PDA

View Full Version : Post Game Thread - Loss To Knicks



Jermaniac
01-20-2007, 10:38 PM
JO should have shot that last shot of the game. Granger is not ready to take game ending shot, he is 0 for 3 on them and I dont know why he keeps getting a chance to do it.

GIVE JO THE DAMN BALL.

Trader Joe
01-20-2007, 10:41 PM
I don't like Rick's call to go for a 2 pointer down by 3 with ten seconds left and no timeouts. Even tho JO made it, you were forced into going the length of the court in 6 seconds. Which means it would have been very hard to get the ball to JO. Poor play calling by Rick late in the game IMO.

Jermaniac
01-20-2007, 10:41 PM
I like what I saw out of Murph and Dun Dun. If they can play like this everynight (with better shooting for Dun) I will be very happy. And this came off them not knowing the playbook much and being nervous for their first game.

I like where the team is heading.

CableKC
01-20-2007, 10:43 PM
JO should have shot that last shot of the game. Granger is not ready to take game ending shot, he is 0 for 3 on them and I dont know why he keeps getting a chance to do it.

GIVE JO THE DAMN BALL.

I agree...with Marbury's knee and Curry out....I would have much rather went for the 2pt shot with JONeal for the tie and pull the game into OT then go for the win. Granger was way behind the 3pt line for that shot.

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 10:44 PM
I do not have a problem with Danny taking end of game shots. I do think he could have passed that one up, or at the very least tooken a step in or taken a extra second, but thats a tough call to make.

I know some people are down because we lost to the Knicks, but I am excited.

This is a fun team to watch, and I think with time this team has the capability to make a run for the playoffs, esp. with the east as wide open as it is.

I always have 1 or 2 games a year where I say I hate hearing "We lost because of the refs" but tonight was one of those nights. We lost this game for that exact reason. Violet Palmer is NO DOUBT the WORST ref in the NBA.

I missed most of the third quarter, but from what I saw I am really going to like the new guys.

Ike is very young and kind of raw talent wise, but I think he is a great project for the franchise.

Troy Murphy is a Jeff Foster with a jump-shot, and considering I am a huge ND fan and also a huge Foster fan, I think I will come to like him.

I am not sure on Dun. He was a bit streaky tonight, I generally dont like streaky shooters but I love his effort and the fact he was all over the floor tonight.

Danny, I love you big guy. For all of Reggie's great shots, he also missed his fair share of them. Keep your head up, things will get better :)

For most of this season I was not excited to be a Pacers fan, but now I am finally happy to support this team again

GO PACERS :)

indyman37
01-20-2007, 10:45 PM
This isn't normal for me after a loss, but I'm very proud of this team. After one practice the new guys played well. I'm really starting to feel for Danny though. The last two games the fate of the game has fell into his lap and he keeps falling short. And the terrible calls by the refs did not help us at all. The trade definitely helped this team and I am looking forward to the rest of this season.

Pingu
01-20-2007, 10:47 PM
I don't like Rick's call to go for a 2 pointer down by 3 with ten seconds left and no timeouts. Even tho JO made it, you were forced into going the length of the court in 6 seconds. Which means it would have been very hard to get the ball to JO. Poor play calling by Rick late in the game IMO.

6 seconds is definitely enough to get the ball to JO inside.
Look, Jamaal is as slow as a turtle and Danny still got the ball with something like 2 seconds on the clock.
A good PG would have taken it all the way to the hoop, that's what either Marbury or Crawford did when NY recently won a game at the buzzer.

I don't understand the play calling on this one. What's the point of looking for the 2 on when you're down by 3 and looking for the 3 when you're down by 2?

Overall, I think we're on the right track but we need a new PG ASAP!
I was enjoying Jamal's play until he forgot that this was a NBA game and not a one-on-one contest versus Marbury.

edit: and WHERE was Danny for most of the second half?

bellisimo
01-20-2007, 10:49 PM
i think it definitely hurt us that we weren't able to come up with a play cause of no timeouts....this is one of the reasons why RC is calling all the shots...the players haven't got the best idea to come up with reaction towards what the D throws at 'em...

as for the overall performance of the game...

I like Murphy...he is similar to Foster with better offense...but not as great on D....

speaking of D...right now we're really hurting....besides the hustle plays by Armstrong...we haven't really had that strong stand...of course the players are still new so there isn't any chemistry....I'm just hoping that is the only stopping point from them getting better at D....

MDJ - I liked his effort....attacking the basket and running around screens were definitely a plus....when he can knock down those open shots...it's going to be very good....

Ike - wasn't on tonight...he had the jitters and the butter fingers...hence he didn't get much PT...

JO - he needs the ball to go through him...but the Knicks were triple teaming him and made it hard to get that entry pass....

DG - he wasn't involved in the offense in the second half...and i think he got cold towards the end...

JT - he was good throughout the first 3 quarters...and felt that he needs to take the game over in 4th cause no one else was making a shot in that span...

BlueNGold
01-20-2007, 10:49 PM
We could have used Ed Smith tonight.

TheDon
01-20-2007, 10:50 PM
JO should have shot that last shot of the game. Granger is not ready to take game ending shot, he is 0 for 3 on them and I dont know why he keeps getting a chance to do it.

GIVE JO THE DAMN BALL.

Come on man Granger had 3 guys around him and I don't even know if Jermaine was in the picture. Besides you know how many times Reggie missed before he became "clutch". I agree with you however that he's not ready for that type of a responsibility. If the refs call that foul when Danny attempted that 3 at the end of the quarter. The phantom foul call on Jeff against curry when he was behind the backboard to bail curry out. The out of bounds call on JO even though he wasn't even out of bounds. Any of those three calls go the other way and I wholeheartedly believe we're either tied or ahead.

Ike looked wayyyy jittery out there for his first game and being a young player and his first time on a team after just one practice I didn't expect the man to come out and throw down a triple double his skills will develop.

Troy Murphy one game out of golden state and he puts up a double double. I look for this to become more and more of the norm he too though looked jittery and there were some points in the game where he had no clue but that too will change after he gets some practice in with this team another thing that will happen is he'll start to space the floor for Jermaine even more and Jermaine's numbers as well will go up

Mike Dunleavey I'm absolutely sold on Dunleavey he comes in new teammates, new system, one practice and he puts up somethin like 17-19 points and he did it within the flow of the game and the offense. Them Duke boys they're somethin else, smart, smart basketball players.

I'm looking forward to our team gaining chemistry, hopefully that happens sooner rather than later. The East better look out we're gonna finish the rest of this season strong.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
01-20-2007, 10:50 PM
I never expect teams to win immediately after big roster shakeups so Im not too disappointed by the loss. Ill attribute this one to the fact it took until the second half for the team to settle into its comfort zone. Even so, I have to say that Im excited by this TEAM, note the word TEAM.

Two things I think lost us this game: perimeter D and dribble penetration. TPTB have recognized these problems and hopefully they are going to make that one more trade.

Murph and Dunleavy looked good in their debuts, better than I expected. Now I just hope Al and Jack play like crap tonight so we can stop hearing about how Mullin robbed Bird on the trade.

able
01-20-2007, 10:50 PM
6 seconds is definitely enough to get the ball to JO inside.
Look, Jamaal is as slow as a turtle and Danny still got the ball with something like 2 seconds on the clock.
A good PG would have taken it all the way to the hoop, that's what either Marbury or Crawford did when NY recently won a game at the buzzer.

I don't understand the play calling on this one. What's the point of looking for the 2 on when you're down by 3 and looking for the 3 when you're down by 2?

Overall, I think we're on the right track but we need a new PG ASAP!
I was enjoying Jamal's play until he forgot that this was a NBA game and not a one-on-one contest versus Marbury.

I think you were watching a rerun with AJ as the PG, if not then your judgement is somewhat out of synch with reality here.

avoidingtheclowns
01-20-2007, 10:50 PM
glad for how well MDJ played and same for TM...

i'm surprised that after the great game he just had against the heat, that Quis didn't play more. i'm quite disappointed with that.

Jermaniac
01-20-2007, 10:52 PM
We could have used Ed Smith tonight.Yeah and played him at SF so Granger could sit on the bench during that last shot.

Get mad

odeez
01-20-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't mind Danny taking that last shot. You have to miss some in order to make them. I have faith that future Danny will hit that one. Good game by all the new Pacers, both DUN DUN and Murph showing what they can bring.

We got the Bulls next, must win game for us!

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 10:52 PM
I think you were watching a rerun with AJ as the PG, if not then your judgement is somewhat out of synch with reality here.

I agree.

I also agree that Jamaal should have taken the ball to the hole, but I do not think he was to slow brining the ball up the floor.

That is a tough situation to be in with no time-outs, but Jamaal got the ball to a open man. Danny just needs to take his time. Experience helps more then anything.

bellisimo
01-20-2007, 10:55 PM
i'm surprised that after the great game he just had against the heat, that Quis didn't play more. i'm quite disappointed with that.


I think its going to be hard to make a case for just one player these days...cause a lot of players looked good given certain periods of the game tonight and made a case for them to be on the floor

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 10:56 PM
Unclebuck,

Were you at the game this evening?

If so, you really do get home fast. It takes me 70-100 minutes to get home from Skins games.

Unclebuck
01-20-2007, 10:56 PM
I don't like Rick's call to go for a 2 pointer down by 3 with ten seconds left and no timeouts. Even tho JO made it, you were forced into going the length of the court in 6 seconds. Which means it would have been very hard to get the ball to JO. Poor play calling by Rick late in the game IMO.

I disagree - the strategy worked, we got the Knicks to miss a free throw and had a chance to win with a 3 or tie with a 2.

Overall that was a frustrating loss even though it was understandable.

Let me start by saying the Knicks played very well even though they had too many turnovers, but they really shot the ball well. And for anyone who thinks David Lee just tore the pacers up - yes he did, but he's been doing that over the past couple of weeks - 8 straight double-doubles.

Pacers team defense was poor - but I can accept that tonight because the 3 new guys had no clue much more so on defense than on offense.

Ike - he struggled - really struggled - it is going to take him some time as a second year player.

Murphy - he can rebound, he just has a knack for it, very good hands. I do need to say that if he's 6'11" then I'm 6'10" - no way he's that tall. at least he plays a lot smaller.

Dunleavy - played like I figured he would. He is a streaky scorer as we saw tonight, but he can create a shot and that is a plus. He brings a new dimension to the team.

I can't blame the new guys for their poor defense, afterall they've been coached by Nelson for 4 months and before that by Montgomery for 2 years, I think any player would have some bad habbits after those two coaches.

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 10:58 PM
I think its going to be hard to make a case for just one player these days...cause a lot of players looked good given certain periods of the game tonight and made a case for them to be on the floor

Not only that but also Rick is going to try many different lineups to see what will work best.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
01-20-2007, 11:01 PM
About the refs: yeah there were some terrible calls tonight. But I think the refs helped us a little to get back in the game at the end of the fourth. Of course they owed us some calls, they had built up a pretty sizable debt of bad calls in the third.

That out-of-bounds call on JO was just one of the dumbest things Ive ever seen in my life. I don't understand how the refs could think it is physically possible, with the laws of nature that govern our world, for JO to be out of bounds when Lewis was in between him and the baseline, that just astounds me.

About Dunleavy: I like his streak at the end of the third, but he seemed to be getting a little selfish there with the ball for a few possessions. Still, I felt like RC shouldnt have pulled him when he did. He was deffinitely in his grove at the moment.

Unclebuck
01-20-2007, 11:01 PM
Unclebuck,

Were you at the game this evening?

If so, you really do get home fast. It takes me 70-100 minutes to get home from Skins games.

I did not attend the game tonight. But I usually get home in about 15 -20 minutes

I do want to comment on the attendance. 15,300 - that is horrible on a Saturday night in the middle of January with 4 new players. It does prove one thing. All those fans who said they wouldn't buy a ticket or go to a game solely because jackson was still in a Pacers uniform either lied or were all out of town this weekend.

TheDon
01-20-2007, 11:01 PM
I just hope Al and Jack play like crap tonight so we can stop hearing about how Mullin robbed Bird on the trade.

Unless you think either Jack will get 17 points *tries to hold in laughter*

or Al gets a double double *can't hold it in any longer* :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Than I seriously doubt we have to worry about the game to game comparison.

Roferr
01-20-2007, 11:02 PM
I agree...with Marbury's knee and Curry out....I would have much rather went for the 2pt shot with JONeal for the tie and pull the game into OT then go for the win. Granger was way behind the 3pt line for that shot.

Granger was way behind the 3pt line because of Tins...there wasn't enough time for Granger to get in position. Why in the world would Tins take the inbound pass just 5 ft inside the line then have the entire length of the court to dribble? He's been in the league long enough to know to go farther down the court to get the ball because the clock doesn't start until the ball is touched.

I'm not so sure that Granger's # was called on this play. He just happened to be the one that Tins could get the ball to with the time expiring. It was just one of Tinsley's not too smart plays of the night.

avoidingtheclowns
01-20-2007, 11:02 PM
Not only that but also Rick is going to try many different lineups to see what will work best.

no and i understand that, i just am curious as to why, after he finally gave quis court time and quis responded, he wouldn't try to stick with it (as we may have found something that worked). i know its hard to make a case for just one guy, but i just mentioned i was disappointed that we didn't stick with the same philosophy... thats all i was saying

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 11:04 PM
I did not attend the game tonight.

I do want to comment on the attendance. 15,300 - that is horrible on a Saturday night in the middle of January with 4 new players. It does prove one thing. All those fans who said they wouldn't buy a ticket or go to a game solely because jackson was still in a Pacers uniform either lied or were all out of town this weekend.

UB, that is classic.

I read that last line and I spit my drink out I was laughing so hard.

I did not hear that number, 15,300 is kind of low but then again have the Pacers really ever had a strong showing of support? I know it was more then 15,300, but did we sell out all of our home games during that 60+ win season.

croz24
01-20-2007, 11:05 PM
the knicks are a tough team to beat most nights. may not be the greatest team out there but they definitely put forth a ton of effort. the new guys looked good and are definitely much better fits for a carlisle-type offense. very smart basketball players with solid fundamentals. now only if we can get a pg with some know-how we might have something here. i've always been one to defend tins more times than not but his 'streetball' attitude late in games has been costly and is a detriment to this team. the pacers have the players to trade for a solid pg so we'll see what happens in that regard. the main thing i take from this game is that it's really feels good to be able to cheer for the pacers again like i used to. getting rid of jackson and 'no-heart' harrington with 'no-game' sarunas is a step in the right direction.

D-BONE
01-20-2007, 11:06 PM
i'm surprised that after the great game he just had against the heat, that Quis didn't play more. i'm quite disappointed with that.

Most definitely. Hopefully this is just the standard minute shuffling involved in a significant influx of new guys. MD needs to get more than 18mins going forward.

Along the same lines, can Orien Green ever get a decent look out there? Some stray minutes in the 2nd qtr looks like it. Although Armstrong did a good job in the 2nd half on ball pressure.

TheDon
01-20-2007, 11:07 PM
I would like to see a lineup that looks like this

PG - Marquis
SG - Granger
SF - Dunlevey
PF - JO
C - Jeff

Tinsley is getting on my last nerve and already ticked off a bunch of fans. So many dumb decisions but the ones that stuck out was that what was it like a 40 footer from the half-court line, cause Marbury got in his head. Or any of those times where he'd just run down the court not even looking at anyone else and trying to duel with Marbury. Just makes me groan everytime I see him take a shot from behind the arc or anytime he takes about 6 seconds off the shot clock runs down and bricks a shot.

Unclebuck
01-20-2007, 11:10 PM
How could we acquire David Lee - he's the Knicks best player. And yes I'm being serious.


Since I'm Foster's biggest fan. Let me state for the record, he had a really bad game tonight. I wanted to see what Murph and Jeff could do on the court at the same time but Jeff picked up his 5th foul and had to sit.

I need to watch more of Murphy to figure out how he gets so many rebounds

Oh and yes Violet Palmer is a terrible ref. Just bad

odeez
01-20-2007, 11:12 PM
I would like to see a lineup that looks like this

PG - Marquis
SG - Granger
SF - Dunlevey
PF - JO
C - Jeff

Tinsley is getting on my last nerve and already ticked off a bunch of fans. So many dumb decisions but the ones that stuck out was that what was it like a 40 footer from the half-court line, cause Marbury got in his head. Or any of those times where he'd just run down the court not even looking at anyone else and trying to duel with Marbury. Just makes me groan everytime I see him take a shot from behind the arc or anytime he takes about 6 seconds off the shot clock runs down and bricks a shot.

Not sure about that line-up, but I too am growing tired of TINS's game, it just looks like what we have seen in the past, same bad decisions.

waterjater
01-20-2007, 11:12 PM
I liked what I saw from Dunleavy tonight. HUSTLE!! Also thought JO, Granger, Armstrong, Foster, Tinsley (for 3 qtrs) and few others played with some energy. Since this is all you do, why wouldn't this energy always be there???? that's another story.

Troy- we'll see. Diogu has a ways to go.

Oriene Greene can't dribble without palming it and Tinsley is one Selfish SOB when the other Pt guard starts scoring....If I were the opposing pt guard, I'd just continue to get under his skin to force Tinsley to ignore his teammates. Tinsley was a major problem down the stretch- Carlisle needs to grow some "Balls" and pull him when he's doing that ****.

Otherwise, The NBA needs to get over the mistake of hiring Violet Palmer and fire her ***. There have got to be other female refs that are a thousand times better than her. 75% of her calls have got to be wrong.

Water

bmartin7024
01-20-2007, 11:12 PM
I don't get a chance to watch many of the games here in Auburn, AL. Just wondering why Quis didn't get many minutes tonight, especially after the Miami game?

Jermaniac
01-20-2007, 11:14 PM
How could we acquire David Lee - he's the Knicks best player. And yes I'm being serious.I rather have Fat Boy, the guy killed us.

bellisimo
01-20-2007, 11:20 PM
Oh and yes Violet Palmer is a terrible ref. Just bad

if anyone was this bad in any one of my jobs...they'd be gone by the end of the day!

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 11:22 PM
if anyone was this bad in any one of my jobs...they'd be gone by the end of the day!

It is kind of sad because the only reason the NBA is keeping her around even though she is a horrible ref is because she is a female and getting rid of her would be horrible PR, IMHO

waterjater
01-20-2007, 11:23 PM
No doubt, Violet wouldn't last long in business. Poor performance and see ya!!

38 Freaking free throws for the Knicks...diff in the game. Violet probably granted 20-25 of them LOL!!

Ahhh, Tinsley needs to grow up and play solid b-ball!! Get back to setting up teammates!! This was the real difference in the game.

owl
01-20-2007, 11:23 PM
Send them Jamal?

David Lee---Superstar, at least for tonight. The guy definitely has jumping
ability and can score and has a nose for the ball.

Jamal vs the Knicks was hard to watch.

One positive was the number of turnovers was down. I expect that to be
more of the norm with Dunleavy and Murphy.

Unclebuck
01-20-2007, 11:23 PM
It is kind of sad because the only reason the NBA is keeping her around even though she is a horrible ref is because she is a female and getting rid of her would be horrible PR, IMHO

Yes but they fired the other female from several years ago

waterjater
01-20-2007, 11:24 PM
It is kind of sad because the only reason the NBA is keeping her around even though she is a horrible ref is because she is a female and getting rid of her would be horrible PR, IMHO

I wish they'd suck it up, take the hit, and replace her with a good female referee or several!!

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 11:25 PM
Yes but they fired the other female from several years ago

I remember that.

I dont remember her being as bad as Violet, I may be wrong.

Either way, Violet needs to be gone. Like yesterday. OR last year. Or 5 years ago

waterjater
01-20-2007, 11:25 PM
Yes but they fired the other female from several years ago

Dee Kantner, Right?? I always thought she was the better of the two. She must not have been willing to treat the "stars" like they could do no wrong :)!

JayRedd
01-20-2007, 11:27 PM
That was a tough game. At times sloppy, at times encouraging, and at times just confusing. Oh well. It's the first of many for the new crew. Ike Diogu couldn't have been much worse, however, which was pretty dissapointing to me. No big deal---kid is still a blue-chipper---but I was hoping to see him come out with a good game.

I have nothing more to add, but I did keep a gamelog of the entire game for those of you who may have missed it, or just want to get a re-cap and read bad jokes.

You can find it here: www.bothteamsplayedhard.net

Unclebuck
01-20-2007, 11:32 PM
The refs will be fined or suspended for that one call where they first said it was a jump ball, then Pacers ball, and then Knicks ball. We'll never hear anything about it, but that is the type of thing.

That was as bad a call I've seen all season in any game.

I'm off to watch the Warriors

Quis
01-20-2007, 11:33 PM
Troy Murphy was impressive.

Destined4Greatness
01-20-2007, 11:35 PM
JO should have shot that last shot of the game. Granger is not ready to take game ending shot, he is 0 for 3 on them and I dont know why he keeps getting a chance to do it.

GIVE JO THE DAMN BALL.

And how many game winners has JO hit, granted Granger hasn't it many if any. But JO's I guarantee could be counted on one had. Not like he is clutch.

Jermaniac
01-20-2007, 11:38 PM
The refs will be fined or suspended for that one call where they first said it was a jump ball, then Pacers ball, and then Knicks ball. We'll never hear anything about it, but that is the type of thing.

That was as bad a call I've seen all season in any game.

I'm off to watch the Warriors
Me too UB, this should be a fun one.

v_d_g
01-20-2007, 11:40 PM
Let me start by saying the Knicks played very well even though they had too many turnovers, but they really shot the ball well. And for anyone who thinks David Lee just tore the pacers up - yes he did, but he's been doing that over the past couple of weeks - 8 straight double-doubles.



Been watching the Knicks all year, UC, and I've commented on their improved play and their many fine young players.

As you saw tonight, Eddy Curry is unstoppable and his game is getting better and better (in terms of defense and rebounding). (I at one time envisioned Harrison as a Curry clone (somewhat) but with Rick in charge, I've given up all hope --- Curry was given a LONG chance while he struggled; Harrison basically got NO CHANCE.)

Frye has a sweet stroke and when he learns to consistently put the ball on the floor and not take fouls he will be a fine player.

Lee, as I mentioned on previous threads, is a FLAT out STAR ---he's a superior rebounder, a quick jumper, has a very nice handle, and is incredibly athletic. His game is getting better and better with each outing. (Jeffries is taking some of his minutes but not for long) Next year, with increased offensive production (and some point forward play) his value is through the roof. Just think, the GREAT LARRY BROWN, when asked about Lee on a local talk show last year, opined (after some urging) that Lee would be a good role player at best.

Nate Robinson is quick as hell and very good offensively.

You guys didn't get to see Balkman tonight BUT he's incredibly active and will also be a very fine player.

Seems like Isaiah, yes the much maligned Isaiah, has done quite well in the talent evaluation department.

Add, Crawford, who can get to the rim whenever he wants and is CLUTCH, Richardson, who is shooting lights out lately and can post up just about anybody, and the rejuvinated Marbuy and you have quite a nice team.

I realize you boys in the midwest don't get to see too much in the way of ATHLETIC teams, of course, the taking of a CHARGE is the standard by which players are judged out there, BUT tonight you all witnessed what basketball played by ATHLETIC players is all about.

Danny Granger is a good player but he'll never be better than LEE.

Shawne Williams has potential but he's probably not going to be the player Frye is or that Balkman will become. In other words, the KNICKS UP SIDE is huge while the Pacers, lacking a 2007 #1, basically have none.

Which brings us back to the incredibly poor decision of giving up Artest and a #1 for Al Harrington. I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.

The new players are good BUT not good enough.

BlueNGold
01-20-2007, 11:41 PM
Ed Smith is real...nicknamed Booger...and still plays. Seriously, is this guy available?

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0027,mallozzi,16175,3.html

vapacersfan
01-20-2007, 11:42 PM
And how many game winners has JO hit, granted Granger hasn't it many if any. But JO's I guarantee could be counted on one had. Not like he is clutch.

JO has hit more then Danny (0)

I dare you to say one positive thing about JO. I bet you cant do it.

JayRedd
01-20-2007, 11:52 PM
And how many game winners has JO hit, granted Granger hasn't it many if any. But JO's I guarantee could be counted on one had. Not like he is clutch.

This was Tinsley's fault wasn't it? He dribbled upcourt pretty slowly and what else was Danny supposed to do after that hand-off outside the 3-pt line with 1.5 seconds left aside from launch a 27-footer?

rabid
01-20-2007, 11:55 PM
I do want to comment on the attendance. 15,300 - that is horrible on a Saturday night in the middle of January with 4 new players.

Normally I'd agree. But there is, you know, this OTHER Indianapolis team with a game this weekend...

People might be a bit preoccupied for the next couple weeks. ;) Give it time, the fans will come...

imawhat
01-21-2007, 12:04 AM
no and i understand that, i just am curious as to why, after he finally gave quis court time and quis responded, he wouldn't try to stick with it (as we may have found something that worked). i know its hard to make a case for just one guy, but i just mentioned i was disappointed that we didn't stick with the same philosophy... thats all i was saying


He didn't play that well tonight; that's why he didn't get that many minutes. I wish Rick would've taken Jamaal out for the same reason.



Okay, two games in a row we've let the opponent shoot over 50%. That is not good. If it happens again soon there's reason for concern.


Did anyone know we are the 4th worst shooting team in the league? Guess that happens when your pg is chucking it at a 33% rate and your guys aren't moving on offense.


I can't believe we lost to the Knicks. They're an awful team with a bad record in the 2nd of back-to-backs, yet they beat us. I'm getting frustrated with these poor efforts.


And what a really questionable coaching move to go for 2 and then foul with no timeouts and 6 seconds to go. Even if he misses both free throws, that puts us in an awful position to execute. ::shakes head::

TheDon
01-21-2007, 12:10 AM
Been watching the Knicks all year, UC, and I've commented on their improved play and their many fine young players.

As you saw tonight, Eddy Curry is unstoppable and his game is getting better and better (in terms of defense and rebounding). (I at one time envisioned Harrison as a Curry clone (somewhat) but with Rick in charge, I've given up all hope --- Curry was given a LONG chance while he struggled; Harrison basically got NO CHANCE.)

Frye has a sweet stroke and when he learns to consistently put the ball on the floor and not take fouls he will be a fine player.

Lee, as I mentioned on previous threads, is a FLAT out STAR ---he's a superior rebounder, a quick jumper, has a very nice handle, and is incredibly athletic. His game is getting better and better with each outing. (Jeffries is taking some of his minutes but not for long) Next year, with increased offensive production (and some point forward play) his value is through the roof. Just think, the GREAT LARRY BROWN, when asked about Lee on a local talk show last year, opined (after some urging) that Lee would be a good role player at best.

Nate Robinson is quick as hell and very good offensively.

You guys didn't get to see Balkman tonight BUT he's incredibly active and will also be a very fine player.

Seems like Isaiah, yes the much maligned Isaiah, has done quite well in the talent evaluation department.

Add, Crawford, who can get to the rim whenever he wants and is CLUTCH, Richardson, who is shooting lights out lately and can post up just about anybody, and the rejuvinated Marbuy and you have quite a nice team.

I realize you boys in the midwest don't get to see too much in the way of ATHLETIC teams, of course, the taking of a CHARGE is the standard by which players are judged out there, BUT tonight you all witnessed what basketball played by ATHLETIC players is all about.

Danny Granger is a good player but he'll never be better than LEE.

Shawne Williams has potential but he's probably not going to be the player Frye is or that Balkman will become. In other words, the KNICKS UP SIDE is huge while the Pacers, lacking a 2007 #1, basically have none.

Which brings us back to the incredibly poor decision of giving up Artest and a #1 for Al Harrington. I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.

The new players are good BUT not good enough.

Spike Lee is that you?

BlueNGold
01-21-2007, 12:13 AM
Okay, two games in a row we've let the opponent shoot over 50%. That is not good. If it happens again soon there's reason for concern.


Did anyone know we are the 4th worst shooting team in the league? Guess that happens when your pg is chucking it at a 33% rate and your guys aren't moving on offense.



Play Greene or Quis at PG, and the problem would easily be solved. They would not allow that type of penetration. If they need another guard to play SG, put Marshall out there...another good defender who is ready for more minutes. Dunleavy could definitely be the playmaker. He is a prototypical point-forward. Perfect for this system IMO.

jjbjjbjjb
01-21-2007, 12:16 AM
Tinsley blew it for us down the stretch, trying to take the Knicks one-on-one several times when he shouldn't have, and then he didn't try to take them one-on-one when he should have, on the last play. He is good with the ball, I like his aggression, I like his talent. He even played passable defense tonight. But his game management is not good and it is pretty much never good.

Dunleavy looked nice for a while in the third, then got a bit overconfident, but that was nothing a lot of our recent players (Artest, Jackson, Tinsley, etc.) haven't done.

Murphy, eh. His defense was nothing to write home about...I'm not sure anything he did was epistle-worthy.

I do not understand how Marquis Daniels isn't playing 30 minutes a night. Good things happen when this man has the ball.

Moses
01-21-2007, 12:17 AM
Been watching the Knicks all year, UC, and I've commented on their improved play and their many fine young players.

As you saw tonight, Eddy Curry is unstoppable and his game is getting better and better (in terms of defense and rebounding). (I at one time envisioned Harrison as a Curry clone (somewhat) but with Rick in charge, I've given up all hope --- Curry was given a LONG chance while he struggled; Harrison basically got NO CHANCE.)

Frye has a sweet stroke and when he learns to consistently put the ball on the floor and not take fouls he will be a fine player.

Lee, as I mentioned on previous threads, is a FLAT out STAR ---he's a superior rebounder, a quick jumper, has a very nice handle, and is incredibly athletic. His game is getting better and better with each outing. (Jeffries is taking some of his minutes but not for long) Next year, with increased offensive production (and some point forward play) his value is through the roof. Just think, the GREAT LARRY BROWN, when asked about Lee on a local talk show last year, opined (after some urging) that Lee would be a good role player at best.

Nate Robinson is quick as hell and very good offensively.

You guys didn't get to see Balkman tonight BUT he's incredibly active and will also be a very fine player.

Seems like Isaiah, yes the much maligned Isaiah, has done quite well in the talent evaluation department.

Add, Crawford, who can get to the rim whenever he wants and is CLUTCH, Richardson, who is shooting lights out lately and can post up just about anybody, and the rejuvinated Marbuy and you have quite a nice team.

I realize you boys in the midwest don't get to see too much in the way of ATHLETIC teams, of course, the taking of a CHARGE is the standard by which players are judged out there, BUT tonight you all witnessed what basketball played by ATHLETIC players is all about.

Danny Granger is a good player but he'll never be better than LEE.

Shawne Williams has potential but he's probably not going to be the player Frye is or that Balkman will become. In other words, the KNICKS UP SIDE is huge while the Pacers, lacking a 2007 #1, basically have none.

Which brings us back to the incredibly poor decision of giving up Artest and a #1 for Al Harrington. I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.

The new players are good BUT not good enough.
A knicks fan trash talking?

Must be nice to be almost out of the lottery for once. How much are the Knicks paying again for their roster?

Eindar
01-21-2007, 12:18 AM
On the post game show on WIBC, during the interview of Rick, he said that the play was to get it to JO for a close shot to force overtime, but Tinsley couldn't get it to him, so he shoveled it to Danny for a 3.

Moses
01-21-2007, 12:19 AM
Been watching the Knicks all year, UC, and I've commented on their improved play and their many fine young players.

As you saw tonight, Eddy Curry is unstoppable and his game is getting better and better (in terms of defense and rebounding). (I at one time envisioned Harrison as a Curry clone (somewhat) but with Rick in charge, I've given up all hope --- Curry was given a LONG chance while he struggled; Harrison basically got NO CHANCE.)

Frye has a sweet stroke and when he learns to consistently put the ball on the floor and not take fouls he will be a fine player.

Lee, as I mentioned on previous threads, is a FLAT out STAR ---he's a superior rebounder, a quick jumper, has a very nice handle, and is incredibly athletic. His game is getting better and better with each outing. (Jeffries is taking some of his minutes but not for long) Next year, with increased offensive production (and some point forward play) his value is through the roof. Just think, the GREAT LARRY BROWN, when asked about Lee on a local talk show last year, opined (after some urging) that Lee would be a good role player at best.

Nate Robinson is quick as hell and very good offensively.

You guys didn't get to see Balkman tonight BUT he's incredibly active and will also be a very fine player.

Seems like Isaiah, yes the much maligned Isaiah, has done quite well in the talent evaluation department.

Add, Crawford, who can get to the rim whenever he wants and is CLUTCH, Richardson, who is shooting lights out lately and can post up just about anybody, and the rejuvinated Marbuy and you have quite a nice team.

I realize you boys in the midwest don't get to see too much in the way of ATHLETIC teams, of course, the taking of a CHARGE is the standard by which players are judged out there, BUT tonight you all witnessed what basketball played by ATHLETIC players is all about.

Danny Granger is a good player but he'll never be better than LEE.

Shawne Williams has potential but he's probably not going to be the player Frye is or that Balkman will become. In other words, the KNICKS UP SIDE is huge while the Pacers, lacking a 2007 #1, basically have none.

Which brings us back to the incredibly poor decision of giving up Artest and a #1 for Al Harrington. I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.

The new players are good BUT not good enough.
A knicks fan trash talking about our future potential?

Must be nice to be almost out of the lottery for once. How much are the Knicks paying again for their roster?

Eindar
01-21-2007, 12:22 AM
Been watching the Knicks all year, UC, and I've commented on their improved play and their many fine young players.

As you saw tonight, Eddy Curry is unstoppable and his game is getting better and better (in terms of defense and rebounding). (I at one time envisioned Harrison as a Curry clone (somewhat) but with Rick in charge, I've given up all hope --- Curry was given a LONG chance while he struggled; Harrison basically got NO CHANCE.)

Frye has a sweet stroke and when he learns to consistently put the ball on the floor and not take fouls he will be a fine player.

Lee, as I mentioned on previous threads, is a FLAT out STAR ---he's a superior rebounder, a quick jumper, has a very nice handle, and is incredibly athletic. His game is getting better and better with each outing. (Jeffries is taking some of his minutes but not for long) Next year, with increased offensive production (and some point forward play) his value is through the roof. Just think, the GREAT LARRY BROWN, when asked about Lee on a local talk show last year, opined (after some urging) that Lee would be a good role player at best.

Nate Robinson is quick as hell and very good offensively.

You guys didn't get to see Balkman tonight BUT he's incredibly active and will also be a very fine player.

Seems like Isaiah, yes the much maligned Isaiah, has done quite well in the talent evaluation department.

Add, Crawford, who can get to the rim whenever he wants and is CLUTCH, Richardson, who is shooting lights out lately and can post up just about anybody, and the rejuvinated Marbuy and you have quite a nice team.

I realize you boys in the midwest don't get to see too much in the way of ATHLETIC teams, of course, the taking of a CHARGE is the standard by which players are judged out there, BUT tonight you all witnessed what basketball played by ATHLETIC players is all about.

Danny Granger is a good player but he'll never be better than LEE.

Shawne Williams has potential but he's probably not going to be the player Frye is or that Balkman will become. In other words, the KNICKS UP SIDE is huge while the Pacers, lacking a 2007 #1, basically have none.

Which brings us back to the incredibly poor decision of giving up Artest and a #1 for Al Harrington. I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.

The new players are good BUT not good enough.

I'll have to go find the post where I pegged you as a troll within your first 30 posts. I'll try not to pull a muscle patting myself on the back, however.

andreialta
01-21-2007, 12:33 AM
I liked what i saw in pacers today

CableKC
01-21-2007, 12:34 AM
I will let you guys judge Tinsley's overall offensive and defensive game.....but I didn't seem to scream at the TV for the first 3 QTRs ( which to me...means that he didn't seem to make too many mistakes and did fairly well ). I just didn't like that he shutdown the team from an offensive perspective until it came down to crunch time towards the end of the 4th QTR. He took 3 or 4 straight FGA...admittedly...he drew trips to the FT line twice...but there didn't seem to be any real attempt to look for someone else.

Eindar
01-21-2007, 12:34 AM
As for the game itself, I like the way the new guys played, and obviously the defense suffered because (a): They're not used to playing strong defense every night and (b): it's always easier to learn offensive sets than it is to learn who rotates where, when, and why.

The main difference I've noticed already is that except for the few times Tinsley decided to have a NY PG Battle, we no longer have guys get the ball and decide from the moment it touches their hand that "this is my shot", and then proceed to take it in regardless of double-teams or wide-open teammates.

I think FG% should improve and turnovers will go down as a result of this trade.

tadscout
01-21-2007, 12:43 AM
-Tinsley needs to be traded... just poor decision making... dominating the ball way to much in an offense that Rick has now claimed he wanted ball movement in now... The selfish 1 on 1 play at the end of games is getting old, especially since it's not effective... he lost Marbury many times on D and allowed him to have easy uncontested entry passes inside time after time in the 1st half... and at the end the Knicks kept iso'ing Marbury against Tinsley, knowing about his matador D... (also anyone noticed he got benched for like the final 3 or so min of the 1st half after making bad plays at each end)

-I think we could have played a little better more aggressive D if it wasn't for the Refs calling some incredibly tic tacky terrible calls...

-I really liked what I saw from the new guys tonight...

<o:p></o:p>

Unclebuck
01-21-2007, 12:54 AM
Normally I'd agree. But there is, you know, this OTHER Indianapolis team with a game this weekend...

People might be a bit preoccupied for the next couple weeks. ;) Give it time, the fans will come...

So the game is 24 hours later and people can't go to the Pacers game. Are they tailgating already?

Eindar
01-21-2007, 12:58 AM
So the game is 24 hours later and people can't go to the Pacers game. Are they tailgating already?

More like they blew all their disposable income on tickets, jerseys, or tailgating supplies.

Evan_The_Dude
01-21-2007, 01:23 AM
Been watching the Knicks all year, UC, and I've commented on their improved play and their many fine young players.

As you saw tonight, Eddy Curry is unstoppable and his game is getting better and better (in terms of defense and rebounding). (I at one time envisioned Harrison as a Curry clone (somewhat) but with Rick in charge, I've given up all hope --- Curry was given a LONG chance while he struggled; Harrison basically got NO CHANCE.)

Frye has a sweet stroke and when he learns to consistently put the ball on the floor and not take fouls he will be a fine player.

Lee, as I mentioned on previous threads, is a FLAT out STAR ---he's a superior rebounder, a quick jumper, has a very nice handle, and is incredibly athletic. His game is getting better and better with each outing. (Jeffries is taking some of his minutes but not for long) Next year, with increased offensive production (and some point forward play) his value is through the roof. Just think, the GREAT LARRY BROWN, when asked about Lee on a local talk show last year, opined (after some urging) that Lee would be a good role player at best.

Nate Robinson is quick as hell and very good offensively.

You guys didn't get to see Balkman tonight BUT he's incredibly active and will also be a very fine player.

Seems like Isaiah, yes the much maligned Isaiah, has done quite well in the talent evaluation department.

Add, Crawford, who can get to the rim whenever he wants and is CLUTCH, Richardson, who is shooting lights out lately and can post up just about anybody, and the rejuvinated Marbuy and you have quite a nice team.

I realize you boys in the midwest don't get to see too much in the way of ATHLETIC teams, of course, the taking of a CHARGE is the standard by which players are judged out there, BUT tonight you all witnessed what basketball played by ATHLETIC players is all about.

Danny Granger is a good player but he'll never be better than LEE.

Shawne Williams has potential but he's probably not going to be the player Frye is or that Balkman will become. In other words, the KNICKS UP SIDE is huge while the Pacers, lacking a 2007 #1, basically have none.

Which brings us back to the incredibly poor decision of giving up Artest and a #1 for Al Harrington. I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.

The new players are good BUT not good enough.


I don't understand your purpose here. You're saying our new players are good but not that good and you're judging them by one game after one practice. They haven't even been here a full 48 hours. Danny will never be better than David Lee? They don't even play the same position. That's a flat out retarded comparison. Harrison was never an Eddie Curry clone because he's too foul prone and kinda clumsy.

As far as the bolded part, I'm seeing that as a personal shot to the people on this forum. Seems like you're trying to question someones intelligence as if nobody on this forum has ever seen another NBA team besides the Pacers. As if nobody here has NBA League Pass and can see what the hell is going on. Why don't you pull your head out of your *** and wake up and come back to reality you ignorant troll.

Mourning
01-21-2007, 01:24 AM
He didn't play that well tonight; that's why he didn't get that many minutes. I wish Rick would've taken Jamaal out for the same reason.



Okay, two games in a row we've let the opponent shoot over 50%. That is not good. If it happens again soon there's reason for concern.


Did anyone know we are the 4th worst shooting team in the league? Guess that happens when your pg is chucking it at a 33% rate and your guys aren't moving on offense.


I can't believe we lost to the Knicks. They're an awful team with a bad record in the 2nd of back-to-backs, yet they beat us. I'm getting frustrated with these poor efforts.


And what a really questionable coaching move to go for 2 and then foul with no timeouts and 6 seconds to go. Even if he misses both free throws, that puts us in an awful position to execute. ::shakes head::

What the HELL do you expect? Moving in 3 new players, 2 of them with reasonably substantial playing time is going to have its effects. I will have no problem if we lose the next few games, but I see improvement, gelling, chemistry improvement and notice that people are starting to understand their defined roles and their playbook.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Anthem
01-21-2007, 01:26 AM
I'll never get over this and will continue gravitating over to the KNicks for entertaining basketball.
Hallelujah. Second-best news I've heard this week.

I still don't see what you expect to get with the 20th pick in the draft, but you can believe whatever you want.

Mourning
01-21-2007, 01:27 AM
I don't understand your purpose here. You're saying our new players are good but not that good and you're judging them by one game after one practice. They haven't even been here a full 48 hours. Danny will never be better than David Lee? They don't even play the same position. That's a flat out retarded comparison. Harrison was never an Eddie Curry clone because he's too foul prone and kinda clumsy.

As far as the bolded part, I'm seeing that as a personal shot to the people on this forum. Seems like you're trying to question someones intelligence as if nobody on this forum has ever seen another NBA team besides the Pacers. As if nobody here has NBA League Pass and can see what the hell is going on. Why don't you pull your head out of your *** and wake up and come back to reality you ignorant troll.

Wow! And I 100% aggree! Not too mention he somehow succeeds in getting the 2007 first rounder mentioned again aswell.

Naptown_Seth
01-21-2007, 01:29 AM
I'm gonna say one single thing because I already said it all after the Miami game, and this one fact backs up my complaint from that thread.

52.3% FG for the freaking NY Knicks IN INDY, not MSG. 108 points allowed.

vapacersfan
01-21-2007, 01:32 AM
The funny part is last time I checked "Virginia" isnt really the "midwest"....

vapacersfan
01-21-2007, 01:34 AM
I'm gonna say one single thing because I already said it all after the Miami game, and this one fact backs up my complaint from that thread.

52.3% FG for the freaking NY Knicks IN INDY, not MSG. 108 points allowed.

Give it a rest already.

The Knicks would have shot lights out with Jax and Al or without them.

Our team defense looked horrible, but what do you expect from a group of guys who have had all of a day of practice.

I would argue learning defensive assignments is just as hard as learning offensive sets, and these guys all looked a little "lost at times".

I'll wager that the defense gets better has the team has more time to "gel"

Naptown_Seth
01-21-2007, 01:39 AM
Well I have to address this...

What the HELL do you expect? Moving in 3 new players, 2 of them with reasonably substantial playing time is going to have its effects.
The Pacers hosted the freaking Knicks.

The Warriors hosted the Cavs. Jackson is the Cavs leading scorer tonight and already at 36 minutes played (8 more than 2nd place Al), Al has 28 minutes and even Saras is seeing 14 so far. The Warriors are up by 9 with 9 left in the 4th.

Jack went out and the game is now down to 5 with 8:19 to go, but still...

The point is that the Warriors had the same issue, have the players coming their way STARTING and playing the MOST minutes on the team, and they are beating one of the top East teams, not the lottery bound Knicks.

So let's skip the "all that change" angle, it hasn't kept Jack from going 9/18 for 25 with 5 reb, 4 ast, and 5 steals. Not a good first result on this trade at all.

vapacersfan
01-21-2007, 01:47 AM
Well I have to address this...

The Pacers hosted the freaking Knicks.

The Warriors hosted the Cavs. Jackson is the Cavs leading scorer tonight and already at 36 minutes played (8 more than 2nd place Al), Al has 28 minutes and even Saras is seeing 14 so far. The Warriors are up by 9 with 9 left in the 4th.

Jack went out and the game is now down to 5 with 8:19 to go, but still...

The point is that the Warriors had the same issue, have the players coming their way STARTING and playing the MOST minutes on the team, and they are beating one of the top East teams, not the lottery bound Knicks.

So let's skip the "all that change" angle, it hasn't kept Jack from going 9/18 for 25 with 5 reb, 4 ast, and 5 steals. Not a good first result on this trade at all.

First of all, the Cavs are a very streaky team. And why should we skip the "all the change" angle? You ever moved? Better yet moved jobs? Lets not just skip that, that is a lot of added pressure and with that comes a lot of stress and responsibility.

Look, I know you are a big Jackson fan so I will post the same thing I posted to ajbry in the other thread



We started off running at the beginning of the season.

Remember how that wasn’t working out? Remember how bad they looked and how no one could run a fast break.

Then JO came out and said “We have got to change something”

As I said I wish all of these players well, but it is not fair to judge them based off of the first game. Let the honeymoon period be over, then the real winner can be chosen.

Remember Ron went almost the rest of the season after his trade before he resorted back to his old ways.

I am shocked to see saras playing so well, but I think his weaknesses will be revealed soon enough.

Jax is streaky, but I will never understand Al. It was like he did not care when he was here, now he gets traded he is playing hard again. We will see how long this lasts, though.




Almost all players look that way when they are traded. Not just in basketball but in most sports.

Once the guys relax (and I cant imagine the stress that comes with a move. Imagine waking up tomorrow and being told you longer work in Indiana, you are now employed in X state. Now go find a house amongst other things….) they generally all start off well and enjoy any kind of a move.

The cliché “The grass is always greener on the other side on the fence” is around for a reason.

Troy and Don looked thrilled and more relaxed IMHO as well this evening.

However, that honey moon period can only last so long.



Lets not judge a trade made during a 82 game schedule off of 1 game. If Jax comes out next game and scores 1 point with 5 turnovers and no assists will you proclaim us the winner of this trade? I think that is about as ridiculous and as silly as going extreme and calling this a bad trade because the man is having one good game.

Evan_The_Dude
01-21-2007, 01:47 AM
Well I have to address this...

The Pacers hosted the freaking Knicks.

The Warriors hosted the Cavs. Jackson is the Cavs leading scorer tonight and already at 36 minutes played (8 more than 2nd place Al), Al has 28 minutes and even Saras is seeing 14 so far. The Warriors are up by 9 with 9 left in the 4th.

Jack went out and the game is now down to 5 with 8:19 to go, but still...

The point is that the Warriors had the same issue, have the players coming their way STARTING and playing the MOST minutes on the team, and they are beating one of the top East teams, not the lottery bound Knicks.

So let's skip the "all that change" angle, it hasn't kept Jack from going 9/18 for 25 with 5 reb, 4 ast, and 5 steals. Not a good first result on this trade at all.

You have to understand though, Nellie has a free-flowing system without a guy named J.O. Their leading scorer is out (Davis), and they're also missing Richardson. All they really have is Ellis and Pietrus as their main scorers. So unlike Dunleavy and Murphy, Harrington and Jackson had to come in and immediately be major parts of the offense. Whereas Murphy and Dunleavy had to blend in with J.O. and Granger while expecting the ball from Tinsley. It's a bit of a different situation. Plus it helps to have a coach that doesn't give a damn how much you shoot or when you do it. That game isn't quite over yet either.

Frank Slade
01-21-2007, 01:53 AM
Oh and yes Violet Palmer is a terrible ref. Just bad

To say she is terrible is an insult to terrible refs everywhere.;)
How she still has job I will never know.. or is it just for Pacers games ?

And yes I was wondering the same thing UB, for all those that wanted a more likeable team, here is the time to put your money where your mouth is, no excuses. Hopefully the fringe or disenchanted fans do thier part and return.

Naptown_Seth
01-21-2007, 02:05 AM
And why should we skip the "all the change" angle?
Um, pretty sure that was clear in the post. Because if a reason is a valid reason then the results from that reason should be rather consistant. So when the other team, facing just as much change, comes out looking strong then it hurts the strength of the theory, no matter how much you want to support it with anecdotes of how moving has been tough for you and me.

I think it is 90 degrees out right now. You show me a thermometer that says 33. I say "so what, maybe the day decided to cool down just then, haven't you ever seen a day get colder suddenly". That is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that it's not 90 out, period. My point is that they played bad defense 2 games in a row, which is correct, period.

They played poor defense vs Miami WITHOUT NEW PEOPLE TRYING TO LEARN. They were missing Al (considered a bust on defense) and Saras (definitely not a defensive ace).

So how about you tell me why they just gave up 10-15% higher shooting to MIAMI than they have in 2-3 years through all sorts of lineups (including missing Ron, JO, etc)?

Seeing it happen again vs NY at home makes it look troublesome. GS just held a team under 100 in regulation. Normally they were giving up around 105 IIRC. Again, just coincidence I suppose.

At some point though if facts like these keep lining up they will need to be accounted for. God knows that if they held NY to 38% and 89 points tonight it would have shut up my defensive concerns angle.

You want me to give it a rest, get the Pacers to support you with some results and you won't even be the first one to point it out, I will be right in discussing it myself.

Till then of course it's going to get mentioned because its a very bad sign.



So unlike Dunleavy and Murphy, Harrington and Jackson had to come in and immediately be major parts of the offense.
This only makes my case stronger. The Pacers had the luxury of not having to force the new guys in, so the point of "yeah but they had to deal with new players" is invalid.

By your own point it was actually the Warriors who were faced with HAVING to use the new players. Talk about trial by fire.

It's not the scoring I'm on about, it's the total effort combined with the RESULTS. It's 98-98 going to OT as I type this and they might lose, but if so it will be to the Cavs, not the Knicks.

And it will be despite some ALLEDGED handicap of new players, because those guys did get a serious amount of playing time. If being new is a problem and they played more than the new Pacers then the THEORY that this is a handicap would be proven out when the Warriors flopped more than the Pacers, not a lot less.

See, that's how science and logic dictate, not gut feeling and truthiness.

If something is a cause then it should a cause in similar situations, and more so when it exists more. More newness on the court in GS should mean more struggles by the "new guys cause problems" view.

RedPitSea
01-21-2007, 02:06 AM
And how many game winners has JO hit, granted Granger hasn't it many if any. But JO's I guarantee could be counted on one had. Not like he is clutch.

Granger will make that shot just give him a few more and then there a good as gold.

Evan_The_Dude
01-21-2007, 02:16 AM
Um, pretty sure that was clear in the post. Because if a reason is a valid reason then the results from that reason should be rather consistant. So when the other team, facing just as much change, comes out looking strong then it hurts the strength of the theory, no matter how much you want to support it with anecdotes of how moving has been tough for you and me.

I think it is 90 degrees out right now. You show me a thermometer that says 33. I say "so what, maybe the day decided to cool down just then, haven't you ever seen a day get colder suddenly". That is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that it's not 90 out, period. My point is that they played bad defense 2 games in a row, which is correct, period.

They played poor defense vs Miami WITHOUT NEW PEOPLE TRYING TO LEARN. They were missing Al (considered a bust on defense) and Saras (definitely not a defensive ace).

So how about you tell me why they just gave up 10-15% higher shooting to MIAMI than they have in 2-3 years through all sorts of lineups (including missing Ron, JO, etc)?

Seeing it happen again vs NY at home makes it look troublesome. GS just held a team under 100 in regulation. Normally they were giving up around 105 IIRC. Again, just coincidence I suppose.

At some point though if facts like these keep lining up they will need to be accounted for. God knows that if they held NY to 38% and 89 points tonight it would have shut up my defensive concerns angle.

You want me to give it a rest, get the Pacers to support you with some results and you won't even be the first one to point it out, I will be right in discussing it myself.

Till then of course it's going to get mentioned because its a very bad sign.



This only makes my case stronger. The Pacers had the luxury of not having to force the new guys in, so the point of "yeah but they had to deal with new players" is invalid.

By your own point it was actually the Warriors who were faced with HAVING to use the new players. Talk about trial by fire.

It's not the scoring I'm on about, it's the total effort combined with the RESULTS. It's 98-98 going to OT as I type this and they might lose, but if so it will be to the Cavs, not the Knicks.

And it will be despite some ALLEDGED handicap of new players, because those guys did get a serious amount of playing time. If being new is a problem and they played more than the new Pacers then the THEORY that this is a handicap would be proven out when the Warriors flopped more than the Pacers, not a lot less.

See, that's how science and logic dictate, not gut feeling and truthiness.

If something is a cause then it should a cause in similar situations, and more so when it exists more. More newness on the court in GS should mean more struggles by the "new guys cause problems" view.

In case you haven't noticed, the Knicks haven't exactly been playing like a lottery team lately. They're in a groove right now. Even with a back to back, they still had momentum on their side. They're a team with an identity. We're a team trying to find one -- and from what I saw tonight we're finally on the right track.

vapacersfan
01-21-2007, 02:17 AM
Alright Seth, the GSW lost to the Cavs.

Since both teams lost does that make the trade "even"?



They played poor defense vs Miami WITHOUT NEW PEOPLE TRYING TO LEARN. They were missing Al (considered a bust on defense) and Saras (definitely not a defensive ace).

So how about you tell me why they just gave up 10-15% higher shooting to MIAMI than they have in 2-3 years through all sorts of lineups (including missing Ron, JO, etc)?

It is the NBA. Some nights you play unbelivable great, others you play horridly.

Look, I understand you love stats, but stats do not tell the whole story. Should the Pacers come out and hold the next two opponets
to 85-90 points it will be moot.

I can understand your worry about the Knicks looking good against us, but the Hawks swept us last season. Anything is possible in the NBA.........

Naptown_Seth
01-21-2007, 02:17 AM
BTW, your all spun up because you think I'm a "Jack fan". I'm not. I just wasn't a lunitic blind hatred fan who saw every fault as a 10 and every positive as a 1. The sum total of what he brought to the court was modestly productive on both ends.

It was only the tiresome rantings of "he's killing them, it's all his fault" that have ever made me defend him as a player.

If Tins and Jack had been traded for Andre Miler I would have done backflips all the way to Conseco. I'm not against Jack being moved.

I just want some freaking PERIMETER DEFENSE on the team, and moving the one guy providing that on a regular basis for 3 frontline players, 2 of whom are rather sluggish at times, is not my idea of making that situation better.


Seroiusly, stop right here and you tell me how Dun, Murph and Ike make the Pacers PERIMETER defense better than Jack did.

I don't care about the passing, the attitude, the smarts because it's worthless if the team has no perimeter defense.

Maybe next time trade Jack and Al for a SHOOTING GUARD that can defend better than Jackson can. There are plenty out there and any one of them would have made me very happy to see coming back.


Stop thinking my issue is with Jack. It's not. It's with the makeup of the roster and what skill sets must be available to this team. I understand moving Jack for off-court issues. Just don't be stupid about it.

vapacersfan
01-21-2007, 02:25 AM
BTW, your all spun up because you think I'm a "Jack fan". I'm not. I just wasn't a lunitic blind hatred fan who saw every fault as a 10 and every positive as a 1. The sum total of what he brought to the court was modestly productive on both ends.

That is pretty harsh coming from anyone on these forums. I have no clue who had that "lunitic blind hatred fan" refrence was for, but I seriously hope not me. If it was, you are sadly mistaken on me and how I look at the situation.

I do not agree that he was productive at both ends of the floor (he could have been had he "choosen" to play defense and not stand back and argue with the refs while he man raced down court and got a easy layup) but that is a discussion for another day.



I just want some freaking PERIMETER DEFENSE on the team, and moving the one guy providing that on a regular basis for 3 frontline players, 2 of whom are rather sluggish at times, is not my idea of making that situation better.


Dont we all. I would love to move Tinsley for a defensive minded PG.

The only problem was the negatives outweighed the positives when it came to Jack. That is only counting on the floor, that is not counting the "off court" issues



Maybe next time trade Jack and Al for a SHOOTING GUARD that can defend better than Jackson can. There are plenty out there and any one of them would have made me very happy to see coming back.


Who said we still cant/wont make that trade............


Stop thinking my issue is with Jack. It's not. It's with the makeup of the roster and what skill sets must be available to this team. I understand moving Jack for off-court issues. Just don't be stupid about it.

I will when you get some stats that support your results ;)

Seriously, I did not think I would strike that much of a nerve and I apologize for getting you all that fired up. It really is not that serious, it is a internet message board. When you defend the guy every time his name comes up that sends a message, at least it does to me. I have never seen you be harsh on the guy. Regardless, sorry to see you get all fired up.

I need to some some sleep.

Naptown_Seth
01-21-2007, 02:32 AM
It is the NBA. Some nights you play unbelivable great, others you play horridly.
This isn't what you said though is it? I believe your view was that it was VERY CONSISTANT. That teams with lots of new players will naturally play poorly.

One is - its random

The other is - its based on new players more than anything

I said - even before the new guys they had created a defensive issue that the new players wouldn't fix

I showed that new guys couldn't be the overriding issue because the other team wasn't affected by it, it wasn't a consistant factor so it couldn't be relied upon as a definite reason.

If A causes B, then B should always follow A. If it only does some of the time because "it's the NBA" then logically you can't say "A causes B" because apparently some other factors keep that from happening lots of nights.


If you were just saying "hey, the MIA and NY games were just flukes, that's the NBA" I couldn't really argue it. It wouldn't be strong point because it doesn't really tell us anything, but it doesn't take a stand that is contradicted that same night in another game.


Right now "Pacers got worse defensively" is 2 for 2 in the testing. This p****s you off for some reason. I don't know why that is. I'm not making it happen or wishing it to happen, but I do think I'm right about it being an issue.



I realize the Knicks are getting "better", but seriously who thinks the Knicks are a better victory than the Cavs right now? And BTW, the Warriors were without Baron and Richardson. Did I miss where the Pacers went without JO and Foster?

Naptown_Seth
01-21-2007, 02:35 AM
That is pretty harsh coming from anyone on these forums. I have no clue who had that "lunitic blind hatred fan" refrence was for, but I seriously hope not me. If it was, you are sadly mistaken on me and how I look at the situation.
It wasn't for you. It was to explain why you often might see me "defending" Jackson. He didn't suck. People thought that. I had a problem with that because it's irrational.

I assume you saw me defend him because you mistook me for Jackson fan. That's no more true than someone thinking I dislike Granger or Foster because I crtique parts of their game, when in fact they might be my 2 favorite players (tough to go against JO but he's so popular already).


I can understand your worry about the Knicks looking good against us, but the Hawks swept us last season. Anything is possible in the NBA.........
This point doesn't help your case if its to prove that I have no need to worry about the direction this team is headed. Last year's team turned into a disaster of befuddlement and finished with some very poor play. Me saying "they just took a turn for a worse" is not contradicted by saying "don't worry, the same thing happened last year". ;)



Regardless, sorry to see you get all fired up.
Well let's be fair here. I put "53.2% FG allowed". That's not fired up. That's just a stat. A strong enough stat that you knew the point without me explaining it, but still just a number.

Your response was "give it a rest". To me that sounds a little bent out of shape and I didn't think it was warranted at the time.


I think you are irritated with me not loving this latest trade, and it's true that I didn't. But I don't believe in not fighting fair. I'm worried about the defense, and as long as they keep running out numbers most nights (say 70% or more) that back this view then I'm going to keep it.

So we know the terms of "war" as it were, and that it's not personal just a debate over a differing view. In this case my hopes are with your side winning within a few weeks. Until then I just can't :sunshine: my POV on the issue.

This is just :blahblah: not :growl:

CableKC
01-21-2007, 03:36 AM
I'm gonna say one single thing because I already said it all after the Miami game, and this one fact backs up my complaint from that thread.

52.3% FG for the freaking NY Knicks IN INDY, not MSG. 108 points allowed.
On the surface...I agree with you...we should not be giving up this many points.....much less at a home game.

But to be fair......in the Miami game....we were "technically" short 2 of our regular starters and we did give extended ( but admittedly not significant ) minutes to Shawne and Rawle. And this is the first game with 2 new players playing a decent # of minutes on a team where Defense usually is emphasized.

However, if we continue to play like this after 3 more games....then I will start to worry....until then...I will give the team ( 2 games after the trade ) the benefit of the doubt.

mike_D
01-21-2007, 03:37 AM
Was anybody else surprised that Daniels only got 18 minutes tonight?I figured coming off the game he just had and Saras leaving he would be getting 30 minutes from here on out and would be our 6th man.

Will Galen
01-21-2007, 09:01 AM
The point is that the Warriors had the same issue, have the players coming their way STARTING and playing the MOST minutes on the team, and they are beating one of the top East teams, not the lottery bound Knicks.
.

It's been a National Passtime kicking the Knick's while they are down, and personally I've loved it!

However . . . is no one paying attention? The Knick's have a 300 pound monster at center. They have a very good point guard in Starbury, plus they have a guard in Crawford that is good in the clutch, three vital ingredient's to making a good team. They have other good players. They were kicked around last year by the press and they really, really, want to shove it down people's throats. You also have a motivated Isiah Thomas. Add it up.

I did, and I said before the season started the Knick's would make the playoffs. Barring injury, I STILL SAY THEY WILL!

imawhat
01-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Look at it this way...


The Knicks, even with two straight one-point tip in losses, are 5-3 in their past 8 games.



It doesn't make up for us allowing 52% shooting, but the Knicks have been playing well as of late.

LG33
01-21-2007, 02:37 PM
We haven't played good defense in three straight games...

Btw, the first player that comes to my mind when I think ATHLETIC is Eddy Curry. I mean, that's a no brainer. Then second is a tie between Joel Pryzbilla and, does Tractor Traylor still play?

TheDon
01-21-2007, 03:12 PM
It doesn't make up for us allowing 52% shooting, but the Knicks have been playing well as of late.

Also there's the fact that they shot 52% and they still only managed to beat us by 2 despite all that. The Pacers also were only 6 rebounds from being dead even with one of the best rebounding teams in the league, so all those naysayers out there. Forgive me for being optimistic about my favorite team.

Shamboubou
01-21-2007, 03:19 PM
I cant say that I loved what I seen last night as a whole, but if you take into account that they haven't been playing together really at all, they were running base plays, and the fact they still had a chance to win, I think last night went pretty well.

I like what Murphy is going to bring to the team, kinda reminded me of a Jeff foster that can score. He hustled very hard and found himself in position to get a few good rebounds.

Dun Dun, as time goes on I think he's going to become more significant in the offense. In the 3rd quarter when he wanted to score and they let him have the ball, he was knocking shots down very well.

Ike, I dont think he had a great game and I'll hold my opinions on him until I see him a little more. He may benefit when he gets used to the offense a little more.

More than anything though it was nice to not have to see Jackson in a pacers uniform. I wish him all the best, but I'm glad he's not part of this team anymore. Although I must admit that his on-the-court play wasn't as bad this year as years past.

Should be nice to watch these guys get used to each other a little more, and see how well they click. I think we have some more guys that can be more consistant in putting the ball in the bucket and take some of the pressure off JO.

vapacersfan
01-21-2007, 04:49 PM
Seth,

First of all let me clarify my two points. In the first post I was commenting on you not giving this new team a chance, not really on your rant about bad defense. As for the second, I beleive it was a mixture of both. I do think it will take time for this group to get better (on both ends of the floor) and I do think some nights you just dont play well. I think last night was a mixture of both.

I mean, look at the game last night. I have no clue what they average, but the Warriors gave up 106 last night. That is only two less then what we gave up.

I have seen you defend Jackson to death, which is why I made my first post. I may have been "jumping to conclusions", but everytime I see Jacksons name you are not to far behind defending him. I do not have a problem wiht this, but at least give the new trade time before you start deeming it a "failure". That was my point.


This point doesn't help your case if its to prove that I have no need to worry about the direction this team is headed. Last year's team turned into a disaster of befuddlement and finished with some very poor play. Me saying "they just took a turn for a worse" is not contradicted by saying "don't worry, the same thing happened last year".


You misunderstood what I was saying. I do think this team is going in a direction, and I think it is a positive one. The team looked worse, but is that really all that uncommon for a team right after a trade? Like I said, lets give it some time.



Your response was "give it a rest". To me that sounds a little bent out of shape and I didn't think it was warranted at the time.


I have no problem with you not liking the trade, as I said that was simply a case of mis-comunication. I was simply getting agreviated of hearing you bash the trade and then turn around and defend Jax.


I think you are irritated with me not loving this latest trade, and it's true that I didn't. But I don't believe in not fighting fair


See my comments above.


So we know the terms of "war" as it were, and that it's not personal just a debate over a differing view. In this case my hopes are with your side winning within a few weeks. Until then I just can't :sunshine: my POV on the issue.


Not a war at all, at least not on my end. Hell, I areed with you at the "FP" that our pic and roll defense is a freaking joke. I am just not ready to judge this new team based off of one game. You are right, just a different POV.

Oh, and I am not a sunshiner. I can see the sun starting to see the sun rise.

Anyways, the game is over, so I think I am done with this thread. I will buy you a beer next time I am in Indy :cheers:

ALF68
01-21-2007, 04:56 PM
Seth,

First of all let me clarify my two points. In the first post I was commenting on you not giving this new team a chance, not really on your rant about bad defense. As for the second, I beleive it was a mixture of both. I do think it will take time for this group to get better (on both ends of the floor) and I do think some nights you just dont play well. I think last night was a mixture of both.

I mean, look at the game last night. I have no clue what they average, but the Warriors gave up 106 last night. That is only two less then what we gave up.

I have seen you defend Jackson to death, which is why I made my first post. I may have been "jumping to conclusions", but everytime I see Jacksons name you are not to far behind defending him. I do not have a problem wiht this, but at least give the new trade time before you start deeming it a "failure". That was my point.



You misunderstood what I was saying. I do think this team is going in a direction, and I think it is a positive one. The team looked worse, but is that really all that uncommon for a team right after a trade? Like I said, lets give it some time.



I have no problem with you not liking the trade, as I said that was simply a case of mis-comunication. I was simply getting agreviated of hearing you bash the trade and then turn around and defend Jax.


See my comments above.



Not a war at all, at least not on my end.

Anyways, the game is over, so I think I am done with this thread. I will buy you a beer next time I am in Indy :cheers:

I'm glad that someone else can see what I have been saying about this poster. At least we won't have to listen to his strawman arguements to support Jack anymore. Getting an upgrade for Tins, should be next priority.

quiller
01-21-2007, 05:16 PM
I just hope that this turns out not to be a grass is greener type trade. Even with out Al working out this team was in a good position in the east and had a good chance to make a run in the division. I agree that we needed to get rid of Al and sars was no factor on this team and actually a liability at times. Jax.. I do not think was part of the problem. With this trade I like what we got though I don't know if we have the time to deal with another work in progress in Ike but Murphy is a better fit on this team then Al and a better over all player. Dun's does not have the over all potential as Jax to help this team but if he plays like he did last night then I think that will be a wash though he needs to play better defense but I think he can once he figures out he's playing for a team that wants to play defense. Still the problem is do to the circumstance of the trade and the such by the time this team gets it together and plays good it might be too late for the season... if need to get to the 6 seed atleast and a home series in the first round...otherwise road games at either Cleveland, Detroit, washington the first two rounds.. no way they make it through that.. might beat one of them but it is just too hard to win on the road in the playoffs to win both... you need a easier first round then maybe pull the upset round 2.. Right now that means passing one of these teams.. Chicago, Orlando and staying ahead of NJ. NOw we are a better team then orlando and NJ but that might not help us if this teams continues the loosing streak and loooking at who we play the next few games ... Chicago.. Miami.. Toronto.. Detroit.. we have to play better then average games in all four just to win more then one of those... note toronto is just behind us in the stands we have the same record now as NJ who leads their division... we also have to stay ahead of Miami.. which is not going to be easy either....

quiller
01-21-2007, 05:46 PM
I'm glad that someone else can see what I have been saying about this poster. At least we won't have to listen to his strawman arguements to support Jack anymore. Getting an upgrade for Tins, should be next priority.


Just who is a upgrade for Tin's ... we might get watson from seattle.. with the added shooting of Dun's and Murph that would be okay... or McInnis / Felton from charlotte would be okay... maybe Martin from Toronto... still tin's is not the problem with the team ... just like GASP.. Jax was not the problem with the team...

I hate to tell people.... that no Jax was not the best thing sense slice bread but still he was not the problem... Al was the main problem with why this team was not playing more consistant...

IMO Jax was traded to help the teams image and appease fans not becuase they really thought he was the problem. I think that Bird wash looked and saw that realistically it was going to be really tough for this team to make a run with Al playing so inconsistant game in game out... they saw a chance of adding a player they want that could fit well with the the future Williams and Granger, that being Ike. and also get someone who is a major upgrade right now over Al in Murphy and hoped the drop off between Dun and Jax will be balanced by the potential improvement of Murphy over Al.

MagicRat
01-21-2007, 06:32 PM
I did not attend the game tonight......
I do want to comment on the attendance. 15,300 - that is horrible on a Saturday night in the middle of January with 4 new players.

This is confusing. Sounds like it should've been 15,301.......:confused:

JayRedd
01-22-2007, 11:23 AM
does Tractor Traylor still play?


Nope...Eazy Eddy ate him.


And to Naptown, I know giving up 50+% in two straight games is very, very horrible, but both these games were played under odd circumstances. Players (some who rarely even see the floor in the Miami game) were trying to adjust to unfamiliar roles and seemed to have trouble staying focused on both ends of the court. In the Knicks game, you're talking about adding 3 guys to a structured gameplane. At times, they seemed to do okay. Other times, they looked lost. Murphy was routinely lost on his rotations and confused as to how he should be defending the pick-and-roll. I know he's not known for his quick feet or defensive abilities as a whole, but the Knicks did a really good job of exploiting us on the pick-and-roll. I don't see these wide-open lay-ups we gave up as a lack of effort or necessarily talent. We were just a bunch of confused players out of sync on rotations, assignments, responsibilities and communication.

No big deal. Yet. If we're still having the same problems come February, I'll be the first to call these guys out for poor defense.