11-21-2006, 04:23 PM
Coming from someone who only talks about his manlove Jackson? :crazy:

What are you talking about son? I constantly post in the game threads and offer my opinion on pretty much everything else around here. Jack is my ******* favorite player and it shouldn't be a problem if I enjoy to discuss him, without demeaning other players in the process.

Try and come a bit harder next time.

Naptown_Seth
11-22-2006, 12:08 AM
Anthem and Syc.Ken...awesome. Really made me happy to see your comments.



Jay - despite the Pacers turnovers going up about 2 per game, Jackson's seen his TOs drop about .5 or so. Below 2 a game. His A/TO has been above 2 at this point and his steals to TO is running close to 1.

The TO guys on this team are - Sarunas, Tinsley (both near 5 per48, ugh, near the worst in the East), Foster (yep, his per48 is at 4 flat even), then JO and Al in the mid 3's per48. Jack is at 3 flat per48 for comparison.

In fact of the top 9 minutes guys (ie, the main rotation, not Rawle, David, Powell, Baston, Greene) the only guys holding on to the ball BETTER than Jackson are Granger and Armstrong (both 2.1 per48 which is a nice number IMO).

Jack USED TO turn the ball over too much. Jack USED TO argue with refs and draw a lot of techs.


Back to the thread topic - Fred broke his finger, his 3 ball went to 30%. Croshere injured his chest and ribs, his 3 ball went to 25%. Both were WAY below their normal shooting rate and both magically shot better when they got healthy.

The guy did get hit by a car and his 3p% is about 10 below his norm, or worse after tonight. Something is seriously wrong with his shot.

However when you watch his game otherwise he looks great. I haven't noticed problems with his left hand dribbles or with him shying away from contact on it. He of course went 33 min off the bench, more than "starter" Daniels, though both finished the game (which I liked).

It could be that his wrist is hurt and it's killing his outside shot, but clearly it's not enough to keep his minutes down or keep him from starting. I think it's silly to hide a strategic move behind the injury excuse.

Of course it's been 2 games, perhaps they had intentions to reduce his role but when it came down to it Rick needed Jack on the floor doing the other stuff he does (4 of 7 inside the arc, 2 ast, steal, 2 blocks, 1 of those to seal the game, big defense on Redd's final attempt to tie it as well).


What has concerned me is that belief that Danny is the 3pt answer. He has a couple of hot games and his 3PAs are going through the roof. This is a SF that played PF last year. Yes he has an outside shot, but he is not a 40% guy in the long run IMO. The 2 of 9 tonight was bad, made worse by the fact that Danny has heavily leaned on it lately rather than scoring inside.

His 3PA to 2PA ratio is over 1.00 I think in the last 4-5 games, and that is not the way you want a lanky SF with some handles and moves to play offense. He draws no fouls when he settles for being the "3pt guy".

Putting Jack on the bench doesn't fix that. The team strategy simply must be to keep those 3PAs under 16 at least, and more like 12-13. If Jack takes TWO and goes 0-2, so be it. He's looking for his old shot. If Danny take 4 during a hot phase then okay. Sarunas 2, DA 2, a couple others in the mix. That's it, stop there and score the ball in the paint.

One thing I credit Jack on during his slump. He's continued to take more shots in the paint than from behind the arc, save the 3-9 3PA game the other day.

Naptown_Seth
11-22-2006, 12:15 AM
if Jack is on we win if Jack is off we lose. Jack doesn't shoot 50% so do the math.
Jack's FG% - 34%
Pacers win PCT - 55%

I did the math. It told me you should try another theory. ;) :-p



BTW Anthem, is it wrong for me to want a GIF version of the pot/kettle fight so I can see some of that action. Looks to be some real UFC kinda stuff about to go down. :D

Will Galen
11-22-2006, 01:03 AM
Sorry to drag this thread further off course, but how the Spurs responded to that playoff out put when it came to his contract demands showed they understood his real value though. Instead of "Croshere-ing" him and giving him a contract for more than his true value, they made him a decent offer that he and his agent thought was too low and turned down.

How come they tried to trade for him before the deadline the next year if they realized his true value? Seems they decided he was worth the money after all.

SycamoreKen
11-22-2006, 11:08 AM
How come they tried to trade for him before the deadline the next year if they realized his true value? Seems they decided he was worth the money after all.

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but if I remember correctly, Jackson took less money in Atlanta than the Spurs origionally offered him. He sure wasn't making what he is now.

denyfizle
11-23-2006, 06:25 AM
Jack has been great so far. Maybe not offensively but he's been playing under control and grest defense. I am one of his biggest critics- i never liked his play since we got him. But he's been good thus far. What we need is a trade or two or a few. Let's play Shawne Williams. The others have gotten their shot. What the heck is RC sniffin?

Smooth_for_Pres.
11-23-2006, 10:29 AM
This is a win-win for Pacers fans - we get to see SJax in a smaller role, where he should be more comfortable and more capable of making positive contributions instead of negative ones, and we get to see a young player like Daniels grow up right in front of our very eyes.

Quis, on a personal note, you're finding an interesting way to say lots of things that I agree with in a manner that is probably over-the-top. I'm sure that I'm not alone in wondering if there is a more effective way to say what you're saying?

Well informed and insightful.... you guys should take a cue from Jay.

sig
11-24-2006, 05:32 PM
I like quis a lot. I wish the Mavs would have not traded him but for some reason he was always in Avery's doghouse. I do not think he was ever considered a better prospect than Josh. If that was the case the Mavs would have drafted him instead of Howard.

Quis had a nice run late in his rookie year because Nellie gave him free reign to shoot the ball as much as he could. He out played Josh during that time. Josh had a tough rookie year adjusting to the NBA and had some injuries that knocked him back and slowed his development in the 2nd half of the year.