PDA

View Full Version : Official Post game thread 01-15-2007 Al in 2nd Unit ?



able
01-15-2007, 07:10 PM
Looks like Rick made a statement in the 2nd half tonigt

Hicks
01-15-2007, 07:10 PM
Maybe, but unless he does this to the 1st quarter lineup I won't take a lot from it.

able
01-15-2007, 07:11 PM
I hte it when that happens, anyway, as I was saying:

I think Rick made a statement towards Al in the 2nd half, 1: he did not start, 2: he left him in with the 2nd unit for ages.

Looks to me that Rick has had it with "no defense for me" Al.

Well to be honest, he's not the only one.

Jermaniac
01-15-2007, 07:13 PM
Make Al the 6th man and Danny the starter. See how it works out.

imawhat
01-15-2007, 07:14 PM
I think it was a one game thing. No matter what, I'm glad that Rick pulled a starter after poor play. Mark Jackson made a good point though; it's something that he has to be consistent with, rather than making an example of one player.




I think Orien Greene is giving Rick a reason to play him more. His defense today was great. He completely shut down Marcus Williams. His shots weren't falling, but he was aggressively pushing the ball up court and getting his teammates involved. Most importantly though was that he stopped dribble penetration and forced NJ to make passes they didn't want to make.

Seed
01-15-2007, 07:17 PM
Al was bad, but Danny wasn't exactly a human highlight today..

I want to say a kind word for Maceo today. The guy shows up to work each night, and puts up 100%. He had a solid game.

BlueNGold
01-15-2007, 07:18 PM
OK, he made the first step (sending Al to the 2nd unit). Now he needs to make the second move: Coming up with an alternative to our current back court. Particularly PG.

I would like to see us trade for a solid shooting PG and have Quis start at SG.

Unclebuck
01-15-2007, 07:18 PM
I watched the whole game (except for parts of the 4th).

Many of you probably didn't see the game and let me say you didn't miss anything. At least not anything good.

The Nets played very well as Mark Jackson was saying very early on they were very lively. But the Pacers defense was horrible - every aspect of the defense was really bad. Nets did anything they wanted to do.

It was interesting to see Daniels start the 3rd quarter - I didn't think much of it because the first half was so bad - we'll see if Rick brings Al off the bench for good.

able
01-15-2007, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure, but if Rick is making changes I would not be surprised at all to see Jeff and Al out and Danny and Maceo in and I am not sure it wouldn't be a good change, if Maceo can do what he did tonight @ 5 then JO would really have some help.

Also Maceo has shown he can pass, heck he even drained a 3 :D

And his energy might just be what's needed

Bringing Al and Danny off te bench would not be such a bad idea IMO.

able
01-15-2007, 07:21 PM
I watched the whole game (except for parts of the 4th).

Many of you probably didn't see the game and let me say you didn't miss anything. At least not anything good.

The Nets played very well as Mark Jackson was saying very early on they were very lively. But the Pacers defense was horrible - every aspect of the defense was really bad. Nets did anything they wanted to do.

It was interesting to see Daniels start the 3rd quarter - I didn't think much of it because the first half was so bad - we'll see if Rick brings Al off the bench for good.

This game (and ALL other games today) are broadcast in the UK, France and Germany and I believe the NL has some spin of as well.

I saw the game, you're right it was pathetic (but then again I see most games)

I think however that Al was a huge disruption to the defense, not rotating, not covering anyone (or way to late) which made others move out of position, thus allowing the Nets indeed whatever they wanted, which showed with 68% FG in the 1st q

bnd45
01-15-2007, 07:24 PM
Runi, Granger, and Al should be the main guys used off the bench with Baston/Army used when fouls or matchups call for them.

Daniels didn't light it up from the field, but he did get to the line and give us the option to have someone attack the basket. Jack can play the 3 so starting MD at the 2 wouldn't expose the Pacers up front.

imawhat
01-15-2007, 07:27 PM
Al's defense tonight reminded me of Jalen Rose.....on a bad day.

BlueNGold
01-15-2007, 07:37 PM
Al was bad, but Danny wasn't exactly a human highlight today..

I want to say a kind word for Maceo today. The guy shows up to work each night, and puts up 100%. He had a solid game.

DG stunk it up. Al has been a yo yo. Generally, there is not a big difference in Al and DG's productivity...nor their consistency or lack thereof...for now.

There are many reasons to move Al to the the bench, however. One is that he is a much better PF than SF, and we already have an all-star PF. Another is that he would give the bench a large boost on offense. He would be a good interior go-to guy. Another is that Granger needs a chance to lead and develop. This will also open up the SF 2nd unit for Shawne.

J_2_Da_IzzO
01-15-2007, 07:40 PM
Als defense has been shocking all season.

Als bad performances have outweighed his good performances this season.

Al is 6ft9 but can only get 6 rebounds per game.

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing Al has impressed me with this year is his 3 point shot.

Roferr
01-15-2007, 07:48 PM
After reading all the posts, it sounds like I didn't miss much by not watching the game. You can't win many ball games shooting 40%.

Looks like Baston and Runi had pretty good stat lines for 18 and 19 minutes. Runi 7 assists, and Maceo 8 boards and 14 pts.

You can't tell the entire story by the box score but it looks like RC could have played Runi and Maceo a whole lot more instead of Granger, Daniels and Greene. There combined stat line: 62 min., 3 of 17 from the field and 0 assists. Did it seem that way when watching the game or does their stats not tell the real story?

Shade
01-15-2007, 07:50 PM
This team just doesn't seem to give a damn. From what I can tell, they came out and played virtually no defense, which is not an aberration.

This team shows what it's capable of at times, so when I see/hear about games like today's, all I can do is focus on a lack of "effort" (sorry, Jay).

It is so hard to get behind this team.

Cherokee
01-15-2007, 07:52 PM
After reading all the posts, it sounds like I didn't miss much by not watching the game. You can't win many ball games shooting 40%.

Looks like Baston and Runi had pretty good stat lines for 18 and 19 minutes. Runi 7 assists, and Maceo 8 boards and 14 pts.

You can't tell the entire story by the box score but it looks like RC could have played Runi and Maceo a whole lot more instead of Granger, Daniels and Greene. There combined stat line: 62 min., 3 of 17 from the field and 0 assists. Did it seem that way when watching the game or does their stats not tell the real story?

They outhustled the starters by quite a bit. Runi had them moving the ball down court more quickly, and Baston did a great job running the floor. Greene isn't much of a shooter, but he plays pretty good D, Daniels too. Granger is active, but he just had one of those game where nothing would fall. Still, they forced the Nets to bring their starters back into the game.

ajbry
01-15-2007, 08:03 PM
Sarunas, Maceo, and Orien played very well. Have to give them credit for working hard and playing some legitimately good ball.

JO and Jack played mediocre games, nothing really outstanding, but they sort of showed up. Marquis did some decent things as well, and Tins had his moments.

Otherwise, Jeff was hampered by foul trouble. Al was useless, as usual. Danny looked lost on both ends.

Just a bad, bad loss. Especially because Mikki Moore just dominated everyone.

31andonly
01-15-2007, 08:19 PM
Wow, what a game! !

Well, you know, I don't get to see many Pacers Games here in Germany...that was my second live Pacers Game this season!

Usually I'm very excited and happy, but this time I was so bored and disappointed I turned off the TV at the beginning of the 4th quarter.

I've never seen such a bad defensive game, such poor ballsharing and player movement...Nobody was blocking out on the rebound! The whole team looked tired, lazy and didn't put any effort into the game! Stupid passes down the stretch, stupid shots, ...man I'm really really disappointed!

What has happened to this Pacers Team?

I can't believe it.. what do you think can be done?

As of now, this team has nothing in common with a championship or even an Eastern Conference contender! If no changes are made, this team is not going further the 1st round of the playoffs...

btw.: How's my English?

BlueNGold
01-15-2007, 08:25 PM
Wow, what a game! !

Well, you know, I don't get to see many Pacers Games here in Germany...that was my second live Pacers Game this season!

Usually I'm very excited and happy, but this time I was so bored and disappointed I turned off the TV at the beginning of the 4th quarter.

I've never seen such a bad defensive game, such poor ballsharing and player movement...Nobody was blocking out on the rebound! The whole team looked tired, lazy and didn't put any effort into the game! Stupid passes down the stretch, stupid shots, ...man I'm really really disappointed!

What has happened to this Pacers Team?

I can't believe it.. what do you think can be done?

As of now, this team has nothing in common with a championship or even an Eastern Conference contender! If no changes are made, this team is not going further the 1st round of the playoffs...

btw.: How's my English?

English is fine. Your assessment of the Pacers is even better.

I think Rick may have taken the first of many additional steps the club needs to take by placing Al with the second unit. I think we could be a better team by using a different mix of players already on the roster.

I think we should give Runi or Greene a shot at PG. Have Quis start at SG. We also need to have Al come off the bench. We need to purge Jack and Tinsley. That's the first few steps.

Roferr
01-15-2007, 08:28 PM
They outhustled the starters by quite a bit. Runi had them moving the ball down court more quickly, and Baston did a great job running the floor. Greene isn't much of a shooter, but he plays pretty good D, Daniels too. Granger is active, but he just had one of those game where nothing would fall. Still, they forced the Nets to bring their starters back into the game.

Thank you kindly, sir.

Unclebuck
01-15-2007, 08:51 PM
Seeing good play at garbage time means almost nothing. So what Greene, Baston and Saras did in the 4th quarter means nothing to me.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2007, 09:16 PM
Seeing good play at garbage time means almost nothing. So what Greene, Baston and Saras did in the 4th quarter means nothing to me.

Party pooper.

How will those legends ever grow if you keep using that type of common sense.

able
01-15-2007, 09:17 PM
Seeing good play at garbage time means almost nothing. So what Greene, Baston and Saras did in the 4th quarter means nothing to me.

Thoug I agree 100% don't you think it somehow "strange" that Al was playing almost the full 4th while all the other starters did not come out ?

No reference can be drawn from that ?

Wish they showed the press conf as well here, alas....

Cherokee
01-15-2007, 09:31 PM
Seeing good play at garbage time means almost nothing. So what Greene, Baston and Saras did in the 4th quarter means nothing to me.

The last 3 1/2 quarters were garbage time. That should mean something. The fact remains the reserves outplayed the starters all over the place, often against the Nets' starters.

bulldog
01-15-2007, 09:49 PM
Seeing good play at garbage time means almost nothing. So what Greene, Baston and Saras did in the 4th quarter means nothing to me.

I disagree. I didn't watch the game, but effort is effort.

The only problem is the NBA is such a players-driven league that the coaches don't have the authority or the willingness to mess with their core rotations.

Although its one thing for Runi to put in 10-20 good minutes every other game, and another for JO to put in a good 40 night in and night out, I still wish hustle and effort could be rewarded with a little more PT, damn the rotations.

ALF68
01-15-2007, 10:05 PM
I disagree. I didn't watch the game, but effort is effort.

The only problem is the NBA is such a players-driven league that the coaches don't have the authority or the willingness to mess with their core rotations.

Although its one thing for Runi to put in 10-20 good minutes every other game, and another for JO to put in a good 40 night in and night out, I still wish hustle and effort could be rewarded with a little more PT, damn the rotations.


Damn, there is that EFFORT word again. :)

Eindar
01-15-2007, 10:06 PM
I'd like to point out that I love Jackson as a SF, and can't stand him as a SG. Maybe the answer is to start Daniels and move Jack to SF, and bring Danny and Al off the bench at the 3 and 4.

pwee31
01-15-2007, 10:17 PM
I see where Runi played 9 less minutes, and had 3 more points, 2 less turnovers and the same number of assist as Tinsley! Don't know what to make of it, since i didn't see the game.

imawhat
01-15-2007, 10:44 PM
Seeing good play at garbage time means almost nothing. So what Greene, Baston and Saras did in the 4th quarter means nothing to me.

They were playing against the Nets first and second units. The fact that Orien shut down Marcus Williams, a legit offensive threat, and completely halted dribble penetration meant nothing to you?

The notion that players can't prove anything in garbage time isn't something I agree with. This is a league with under 400 active players; competition can always be quality.

Unclebuck
01-15-2007, 11:02 PM
They were playing against the Nets first and second units. The fact that Orien shut down Marcus Williams, a legit offensive threat, and completely halted dribble penetration meant nothing to you?



I don't need garbage time to tell me that Greene is a very, very good defender bordering on one of the best backcourt defenders in the league.

BlueNGold
01-15-2007, 11:18 PM
I don't need garbage time to tell me that Greene is a very, very good defender bordering on one of the best backcourt defenders in the league.

He really is light years ahead of any other PG we have in terms of defense. He is not that bad on offense either.

Considering defense represents half of the game, I think there's a case for him to get more time. This is particularly true since we have a lot of other players who like to shoot.

Slick Pinkham
01-15-2007, 11:34 PM
Who was it that was allegedly guarding Mikki Moore? Al, JO, or Jeff? The espn recap says he had 4 dunks in the first quarter.

Sheesh. Owned by Mikki freakin' Moore.

Jermaniac
01-15-2007, 11:38 PM
Who was it that was allegedly guarding Mikki Moore? Al, JO, or Jeff? The espn recap says he had 4 dunks in the first quarter.

Sheesh. Owned by Mikki freakin' Moore.That would be Jeff Foster.

You should have seen dude though he was going crazy after dunks and blocks, if you think Zo celebrates too much after a block or dunk, well that is nothing compared to this guy, God bless his scrubby soul.

Unclebuck
01-15-2007, 11:57 PM
Moore was getting dunks because Kidd, RJ and Carter were blowing by our perimeter defenders and Jeff and JO had to come over to help.

Tony Valente
01-16-2007, 08:52 AM
It was frustrating, of course, but the game also revealed a good aspect: Maceo can hit the 3.

On the other hand, I start to believe that NBA basketball is all a big ecuation, it's only tactics and schemes. If a player is very talented but doesn't fit the scheme then he is of no good. That's why the creative teams beat USA, and they always will. There's no doubt that USA are NOT the best team in the world, no matter how many All Stars they play with. If you make a 4 team league with Spain, USA, Argentina and Greece and put them play eachother 4 times I guarantee you that 3rd place is the best you could hope for. Because those teams rely on talent and something that is very rare in NBA: innovation.

That's why the best players in NBA are those who don't follow the tactics all the time, but rather improvise. That's why Dwyane Wade is so good, that's why LeBron or Kobe are so good, Nash, Parker etc. This is what wins championships (except for Detroit in 2004). Speaking about Pacers, I start thinking that our game is pathetic. Last night we ran out of ideas, and when that happened we ceased the game. That's when the creative part of our team got into play, that's when we really showed we could perform.

Seriously, our only creative players are Sarunas and Maceo. If I were Pacers CEO I'd do whatever it takes to get Anthony Parker from Toronto, Nikola Vujicic from Maccabi and a tough perimeter defender, Battier, Bowen or whoever and make this team an elite team. Of course the main point is Carlisle should pack his bag. You need a good coach to make a good team and, honestly, the best coaches in the world right now are NOT American. Look beyond that blue infinity that separate us ... and you shall find your answer.

Hicks
01-16-2007, 10:23 AM
In today's IndyStar there's a quote from Carlisle stating that Marquis Daniels started the 3rd quarter only because of the matchup, and that Al is still the starter.

Roferr
01-16-2007, 11:11 AM
I'd like to point out that I love Jackson as a SF, and can't stand him as a SG. Maybe the answer is to start Daniels and move Jack to SF, and bring Danny and Al off the bench at the 3 and 4.

I've contended all along, that Jax should be playing SF. He's much closer to the basket and his forte is taking it to the rack and at 6'8'', he should be hauling more boards down. As a SG, he does entirely too much standing out around the 3 pt arc.

ChicagoJ
01-16-2007, 11:40 AM
But he's a terrible ball handler in traffic, so while you eliminate the "shoots way too many three pointers even though he's not a good shooter" problem from his game, you exaggerate the "turns the ball over way too much" problem of his game.

His best role is neither starting SG nor starting SF, but sixth (or seventh) man where he can be treated like a "luxury" - if his shot is on, if he's not turning the ball over, if he's not obsessed with the refs, then let him play. If not, bring the starters back in.

Although he started for Popovich, that's basically the role he played with the Spurs. If he was "off" his game, Ginobolli or someone else would play.

It does seem, though, that the subtle differences between SF and SG make a big difference in how we perceive SJax - but its his turnover propensity that makes him repulsive to me as a backcourt player (however, I think that when SJax shoots a three-pointer that it should be counted as a turnover, and not a missed shot, on the stat sheet.)

Naptown_Seth
01-16-2007, 04:45 PM
I didn't get to see the game myself, but on the idea of Daniels starting in the 3rd quarter, I think it falls right in line with the hints via playing time and comments that we've been getting the last few weeks.

RC is at least starting to take a look at possible changes. I don't think that swap came out of nowhere and had zero meaning. He could have rested JO instead knowing the game was out of reach. This was a statement about what RC has been considering doing.


In today's IndyStar there's a quote from Carlisle stating that Marquis Daniels started the 3rd quarter only because of the matchup, and that Al is still the starter.
This from one of the most political coaches in the NBA. The guy typically refuses to throw a player under the bus no matter what. I'm sure it's true that Al will still be starting vs Miami. But I also bet it's true that it's getting very close to changing if the team's output doesn't.

Danny and Jackson both have been pulled from the starters in order to improve the team. I think only JO has made a case to start no matter what.

NuffSaid
01-16-2007, 06:37 PM
This is gonna be a long one, boys and girls. But I think you'll find it interesting...


I hate it when that happens, anyway, as I was saying:

I think Rick made a statement towards Al in the 2nd half, 1: he did not start, 2: he left him in with the 2nd unit for ages.

Looks to me that Rick has had it with "no defense for me" Al.

Well to be honest, he's not the only one.


Make Al the 6th man and Danny the starter. See how it works out.


I disagree. I didn't watch the game, but effort is effort.

The only problem is the NBA is such a players-driven league that the coaches don't have the authority or the willingness to mess with their core rotations.

Although its one thing for Runi to put in 10-20 good minutes every other game, and another for JO to put in a good 40 night in and night out, I still wish hustle and effort could be rewarded with a little more PT, damn the rotations.


I'm not sure, but if Rick is making changes I would not be surprised at all to see Jeff and Al out and Danny and Maceo in and I am not sure it wouldn't be a good change, if Maceo can do what he did tonight @ 5 then JO would really have some help.


Runi, Granger, and Al should be the main guys used off the bench with Baston/Army used when fouls or matchups call for them.

Daniels didn't light it up from the field, but he did get to the line and give us the option to have someone attack the basket. Jack can play the 3 so starting MD at the 2 wouldn't expose the Pacers up front.


There are many reasons to move Al to the the bench. However, one is that he is a much better PF than SF, and we already have an all-star PF. Another is that he would give the bench a large boost on offense. He would be a good interior go-to guy. Another is that Granger needs a chance to lead and develop. This will also open up the SF 2nd unit for Shawne.

I didn't watch the game...I automatically assumed it was a night-game and didn't pay attention to what time they played until it was too late. So, I won't comment on how the team played. However, I would like to comment on the overall theme of this thread which IMO is "change the lineup; find the right mix of players to complement each other among the starters and reserves no matter the ego."

During the Rick Carlisle radio show of Thursday (thanks again, MagicRat for the link), it was mentioned how much of the decision making as far as who plays and who doesn't seems to stem more from GM's and agents rather than w/the coaches. So, egos play a big part of why sometimes we'll see one guy play and he'll do so well but then he'll disappear from the rotation for days on end. That type of "selective decision making" makes it difficult for me as a fan to fully support a team when the stats and on-court makeup of a team indicates that the best five players (starts) aren't on the floor but rather the most "popular" players. And that takes me to the biggest questionable move by the Pacers that started in the off-season and has yet to fully manifest itself to date:

Is a duo of JO (PF) and Al (SF) as starters in the front-court the best combination for this team?

This was the essence of the question I asked back in late December. (See QoD for 19 December (Http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_061219.html)) When Al was re-acquired, I "listened" to how his presence alongside JO would complement his game. But per the aforementioned QoD, Al is still struggling to make the adjustments. Though he has become this team's best 3-pt threat, pairing him w/JO hasn't panned out as I had expected. For example: How many of us invisioned a dominate strong-side/weakside 1-2 punch from these two w/JO posting up his opponent and Al going baseline or knocking down mid-range jump shots on the outlet? I know I certainly did! But that's not exactly what has transpired.

JO is looking for the opened man, but I really don't recall the ball being swung to Al very often when both he and JO are on the floor. I think the reason for this is because it's one part adjustment for Al and one part strong-side/weak-side ball distribution. In other words, instead of players looking for Al out on the wing, they may instead drive the lane or look for the trailor on "Give-N-Go" plays. Plus, it's very difficult to make that one pass from the strong-side to Al all the way over on the weak-side. To really take advantage of Al's perimeter shooting, if RC does in fact wish to use him in this manner, JO would have to set-up his post position on the weak-side and dish out to Al waiting in the wing. I can tell you that's not going to work despite the fact that JO can attack the basket from either side of the rim. He's more effective coming from his right, but - and here's were I hope RC and/or his assistances are reading this - if JO realizes he's being double-up often, he's much better off positioning himself on the weak-side where he can easily dish out to Al for easier shot attempts.

This article mentions that JO and Al are working to improve their offense together as a duo (Http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/SPORTS04/701150360/1088). I believe the coaching staff and the players have all finally begun to realize that this duo hasn't quite worked out as planned, and so now they have to either find a way to work out the wrinkles or make a hardline decision:

"Do we stay with it, bring Al off the bench at PF where he's shown he's more effective, or do we make a trade?"

There's no question Al struggling and/or forcing his shots in attempt to make things happen. I believe hsi struggles have more to do with the player than the offensive scheme. I've said it before: Al simply needs to accept his new role not as a dominate low-post threat, but as a decoy along the perimeter where he has become more of a 3-pt threat for the team. The sooner he accepts this the better off he'll be. IMO, he needs to accept that post-up play will remain his secondary role on this team as long as he remains a starter. And that's the key!

"As long as he's a starter!"

I think everyone who has suggested a lineup change that moves Al to PF, Jax2 to SF and Baston to Center - all w/the 2nd Unit - are dead on for the following reasons: Improved CHEMISTRY, CONSISTENT SCORING, Improved TEAM DEFENSE, and a better flow of ENERGY/EFFORT throughout the game.

I like seeing Runi, Armstrong and Baston all playing together. I think those three are the team's best energy players. When they are together and things are clicking well, they're fun to watch.

PROBLEM...

These guys work well together because of their attitudes toward the game. All three take a "never say die" approach to the game. This was the main reason Foster was moved back to his starter Center position. But herein is another problem...

Foster's neither a scorer nor a passer. So, with himself, JO and Al on the floor it's difficult to get the ball to Al. That means Al MUST either defer to JO and wait for the ball to come to him or he has to make things happen for himself which would explain his commentary in this article, "Al goes Artest... (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/SPORTS04/701080399/1088)" (EDIT)That would mean starter/reserves would look like this:

Position - Starters/Reserves

PF - JO/Al
Center - Foster/Baston
SF - Granger/Jax2
SG - Daniels/Sarunas
PG - Tinsley/Armstrong

I think the above fixes every problem I've mentioned above: Improved chemistry, team defense and overall energy flow. (End EDIT)

Big Al's not a very happy camper unless he has what amounts to him as a good "offensive" game, and you kinda hear that in the previous article as well as this one on how the team tries to focus more on ball movement and getting many different players involved on the offensive end (Http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_061218.html). My only hope is that RC/TPTB don't wait until the Break to shakeup the lineup. While I don't necessarily feel a trade is necessary at this point, I do feel RC needs to take the bull by the horns and just tell players, "If you want to win this is what needs to be done," and just do it and stop trying to satisfy ego and such. I know...easy for me to say, but from my observation it's what needs to be done to truly move this team forward. If he doesn't, this team is relatively stuck at .500 ball.

Shuffle the pieces. Place players at positions where they're most comfortable, if possible, but align them complimentary players, and above all use them to their strengths. RC's got his work cut out for him because this team is a good mixed bag of talent. But that's the problem. Too much talent at multiple positions. Figure out where they work best and with whom and you've got this problem licked!

ChicagoJ
01-16-2007, 07:04 PM
NuffSaid, I think you raise some good points.

The frontcourt of Danny/Al/JO was going to need forty to sixty games to gel, and was abandoned too quickly. While I believe JO is a natural "C" (and that puts me in the minority but since I'm right I can live with that :tongue: ), the skill overlap between Al and JO is significant and will take time (20-30 games), and fair amount of expirimentation to work out those wrinkles. Early on, Rick was trying to invert Al and JO, and while Al was playing well, JO was not and it was hurting the team to have its best player playing far below his potential. And in general (matinee with NJ notwithstanding), the team has been playing better since that correction was made.

But only after working out the Al/JO wrinkles could they then work on moving Granger to the "third option" role (and other 15-25 games to fully implement.)

Instead, we got a twenty game (and perhaps longer) detour of making Tinsley the #2 option, which seems to be completely from left field considering the offseason moves to really strengthen our frontcourt.

If the JO/Al/Danny frontcourt were given enough time to develop some chemistry, and were not improving by the ASG, then I could understand the detour.

This team really needs a heavy dose of Danny Al-Jermaine, though.

able
01-16-2007, 08:16 PM
NuffSaid, I think you raise some good points.

The frontcourt of Danny/Al/JO was going to need forty to sixty games to gel, and was abandoned too quickly. While I believe JO is a natural "C" (and that puts me in the minority but since I'm right I can live with that :tongue: ), the skill overlap between Al and JO is significant and will take time (20-30 games), and fair amount of expirimentation to work out those wrinkles. Early on, Rick was trying to invert Al and JO, and while Al was playing well, JO was not and it was hurting the team to have its best player playing far below his potential. And in general (matinee with NJ notwithstanding), the team has been playing better since that correction was made.

But only after working out the Al/JO wrinkles could they then work on moving Granger to the "third option" role (and other 15-25 games to fully implement.)

Instead, we got a twenty game (and perhaps longer) detour of making Tinsley the #2 option, which seems to be completely from left field considering the offseason moves to really strengthen our frontcourt.

If the JO/Al/Danny frontcourt were given enough time to develop some chemistry, and were not improving by the ASG, then I could understand the detour.

This team really needs a heavy dose of Danny Al-Jermaine, though.


Jay, while I partially agree with you on the time-frame subject, I do not agree on the "best" line-up"
I think there is another problem, which (hey I can be mistaken here, going on what I thought I saw) is that the "team" is getting "fed up" with Al's attitude.

Yep, for a change not Tinsley, not even Jax (though he's a close second on irritation factor) and certainly not JO.

Though good (if not best) friends I saw clear irritation on JO's face last night about the mainly the lack of defense.
Al is at best lackadasical in his defense, certainly earyly in the game, plays were broken soon after we had a 5 point lead and once VC aired his first shot it was thought he would do that all night.
With our "not so strong defensively" PG and "I'll defend when it's needed or ifI'm specifically told" SG it became apparent that our SF also thought that to "get it going" he was more needed on offense then defense.

Result, both JO and Jeff were so busy plugging holes that Moore had a fieldday.
Now I can "live" with another scrub having a great day against us, if it was not for the fact that we at least challenge them, but on at least 3 occassions Al stood and watched what was going on and in 1 case even getting out of the way!

If looks could have killed I am sure Ak would at least be seriously wounded.

Al may speak of the fact that there are "not to many" plays called for him, but for a guy, parked on the 3pt line (not even moving to get free, while JO is in the post with the ball, Al was one of the "you can throw it over my defender, I'm right comfy here" guys on the perimeter.

I feel that unless Al get an epiphany and starts playing some serious D he will get less and less time to do something on O and I'm not sure whether I feel sorry for him, at times he gives me the impression that he feels underpaid and underappreciated.

In my opinion he should start earning whatever we are giving him.

CableKC
01-16-2007, 10:20 PM
Let's see...before I went on vacation....we were on a high after winning 3 straight games against sub-500 teams....then lose 2 straight games....geez...what happened?

Jermaniac
01-16-2007, 10:39 PM
We played the best team in the NBA in game one, in game 2 the team plane didnt leave Indiana so we forfeited the game.

ChicagoJ
01-17-2007, 11:47 AM
Jay, while I partially agree with you on the time-frame subject, I do not agree on the "best" line-up"
I think there is another problem, which (hey I can be mistaken here, going on what I thought I saw) is that the "team" is getting "fed up" with Al's attitude.

Yep, for a change not Tinsley, not even Jax (though he's a close second on irritation factor) and certainly not JO.

Though good (if not best) friends I saw clear irritation on JO's face last night about the mainly the lack of defense.
Al is at best lackadasical in his defense, certainly earyly in the game, plays were broken soon after we had a 5 point lead and once VC aired his first shot it was thought he would do that all night.
With our "not so strong defensively" PG and "I'll defend when it's needed or ifI'm specifically told" SG it became apparent that our SF also thought that to "get it going" he was more needed on offense then defense.

Result, both JO and Jeff were so busy plugging holes that Moore had a fieldday.
Now I can "live" with another scrub having a great day against us, if it was not for the fact that we at least challenge them, but on at least 3 occassions Al stood and watched what was going on and in 1 case even getting out of the way!

If looks could have killed I am sure Ak would at least be seriously wounded.

Al may speak of the fact that there are "not to many" plays called for him, but for a guy, parked on the 3pt line (not even moving to get free, while JO is in the post with the ball, Al was one of the "you can throw it over my defender, I'm right comfy here" guys on the perimeter.

I feel that unless Al get an epiphany and starts playing some serious D he will get less and less time to do something on O and I'm not sure whether I feel sorry for him, at times he gives me the impression that he feels underpaid and underappreciated.

In my opinion he should start earning whatever we are giving him.

Sounds like they're frustrated that they've got a PF playing SF, and not doing a good job of playing SF at all.

I have no guess as to who the players are frustrated with, Al for his inability to play the role he's been assigned, or someone else for putting this very flawed lineup together in the first place.

golstarr99
01-17-2007, 12:09 PM
It was frustrating, of course, but the game also revealed a good aspect: Maceo can hit the 3.

On the other hand, I start to believe that NBA basketball is all a big ecuation, it's only tactics and schemes. If a player is very talented but doesn't fit the scheme then he is of no good. That's why the creative teams beat USA, and they always will. There's no doubt that USA are NOT the best team in the world, no matter how many All Stars they play with. If you make a 4 team league with Spain, USA, Argentina and Greece and put them play eachother 4 times I guarantee you that 3rd place is the best you could hope for. Because those teams rely on talent and something that is very rare in NBA: innovation.

That's why the best players in NBA are those who don't follow the tactics all the time, but rather improvise. That's why Dwyane Wade is so good, that's why LeBron or Kobe are so good, Nash, Parker etc. This is what wins championships (except for Detroit in 2004). Speaking about Pacers, I start thinking that our game is pathetic. Last night we ran out of ideas, and when that happened we ceased the game. That's when the creative part of our team got into play, that's when we really showed we could perform.

Seriously, our only creative players are Sarunas and Maceo. If I were Pacers CEO I'd do whatever it takes to get Anthony Parker from Toronto, Nikola Vujicic from Maccabi and a tough perimeter defender, Battier, Bowen or whoever and make this team an elite team. Of course the main point is Carlisle should pack his bag. You need a good coach to make a good team and, honestly, the best coaches in the world right now are NOT American. Look beyond that blue infinity that separate us ... and you shall find your answer.

Wow. I had a soda sitting on my desk and I spilled it all over me while reading this post. Reading this, I thought you were joking but then it hit me you are from an overseas country and you are serious and I was literally laughing my arse off.

My friend, Sarunas and Maceo being the only creative ones? Is creative not knowing how to play defense or not being able to bring the ball up the court? THen you say to bring these European scrubs (i.e. Vujicic from Maccabi, like he's good enough to be in the NBA) and we're elite?

Another funny thing, put team USA in a group of 4 and best we can place is 3rd? Look my jealous friend, the U.S.A. may not have won the gold but everyone knows the best basketball is played in the United States. It's not even a question. U.S. may have lost, but did we have our best players? Sure, we had a bunch of wing players but did we have our elite big men? Or our best player in the NBA Kobe? We played with some good players but they weren't varied enough and on top of that they hadn't played years on the same team and didn't have enough chemistry. When a team relies on the outside ball, they are bound to have one bad game and also playing with different rules. NBA ball will always rule and you can think all you want with your fantasies, but your posts were absolutely comical and I hope you know that is how they are viewed on here. I want the Pacers to succeed, but Sarunas and Baston are not the answer. Sarunas will never be a starting PG in the NBA. He's simply not good enough.

Seed
01-17-2007, 12:24 PM
i.e. Vujicic from Maccabi, like he's good enough to be in the NBA
Have you ever seen a single game of Vujcic?
Ah, don't bother.

golstarr99
01-17-2007, 12:42 PM
Have you ever seen a single game of Vujcic?
Ah, don't bother.

He sure isn't in the NBA for a reason...I wonder :laugh: :laugh:

Seed
01-17-2007, 12:54 PM
He sure isn't in the NBA for a reason...I wonder :laugh: :laugh:

Yup. If a player is not in the NBA currently, then it means he shouldn't be at all.
Got me there.