PDA

View Full Version : Al's Best Position?



Quis
12-05-2006, 02:15 PM
Just wondering what everyone think's Big Al's best position is and why.

J_2_Da_IzzO
12-05-2006, 02:17 PM
Bench and come on at PF.

Seed
12-05-2006, 05:41 PM
Starting as SF, with either him or DG traded after this season.

dlewyus
12-05-2006, 07:15 PM
6th man or none of the above

Old as Dirt
12-05-2006, 08:16 PM
6th Man is Al's best spot, was the first time and still is

NuffSaid
12-06-2006, 12:10 AM
I think he's a better SF than PF. He certainly isn't a Center despite his size. Problem is I really don't think he and JO can be effective as a tandum. Neither are motion type players and both can only be effective when they have the ball in their hands. JO's a post player, Al's a decent half-court/transition player. Given their different styles, I'd say the two will never gel because neither will ever fully nor willingly sacrafic their touches for the sake of the other. Put it this way: Sarunas and Baston work very well together. In just the 3-games were both have played together I have noticed that these two are totally in synch w/one another. Everything seems to be on automatic with them as a pair. JO and Al don't have that ... synergy. One doesn't instinctively know what the other will do. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for Sarunas and Baston.

I guess what I'm saying is unless those two truly develop that repour on the hardwood as they apparently have off the court, they will never be an effective tandum. Hence, the reason he should come off the bench. Won't happen, but that's how I'd play him. But that creates another problem: "Will the high-octane 2nd unit remain high-octane w/Al as the 6th Man?"

Quis
12-06-2006, 01:29 AM
I'm not quite understanding the notion that Al Harrington should be a 6th man. Could someone tell me what I'm missing? He's been by far are best offensive player, and while his rebounding is lousy for a PF, it's quite good for a SF which I why I think his best position is SF.

CableKC
12-06-2006, 02:01 AM
1st choice - Starting SF.

I liked how he played in the GSW game when he was on the floor with JONeal ( at the PF spot ) and Foster playing Center. He was able to rotate out with JONeal and Foster manning the paint and low post and was able to use his perimeter game effectively. Foster doesn't necessarily have to be on the floor with them......either Powell or Baston can man the paint with JONeal....basically a PF roleplayer that rebounds and defends.....either way....Harrington would be able to use his size and length against other SFs where he would likely have a mismatch.

Jose Slaughter
12-06-2006, 02:01 AM
I'd bring him off the bench at either forward spots, depending on the matchup.

maragin
12-06-2006, 02:17 AM
I'm not quite understanding the notion that Al Harrington should be a 6th man. Could someone tell me what I'm missing? He's been by far are best offensive player, and while his rebounding is lousy for a PF, it's quite good for a SF which I why I think his best position is SF.

It's funny, my gut reaction when I first saw this thread was to say "off the bench", but that's a product of a few different things. Much of that is due to remembering how well he performed in that role in his first stint with the Pacers. I also thought that it might be position bias, but I think it's more of role bias. I used to think of Al as a black hole, that no ball ever escaped from. I suppose it is just that JO and Al seem to have similar game styles, and the tandem doesn't seem to compliment as well as it could.

After thinking it through, I think that Harrington is better for us at the 3 than Granger for now. I like having Danny off the bench to help his consistency and let him be a scoring option. JO is suited well for the 4, and I like Foster at the 5. Al's been playing pretty well this year, and proving me wrong from the 3 point line. I think his shot selection has been okay, and he's made the transition back to 3 okay.

I think on some teams, he's make a good 4, like with the Hawks/ Suns. Hmm, actually with the Suns he'd make a better 6th man.

So to sum up, I sort of wanted him off the bench because we already have a guy in the low post that calls for the ball, gets the feed, and has everyone else on the team clear to the other side. Some better basketball minds on this board could confirm/deny up my feeling that he isn't very good in transition. He's a good back to the basket 3 whose range gets better every year... and I'm glad to see him in that role.

31andonly
12-06-2006, 03:32 AM
I really think he should be the starting SF with Danny coming off the bench but getting 20-25 minutes per game..Unfortunately the new frontcourt with DG,Al and JO hasn't worked out but I hope David Harrison can show some improvement this season!

I'd really like the idea of giving Harrison a chance as the starting center (but that's all up to Him) and Granger coming off the bench!Of course, Granger has to play regularly, so he must get his minutes every night in order to improve..
I agree with Maragin that Al's played great so far, that's why I'd never sit him down to the bench, but depending on Granger's progress, I think the Pacers should consider the option of maybe trading on of the two at the end of this or the next season for a (I would say a) Shooting Guard who is able to split the defense, a guy who can constantly shoot 3s you know..a Reggie Miller type of player..

tora tora
12-06-2006, 05:54 AM
I'd really like the idea of giving Harrison a chance as the starting center :picard:

Has the NBA ever had a player as worthless as David Harrison?

31andonly
12-06-2006, 06:53 AM
Come on, who knows? Why not trying?

J_2_Da_IzzO
12-06-2006, 07:00 AM
Harrison has got many chances over the past 2 years but he still hasnt learnt. Hes the type of player that will make you go WOW one game after a 17 point 10 rebound effort but then the next game he will have 4 fouls in 7 mins.

Andrew Bynum looks to have improved vastly and Harrison needs to undergo the same scheme Bynum did if thats possible.

Until then Id rather have Foster at Center and Baston ahead of him as well.

Naptown_Seth
12-06-2006, 06:40 PM
I agree with the argument that for an SF he is big and can rebound.

But he is too slow to stay in front of most good SFs and honestly he doesn't post them well enough to make them pay on the other end.

However as a PF he is more than willing to play the mismatch and pull them out to the 3pt line (with great success) and is quick enough to beat a lot of them around the court too.

So I said PF. No way he's playing like a 6th man. He's been a lot more consistant than Granger. Even in his good games DG is making plenty of rather large mental mistakes still. 6th man this year is a great match for him I think. Less pressure, better matchups, allows him to find his game because he isn't as limited to the structure of the other 4 starters...one reason I think he was looking to be more of a 3pt threat.



Having said that, I'm a big fan of the current starting lineup and rotation, which puts Al at SF to start the game.

ALF68
12-06-2006, 06:50 PM
I'd bring him off the bench at either forward spots, depending on the matchup.
That would be my vote also.

Beowulfas
12-07-2006, 03:58 AM
That would be my vote also.

He is 100% SF.
His rebounding and height does not fit PF position.

Maybe with other teammates he could play PF, but when he and JO play PF-C, Pacers have trouble at rebounding.

Although JO is fantastic all-around forward, but he is not very special at rebounding. He can do work for himself, but not for both forward spots.

The only thing which makes me think Al could be a PF is his strength, but he can use it against SF's also.

Al is below average PF, above average SF.