PDA

View Full Version : Sonics postgame thread



Unclebuck
12-02-2006, 01:08 AM
This will be very short.

Pacers lost for the following reasons

1) Too many turnovers especially in the 1st half
2) Too many missed free throws
3) Poor defensive rebounding in the 4th quarter. hello Al and Granger where were you in this area.
4) Al didn't get a shot in the last 5 minutes of the game.
5) Terrible Pacers defense until the 4th quarter

The Sonics were very beatable tonight and the Pacers blew it.

On Luke's last shot, Granger did all he could, but Tinsley should have played position defense instead of just a little metador defense, I guess going for a steal. Tinsley was there but he didn't play fundamental defense.

Tomorrow night will be extremely tough. It is what I call a schedule loss. Four games in 5 nights all on the road. 5 games in 7 nights all on the road. These road trips take a heavy toll on a team, and the last few games of a long trip are almost impossible to win. Then you throw in the altitude and the Nuggets style of play. Could easily be a blowout. Lakers will be tough too.

But overall I'm more confident in the Pacers team than I was before this trip and that is regardless of what happens in the next two which were always going to be the toughest games on the rip

Trader Joe
12-02-2006, 01:16 AM
We pissed that game away. Straight down the drain.

Lord Helmet
12-02-2006, 01:20 AM
We pissed that game away. Straight down the drain.
Nothing more needs to be said, other than that.

Aw Heck
12-02-2006, 01:20 AM
Seeing the Pacers forget how to break a press was probably the most frustrating part for me. Even more frustrating was the fact that the Sonics went to the press every time they made a free throw. And yet the Pacers kept turning it over like they didn't expect it.

But yeah, it's already been said. Turnovers and bad defense cost us the game.

And even though he's been playing well, Tinsley's matador defense is not helping.

Quis
12-02-2006, 01:22 AM
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Stephen Jackson has no business taking shots over Al Harrington, especially in the final minutes of the game.

AL is hitting 49% from the floor and a downright sick 59% from downtown.

JACK? 37% and 25%. Ouch.

Jackson is by far the most selfish player on the Pacers roster and thats one of the main reasons I want to see him off the team.

Big Baby Al: 24/41 from downtown
Wacko Jacko: 18/72 from downtown

Which is the SHOOTING guard and which is the forward again?

TheDon
12-02-2006, 01:23 AM
The last second of that game isn't what beat us. we had to have had at least 20 turnovers in that game INEXCUSABLE. I don't understand some of those passes tinsley made were just flat out awful and I mean AWFUL. Jack did a good job on Allen. Granger there was one instance he had a clean lane right to the basket but for whatever reason he pulls back and shoots a jumper which rims out. I was watching in a restaraunt and had no audio where the hell was JO for like 90% of the game? I mean I'm not talking that he didn't show up...he was just...not out there for whatever reason? Is he injured again? That last play though Jermaine was nowhere to be found usually he stands in on those plays and tries to at least stop crap like that. I hope we beat the nuggets but they usually kill us so...i'll keep my fingers crossed.

4040
12-02-2006, 01:23 AM
If I could make a comparison to the rebounding tonight, the game was up in the air, but the Sonics came up with it, over and over and over.

That is all.

bnd45
12-02-2006, 01:24 AM
Tomorrow night will be extremely tough. It is what I call a schedule loss. Four games in 5 nights all on the road. 5 games in 7 nights all on the road. These road trips take a heavy toll on a team, and the last few games of a long trip are almost impossible to win. Then you throw in the altitude and the Nuggets style of play. Could easily be a blowout. Lakers will be tought too.



This is what makes tonight's outcome so difficult. We had Win #3 there for the taking and now we could easily go 2-4 on the trip. Recently, Denver has had there way with us, so I'm hoping we can at least beat the Lakers and come out 10-9 through the tough 19 game opening.

Very tough loss, but at least we're starting to see different guys hit big shots this year.

Unclebuck
12-02-2006, 01:25 AM
On that last play there was a switch and Granger was on Luke, but if you watch the replay Tinsley comes over and is in great position to seal off the lane which would have forced Luke to shoot it right over Granger flat footed or he would have had to pass the ball and I don't think there was enough time to pass the ball. But I don't blame Tinsley for the loss - the loss was a team effort.

Trader Joe
12-02-2006, 01:26 AM
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Stephen Jackson has no business taking shots over Al Harrington, especially in the final minutes of the game.

AL is hitting 49% from the floor and a downright sick 59% from downtown.

JACK? 37% and 25%. Ouch.

Jackson is by far the most selfish player on the Pacers roster and thats one of the main reasons I want to see him off the team.

I agree it was extremely poor shot selection particularly the second time around. Beyond that tho we lost this game when we weren't up by 10+ at half tme like we would have been had we done one of either play good D or protect the ball.

Unclebuck
12-02-2006, 01:28 AM
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Stephen Jackson has no business taking shots over Al Harrington, especially in the final minutes of the game.

AL is hitting 49% from the floor and a downright sick 59% from downtown.

JACK? 37% and 25%. Ouch.

Jackson is by far the most selfish player on the Pacers roster and thats one of the main reasons I want to see him off the team.

Big Baby Al: 24/41 from downtown
Wacko Jacko: 18/72 from downtown

Which is the SHOOTING guard and which is the forward again?



I'm not going to argue with you, however Jackson's defense on Ray Allen was outstanding, and his defense kept the pacers in the game. Also there were times when I thought Jackson was the only Pacer player playing really hard in the first half. So as always it is a mixed bad with Jax

Trader Joe
12-02-2006, 01:29 AM
On that last play there was a switch and Granger was on Luke, but if you watch the replay Tinsley comes over and is in great position to seal off the lane which would have forced Luke to shoot it right over Granger flat footed or he would have had to pass the ball and I don't think there was enough time to pass the ball. But I don't blame Tinsley for the loss - the loss was a team effort.

Agreed on this point as well, but as has been mentioned before a win in this game would have been us just being the purely better team. Tonight we played junky in just about every aspect except one (shooting percentage) and it bit us in the rear.

bnd45
12-02-2006, 01:41 AM
I think this team has a big winning streak in them at some point.

I refuse to believe that we are no more than a .500 team.

10-9. That's what I wanted at the beginning of the year. Get through those first 19 and then take off.

ajbry
12-02-2006, 01:52 AM
I am somewhat shocked, even by PD standards, at the posts blaming Jack for this loss. If we hadn't taken the ball out his hands for essentially the whole game except for the 1st quarter (he had 7 shots TOTAL before he shot those last two), then maybe he'd be in a rhythm. But you don't just give the ball to a streaky shooter and expect him to make it if you have Jamaal Tinsley shooting the damn ball like a maniac and not giving your SG any ample opportunities for basically the whole game.

That being said, we just didn't play well enough to win. We shot well, but everyone does against Seattle... everything else was subpar.

Trader Joe
12-02-2006, 01:56 AM
I am somewhat shocked, even by PD standards, at the posts blaming Jack for this loss. If we hadn't taken the ball out his hands for essentially the whole game except for the 1st quarter (he had 7 shots TOTAL before he shot those last two), then maybe he'd be in a rhythm. But you don't just give the ball to a streaky shooter and expect him to make it if you have Jamaal Tinsley shooting the damn ball like a maniac and not giving your SG any ample opportunities for basically the whole game.

That being said, we just didn't play well enough to win. We shot well, but everyone does against Seattle... everything else was subpar.

You would be.

Israfan
12-02-2006, 05:33 AM
And even though he's been playing well, Tinsley's matador defense is not helping.

I hope you don't mean this game. 4/14 FG is bad bad bad

D-BONE
12-02-2006, 08:45 AM
This is what makes tonight's outcome so difficult. We had Win #3 there for the taking and now we could easily go 2-4 on the trip. Recently, Denver has had there way with us, so I'm hoping we can at least beat the Lakers and come out 10-9 through the tough 19 game opening.

Very tough loss, but at least we're starting to see different guys hit big shots this year.

I concur. Not to mention if memory serves correctly we have never been all too successful against the Lakers in their building(s). So the last two games look ominous. If we just do just one of the things UB identifies in the initial post here better throughout the game, we win at Seattle.

I hope your'e right about the win streak, too. Originally, I thought 10-10 would be acceptable through 20 given the new guys and the early schedule. For me, any notable improvement would come sometime after that if it does.

Hicks
12-02-2006, 08:54 AM
But you don't just give the ball to a streaky shooter and expect him to make it if you have Jamaal Tinsley shooting the damn ball like a maniac and not giving your SG any ample opportunities for basically the whole game.

I don't think they gave him the ball expecting him to even take it, let alone make it. Jack had other ideas to be the 'hero'.

The king of that mentality tonight was Tinsley; God he had a lot of horrible shots.

rexnom
12-02-2006, 09:02 AM
We had no business winning that GS game, sorry. We should have won this one. It's ok. You win some, you lose some. They're still meshing (though that excuse has about one more month before it gets old).

pizza guy
12-02-2006, 09:04 AM
What confused me in last night's game was the amount of playing time of Tinsley vs. Sarunas. I know the defense is bad with Runi, but Tins isn't that much better, let's be honest. And, there will be someone point out that Runi got caught in a 8-second violation. But Tinsley couldn't make a shot and was turning the ball over like crazy, while Runi really had his offense going in his short time. In a game that turned into a shootout, we really could have used Runi's offense, not Tinsley's turnovers.

Jack took a couple bad shots, but his defense was outstanding on RayRay last night.

JO went out with a hammy tweak, I'm not sure if anyone answered that for the poster who questioned where he was. He played well when he was in, I thought--making the tying basket with 6 seconds left.

Another great game from Al, though we could have used some rebounding.

HoldenCaulfield
12-02-2006, 09:15 AM
Hey, I didn't get the chance to see the game last night, so I was hoping you guys could answer some of my questions. First off: Why didn't Sarunas get more PT? According to the box score he was 3-4 for 7 pts, 3 assists, yet only got 16 minutes of floor time. Was it a prime example of Carlisle having more patience with other players than Cabbage's shortcomings, or was there a legitimate reason for his being "benched?"

Secondly: I really wish people would get off Jack's back. Once again, I didn't get to see the game in question last night, but the guy takes so much flack from people on here, you'd think he was responsible for everything bad in the world. With the possible exception of Danny Granger, he is the best perimeter defender, and to date this season his shot selection has been much better than last year. Also, everyone needs to remember he's got one thing very few (if any?) of the other Pacers can boast of, and that's a Championship ring on his finger. A championship that he had no small part in at that. I really think if we want to win these tight games, he has to be in at the end.

That's about all I can conjure up from watching the highlights. I wish J'O wouldn't settle for that 16-foot fadeaway in the final seconds, but when it drops there's really nothing to say. The D' was solid on that final shot by Ridenour. Complements to Danny G. It sucks to see that shot go in. Great looking shot though, from an objective stand-point. Go Pacers.

Unclebuck
12-02-2006, 09:36 AM
Tinsley only played 28 minutes - whoch isn't a lot for him. As to why Saras didn't play more - he had a lot of trouble with the Sonics pressure in the first half, so you had to take him out and put Tinsley back in. In the second half Saras was playing pretty well and it looked to me like maybe Rick wouldn't bring Tinsley back in but he did with about 6 minutes left.

One other point, to start the 4th quarter the Pacers started with DA and Saras in the game and Saras was on Ray Allen and Ray hit two shots, so Rick had to get Jackson back in there. Jackson played great defense on Ray - I cannot stress that enough. Granger defended Lewis very well also.

D-BONE
12-02-2006, 09:37 AM
Couple more thoughts here. Despite the frustrating loss, as in most of our losses this year, it was not heavily due to a lack of effort. A good sign. We generally played hard, with the exception of the slow first quarter start. The execution was not good in many areas of course.

I was happy to see Baston get some time although sorry it had to come due to JO's absence for much of the 1st half and Foster's foul trouble. While I wouldn't say he really distinguished himself, he didn't hurt us either. He scrapped, ran the floor, and had a good block. I think he could do a decent job off the bench in a consistent 10-12 minutes. Well, I at least wouldn't mind seeing him get the chance to prove it.

Unclebuck
12-02-2006, 09:43 AM
Baston in some ways reminds me of Foster a little bit (granted I still haven't seen anough of him to really understand his game yet) but he seems to have a nose for the ball and has a good understanding of how to play defense.

McKeyFan
12-02-2006, 10:35 AM
it is a mixed bad with Jax

Couldn't have said it better myself.

McKeyFan
12-02-2006, 10:40 AM
What confused me in last night's game was the amount of playing time of Tinsley vs. Sarunas. I know the defense is bad with Runi, but Tins isn't that much better, let's be honest. And, there will be someone point out that Runi got caught in a 8-second violation. But Tinsley couldn't make a shot and was turning the ball over like crazy, while Runi really had his offense going in his short time. In a game that turned into a shootout, we really could have used Runi's offense, not Tinsley's turnovers.

Jack took a couple bad shots, but his defense was outstanding on RayRay last night.

JO went out with a hammy tweak, I'm not sure if anyone answered that for the poster who questioned where he was. He played well when he was in, I thought--making the tying basket with 6 seconds left.

Another great game from Al, though we could have used some rebounding.

Saras played 16 minutes. When he gets less than 20 minutes, our winning percentage goes significantly down. (I spent way too much time figuring the stats on this the other day :)

MagicRat
12-02-2006, 10:41 AM
On that last play there was a switch and Granger was on Luke, but if you watch the replay Tinsley comes over and is in great position to seal off the lane which would have forced Luke to shoot it right over Granger flat footed or he would have had to pass the ball and I don't think there was enough time to pass the ball. But I don't blame Tinsley for the loss - the loss was a team effort.

I'm sure your "I can believe that dumb!@$ Tinsley got a blocking foul with .2 left on the clock" post would've been stellar......

J_2_Da_IzzO
12-02-2006, 10:48 AM
JO seemed pretty clutch from the highlights I managed to see. Scored 2 baskets in the last minute.

odeez
12-02-2006, 11:19 AM
I watched the whole game on my high tech phone. A loss sucks no matter how you look at it. If we can keep those turnovers down and stay consistant on the D we would win a game like this. We still could've won last night though, Ridnour just hit a crazy shot.

Overall I like our confidense now and I love seeing Al play the way he is playing. We are keeping the games close now and on the road that is all you can ask for. I would love to see us win one tonight. Cleveland and Detroit are moving ahead and I so want us to keep up with them and pass them at some point.

One more thing, does anyone out there feel like we need to make any trades? Of course the Tinsley and Jackson haters will speak up. I feel like we need another defensive stopper, a Bowen type, someone who can get stops and hit some threes. I am sure there will be various opinions out there...

Let's win tonight! It will be tough, but we can do it.

D-BONE
12-02-2006, 01:23 PM
One more thing, does anyone out there feel like we need to make any trades? Of course the Tinsley and Jackson haters will speak up. I feel like we need another defensive stopper, a Bowen type, someone who can get stops and hit some threes. I am sure there will be various opinions out there...



Well, I don't know what we have to offer or who's available, but it we're talking a need for D, then Jack is not somebody who should be moving out. I think it's more a case of a coulple specific factors defensively. (See my thread on area of concern for more details.)

Quis, Jack, and Granger are solid wing defenders. JO is good on the interior. Jeff is decent and I honestly think Baston has some potential to contribute defensively. We need better D out of the PG spot as we all are aware. DA gives energy on the ball but is only good for limited spurts.

I'm not convinced we couldn't at least try to remedy this in house first by just giving Quis and/or Greene some looks at PG in certain situations or for shorter stints.

McKeyFan
12-02-2006, 04:05 PM
I watched the whole game on my high tech phone.

How do you do that?

A-Train
12-02-2006, 04:33 PM
Big Baby Al: 24/41 from downtown
Wacko Jacko: 18/72 from downtown

Which is the SHOOTING guard and which is the forward again?

Ummm... 72 3 pointers taken by Jackson compared to 41 by Al... I think that makes Jackson the SHOOTING guard!!!!

(just kidding)

:cool:

Anthem
12-02-2006, 05:05 PM
On the last bucket, Jack was totally open. Twice. You've got to take that shot.

There's no doubt that it wasn't a good game by Tinsley, but a lot of those turnovers weren't his fault. I've never seen a quarter like that one, where we didn't even initiate the offense for several times down the floor. Everybody turned it over in that stretch. It was bizarre.

As for Saras, I think some people are mistaking correlation and causation. Games where Saras gets 20 minutes are games where we're playing teams with weak backcourts. We win those games. The idea that we would have won if Saras had gotten 3 more minutes of PT is silly. The Seattle press made him look very bad.

I'm never happy with a loss, but that's one where you just shake your head and move on. I can't imagine it happening again.

able
12-02-2006, 05:40 PM
On the last bucket, Jack was totally open. Twice. You've got to take that shot.

There's no doubt that it wasn't a good game by Tinsley, but a lot of those turnovers weren't his fault. I've never seen a quarter like that one, where we didn't even initiate the offense for several times down the floor. Everybody turned it over in that stretch. It was bizarre.

As for Saras, I think some people are mistaking correlation and causation. Games where Saras gets 20 minutes are games where we're playing teams with weak backcourts. We win those games. The idea that we would have won if Saras had gotten 3 more minutes of PT is silly. The Seattle press made him look very bad.

I'm never happy with a loss, but that's one where you just shake your head and move on. I can't imagine it happening again.

The two most clutch players this game were JT and JO.
To call JT's effort, defense and steal near the end "matador" is plain silly.

I did not see us getting any closer then the 4 we were down becuase of Sara, in fact once JO went out it quickly grew, until he came back and brought it down again.

JO fighting for a rebound with Al and DG standing and watching in the last 2 minutes of the game however is way beyond me.

PaceBalls
12-02-2006, 06:06 PM
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Stephen Jackson has no business taking shots over Al Harrington, especially in the final minutes of the game.

AL is hitting 49% from the floor and a downright sick 59% from downtown.

JACK? 37% and 25%. Ouch.

Jackson is by far the most selfish player on the Pacers roster and thats one of the main reasons I want to see him off the team.

Big Baby Al: 24/41 from downtown
Wacko Jacko: 18/72 from downtown

Which is the SHOOTING guard and which is the forward again?


I really dont think this is very fair.. Jackson has been playing superb in my opinion. He is by far our best perimiter defender, and his defense is so good it's bringing flashbacks of Ron. His Defense on Allen was outstanding last night. That more than makes up for him missing a few shots. He is not taking alot of bad shots, but for the most part he is taking the good looks he gets, while also dishing out alot of assists.

I can understand gettin down on him for offcourt troubles, but you must be blind to not see how well he is playing so far this season. I admit, I do cringe sometimes when I see him with a wide open 3, I expect him to miss most of the time. But come on there is more to basketball than taking shots and Jackson more than makes up for it with his defensive skills. I would rather have him take the wide open look than him pass the ball off with 3 seconds on the shotclock...

I'm actually excited to see Jackson defend Melo tonight.

Naptown_Seth
12-02-2006, 06:23 PM
On that last play there was a switch and Granger was on Luke, but if you watch the replay Tinsley comes over and is in great position to seal off the lane which would have forced Luke to shoot it right over Granger flat footed or he would have had to pass the ball and I don't think there was enough time to pass the ball. But I don't blame Tinsley for the loss - the loss was a team effort.
They've been doing a lot of this. I suspect that RC is harping about leaving guys, or maybe this is just a defensive chemistry issue. First off on PnRs they will curl with the PG and big after the switch, I mean the PG or small for the Pacers. They try to recover and catch up while the big slows the guy down by forcing him wide.

Fine. But the problem is that by using this soft curl path they are leaving the passing lane open to the big going straight down the lane.

I think the PG/small needs to follow the big's path, but between the PG and the big of course, a straight line that allows him to totally deny the return pass FIRST. Then after a few steps he can stop and come right to the PG/big because by then the passing moment is gone (other than over the top which is risky).

I think they are overprotecting the PG in these situations. The guy might cut back or shoot, but I don't think that's going to happen often till after he looks for the return pass first. The Pacers just concede that part too quickly.


How this relates is that on help defense they also are often hedging on cutting off lane penetration. IMO at some point you are going to have to leave the open shot and just make it be the lesser scorer of the group that is taking it.

Vs the Warriors when they started switching Davis onto Tinsley Jack was often forced to either stay and help Tins or follow Ellis across the court. You could see that they weren't comfortable with Jack staying and doubling, and IIRC Rick has said he's against double-teams mostly.

But the time Jack did stay with Tins it forced Davis to lob a long cross-court pass that was slow enough for the defense to recover.

In summary, I also would like to see Tins force another pass rather than give up the first shot, tough though it was. I view it like I coach baseball. The less times you must move the ball, the less times you can make an error. If you can run to the base with it then do so. If you throw it you can make a bad toss or their can be a bad catch.

Make the offense move the ball more and each time is a chance that a guy fumbles the ball, throws it away, makes an awkward pass that lets the defense catch up while a guy gathers it in, a chance for another scissor-step travel (a current fave with refs), a steal, and so on.

GOOD ball movement is good offense. If a team can do it, so be it, but at least make them prove it.



On the last bucket, Jack was totally open. Twice. You've got to take that shot.
At the time he was 4-7 (1-2 from 3), so I agree. I would say that Al was the hot hand though and the team didn't seem to run a good set to get him a look first. They all seemed to choke up a bit on those late sets and weren't getting the good motion they had earlier in the game.

But anyway, at some point this team needs Jack to find his 44-36 shooting, and situations like this are why that's true. It's not too much to ask him to be able to make one of those final 2 shots he took. At least after that they went to JO to get the tie.


The game was lost on that pressure, and their reaction to it got pretty stupid after awhile. Tins had a few but it was also Baston, Granger I think, several guys didn't come back to Saras and he picked up his dribble against the trap...I know that Tins hitting Al looked bad for Tins, but honestly I felt like Al should have been a little more alert and lively too at that point. Tinsley's pass might have looked pretty clever if Al had only been ready to make the play on his end.

It was definitely a team effort to choke during that portion of the game.

Seattle also shot some pretty impressive shots under good defense. Bowl of Jello was really on-fire even when Daniels was all over him (IIRC).

Naptown_Seth
12-02-2006, 06:25 PM
I'm never happy with a loss, but that's one where you just shake your head and move on. I can't imagine it happening again.
Wait, is this last year vs MIL all over again. :D

I remember then thinking "okay, a fluke" and then they had a couple more just like it (though losing in other odd ways and to bad teams like Atlanta).

Naptown_Seth
12-02-2006, 06:37 PM
Saras and Armstrong have struggled to get PT against the more talented/physical backcourts. Jack vs Davis and Allen were both very productive defensive matchups. It was clear that GS and SEA just were too eager to exploit the size/speed of DA/Saras.

It didn't help that JO had to go out because his inside presence really alters the opposing offense. To start the 2nd half he came up with a couple of blocks, one where I think Foster or Al had just been badly burned and which would have been a score in the first half while he was in the locker room. The strategic impact was immediately noticeable.

JO affords the Pacers the luxury of Saras and DA facing mismtaches as defenders, at least at times. The key is that they seem to be finding answer for most situations. PT will follow accordingly I think, which it always does.


BTW, I said Baston's game the other night was neutral. Vs SEA he got the chance to show his game much more. He intimidated a Luke shot, blocked somone else's and showed he has a nose for finishing breaks (no s*** I realize :D ).

Baston still doesn't have great NBA instincts, I think most of the time you can expect him to be looking for comfort zones and finding himself out of place. But there will be those times when he is out running or when is near the lane when a perimeter guy gets by his man that his Euro-ball experience will lock into the moment and he will shine, just as it happened a couple of times vs SEA.

I still consider Powell similar in talent but younger, but Powell's game is much different IMO. Powell is like a lesser JO, Baston is more like a longer Darvin Ham. At least what I've seen so far. That's game TYPES, not skill levels. They are similar in talent as I already said.