PDA

View Full Version : Pistons post game thread



imawhat
01-28-2007, 09:36 PM
I thought it was a good effort by our guys. I didn't expect to win with the pace of the game and playing back-to-back.


I wish the refs would just let these guys play. 65 free throws is way too many. I think I counted one time in the second half where a whistle didn't blow for over 60 seconds. It was such a frustrating game, and the players had it with some of touchy calls tonight on both sides of the ball.


I don't understand why we stuck with certain players tonight with so many fresh guys on the bench. Ike, Shawne...neither played in the second half. We could've used both of them. Jermaine needed some rest tonight..bad...and he didn't get it.


I think I agree with others that we need to run some plays for Danny Granger. It's hard to get in the flow of the game when you have to force things to happen. And we need him to be involved, especially with all the attention that Jermaine is getting.


Speaking of which, Jermaine is really having to overwork himself. We need to get him some help in the post. Maybe we can run Danny some post plays..he has a nice spin move.


One last thing. I really thought Rawle did a great job defensively on Richard Hamilton. I think we found a good perimeter defender.

Bball
01-28-2007, 09:39 PM
Is Maceo unable to play with Sarunas not here? Why couldn't we just work him into the trade if we're not going to use him?

-Bball

Young
01-28-2007, 09:43 PM
My thoughts on the game.

- Troy Murphy needs to contest shots. I lost count on how many times Rasheed went up for a shot and Murphy's arm was by his Rasheed's chest and not in his face where it belongs. I know Murphy can't stop any one that he guards but you have to contest shots.
- A couple of times I see Murphy try to grab the rebound with one hand, tip it in with half *** effort, or just stay on his feet. Be aggressive. Grab that things with both hands and finish strong.
- Get Danny involed especially when he is effective.
- Tinsley made some sloppy passes but overall had a nice game.
- I'm amazed that we were still in this game. Even making it from a 10 point game with 2 minutes to go to a 4 point game with 37 seconds. We hung in there.
- Overall we have to find our idenity as a team. This will take time though.

Los Angeles
01-28-2007, 09:43 PM
This game was lost in the first quarter. It wasn't over in the 1st quarter, but it was lost because of the first quarter.

If the Pacers keep in within 5 points in the first quarter and the rest goes down as it did, we win handily.

TheDon
01-28-2007, 09:44 PM
It's not that bad of a loss but as close as everything is it sure would have been nice to stick it to them and get a 4 game win streak and improve our chances to move up in the conference. We are really REALLY going to have to play some great ball in February to really make a cushion for ourselves for the end of the season schedule.

BlueNGold
01-28-2007, 09:45 PM
I am basically pro-RC, but there were clearly too many coaching mistakes tonight to ignore. I think he is trying to stick with a rotation, which is commendable. However, while our starters matchup pretty well with Miami and Chicago, they clearly do not matchup with the Pistons. He should have left Rawle and Foster out there...and played Ike more minutes....and maybe Williams. Clearly the Murphy/Sheed matchup should have not lasted more than a couple possession.

BlueNGold
01-28-2007, 09:48 PM
Is Maceo unable to play with Sarunas not here? Why couldn't we just work him into the trade if we're not going to use him?

-Bball

Maceo has given Sheed fits at times. I am not sure what to make of this. It's almost like RC is waiting for the playoffs to make the right matchup decisions. We were getting eaten alive in the paint and Maceo would have helped.

bnd45
01-28-2007, 09:51 PM
Rawle really helped cancel out the loss of Daniels tonight. I'm not a huge +/- guy, but we were the better team when he was on the court tonight. He was real solid on Rip.

Tinsley was pretty good after an awful 1st quarter. He needs to make more of an effort to get Granger the ball in spots to successful. I know JO caught fire in the 4th, but it was a little too much JT + JO on offense.

I really wish Ike would get more minutes. He's much more willing to mix it up than Muprhy is. Ike might actually be the better shooter as well. He needs extended minutes to boost his confidence and really get his game rolling. Tonight was simply a rough matchup for Murphy, but even during the brief winning streak I've been worried that we're wasting Ike.

arenn
01-28-2007, 09:52 PM
Rick clearly had multiple screw ups in the coaching department tonight. They guy just didn't have any answers. The team didn't play well, but if Rick makes the adjustments he needed to, I think we'd have had a good shot at winning.

Young
01-28-2007, 09:53 PM
I think that the reason that Murphy was left in the game was that Rick wanted him to play through his mistakes. Being a key player mid-season on a team as a coach you want to show confidence in him. I don't totally agree with it but I sort of understand it. Fact is that we didn't lose this game on coaching. Sure Rick could have done things better but I think that there were a number of things that cost us the game, some due to coaching but not as much as some may think.

BlueNGold
01-28-2007, 10:01 PM
Rawle really helped cancel out the loss of Daniels tonight. I'm not a huge +/- guy, but we were the better team when he was on the court tonight. He was real solid on Rip.

Tinsley was pretty good after an awful 1st quarter. He needs to make more of an effort to get Granger the ball in spots to successful. I know JO caught fire in the 4th, but it was a little too much JT + JO on offense.

I really wish Ike would get more minutes. He's much more willing to mix it up than Muprhy is. Ike might actually be the better shooter as well. He needs extended minutes to boost his confidence and really get his game rolling. Tonight was simply a rough matchup for Murphy, but even during the brief winning streak I've been worried that we're wasting Ike.

I have been sky high on Rawle for a long time. I definitely think he should be in the rotation. More often than not, he produces efficiently.

I have been mighty brutal on JT for quite some time. I actually liked the way he played tonight except for a couple possessions. He did have one instance of his "get burned trying to score one-on-one after being burned game". It was obvious he was going to do it because after getting burned the first time, he talked to the ref, had a sour look on his face, threw the ball he had in his hands away from the ref (which ticked off the ref and might have led to some of the tough calls for us), then got the ball and put the blinders on, just to get snuffed out attempting a layup....whew. But hey, at the same time this was one of his best games.

Along with Rawle and Williams, Ike Diogu should be getting major minutes in a game like this.

Hicks
01-28-2007, 10:05 PM
Timely offensive rebounds by Detroit killed us tonight. We really also had no offensive rhythm whenever it counted.

vapacersfan
01-28-2007, 10:05 PM
I am far from saying I want him fired, and I will admit I missed most of the 2nd quarter, but Rick’s substitution pattern at times in just mid boggling.

I do not expect us to win all the back to back games, but I would like to see us ride the hot hand, and namely see Granger more involved.

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:07 PM
The only thing I'm going to say about the whole Murphy - Sheed situation is - I hope that proves to you how good a defender Jeff is.


I thought marshall did a great job out there, his defense on Rip was excellent, offensively he was aggressive - for someone who hadn't played in about 2 months, I was impressed.


Pistons starters dominated our starters, but our bench outplayed their bench.

I thought the biggest difference in the game tonight was the pacers terrible defensive rebounding.

I'm certainly not going to read too mucjh into tonights game.

I see there are a couple of threads riping Carlisle - should be fun to read those - it is always easy to rip the coach every a loss

arenn
01-28-2007, 10:07 PM
I could wallow in the negatives, but let's try to look on the bright side. Despite several times when the Pistons made runs and got us in a hole, we did not give up. The Pacers continued to hang in there and make their own runs to keep it a game. I can appreciate that. It's better if you win. But I'm at least glad to see an effort at a comeback. Particular kudos to the second unit, who provided most of those comeback runs.

BlueNGold
01-28-2007, 10:08 PM
I think that the reason that Murphy was left in the game was that Rick wanted him to play through his mistakes. Being a key player mid-season on a team as a coach you want to show confidence in him. I don't totally agree with it but I sort of understand it. Fact is that we didn't lose this game on coaching. Sure Rick could have done things better but I think that there were a number of things that cost us the game, some due to coaching but not as much as some may think.

I do think RC was giving Murphy some room here, attempting to stay with a rotation. I can understand that as well. However, I think he *might* have sacrificed the game in the process.

I don't think it was solely coaching either, but I do know there were adjustments that could have made a difference in this game and that were not difficult to see. Sheed, Dice and Webber were feasting on our soft belly while JO was in foul trouble. That's enough to give Foster more than 20 minutes...maybe get Baston in the game to block some shots...maybe put Ike in their to contend in the paint. We needed someone to protect the paint in this game. If Harrison were healthy, even he might have helped a little.

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:09 PM
Granger did play 41 minutes tonight - he took 13 shots - the second most on the team. I'm not sure what some of you wanted. He isn't Kobe - he isn't a guy who you can just give the ball to and say go get a shot

imawhat
01-28-2007, 10:11 PM
Tinsley was pretty good after an awful 1st quarter. He needs to make more of an effort to get Granger the ball in spots to successful. I know JO caught fire in the 4th, but it was a little too much JT + JO on offense.


That's actually a good part of it, for Granger. In the last three games, Jamaal has thrown 4 first quarter passes to Granger. I started counting after the Bulls game because I noticed we weren't getting early production out of our wing players. Rick needs to draw up some plays for him, but Jamaal needs to pass it to someone besides Jermaine or Troy.

arenn
01-28-2007, 10:16 PM
One telling stat is that JO had zero assists tonight. His point production was also up. I don't believe this is necessarily totally his fault. He did make a few passes that gave people some quality looks, but they just missed the shot - or rotated it around to someone else.

But the big problem I saw is that when the ball went into JO in the post, the rest of the team just stood around the perimeter, often with poor spacing. There need to be guys in motion or cutting to the hole. Something to give JO the option to pass out of the double-team. Tonight I just did not see nearly as many opportunities for him to pass. Maybe it's because I grew up watching Bobby Knight teams, but I just can't stand offenses where everyone kind of stands around.

BlueNGold
01-28-2007, 10:18 PM
The only thing I'm going to say about the whole Murphy - Sheed situation is - I hope that proves to you how good a defender Jeff is.


It proves to me that Murphy cannot replace Foster.

Personally, I might need to place a little more value on hanging onto Jeff. I thought post-trade our rebounding was good enough to move Jeff. Not give him away...just move him to upgrade another position. Now I can see we unquestionably need him on defense until someone else steps up. He really is that much better on D.

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:20 PM
It proves to me that Murphy cannot replace Foster.

Personally, I might need to place a little more value on hanging onto Jeff. I thought post-trade our rebounding was good enough to move Jeff. Not give him away...just move him to upgrade another position. Now I can see we unquestionably need him on defense until someone else steps up. He really is that much better on D.

Really though how many players will create those type of problems. Really good post players are few and far between now-a-days.

Let me say that there is never a good reason to move Jeff to another team

ABADays
01-28-2007, 10:21 PM
We made a run. It was on their court. Winnable game. Not too big a deal.

vapacersfan
01-28-2007, 10:21 PM
Granger did play 41 minutes tonight - he took 13 shots - the second most on the team. I'm not sure what some of you wanted. He isn't Kobe - he isn't a guy who you can just give the ball to and say go get a shot

Maybe not (I happen to disagree, I think he can create on his own just now as well as say a Kobe) but you can involved him more by having Jermaine look for him more out of doubles, making that extra pass, and running pick and rolls with him more often.

vapacersfan
01-28-2007, 10:23 PM
Really thought how many players will create those type of problems. Really good post players are few and far between now-a-days.

Let me say that there is never a good reason to move Jeff to another team

Really, not even if we can move him with a Tinsley or another big to get a all star level young point guard?

Foster is very valuable, but not having him is not the end of the world.

Also, team defense can help cover Murphys weakness.

Los Angeles
01-28-2007, 10:24 PM
OK, this is the last time that I'll mention it for a while, but this bashing of Rick for making mistakes has gone too far.

Rick has to prepare for the future. he's got to let the new guys hang out there and try and figure it out. he can't just pull them after 10 minutes of playing time. He's got to force them to take thier lumps. Sometimes that means the team takes a lump in the W/L column.


With the "new" team we only get to play our potential playoff matchups an average of 2 times. You don't throw out everything after one bad quarter, you see if the team and the individuals on the team have it in them to learn mid-game and find the will to win. Turns out, that was the best plan because the 5 guys who sunk us in the 1st quarter ended up being the same guys who nearly pulled it out in the 4th.

If he kept "experimenting" all game, he would have done more harm than good. First, there would have been no way to get any kind of rhythm going. Second, he would have no tape worth a damn to prepare for the next meeting or the playoffs, and most importantly: third, he would have stripped the confidence right out of a so-fragile-you-can't-look-at-it-cross-ways team dynamic.

What was at stake tonight was so much more than one win, it was the future of our team. By forcing guys to play through a tough game instead of benching them (like Murphy guarding Rasheed) he's telling them straight up: "Be a man. Get yourself out of this. You don't get beauty sleep until we go home, so you might as well fight RIGHT NOW! You're the starter. PLAY LIKE IT."

Coaching is more about psychology than a lot of folks realize.

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:28 PM
LA, you make a great point. If this was game 7 of the ECF and we just left Murphy alone on an island trying to defend Sheed - then I might be a little upset. But in a regular season game - I'm not going to throw a fit

Evan_The_Dude
01-28-2007, 10:30 PM
Granger did play 41 minutes tonight - he took 13 shots - the second most on the team. I'm not sure what some of you wanted. He isn't Kobe - he isn't a guy who you can just give the ball to and say go get a shot

Yeah but you'd think we would actually run more than one play for a guy that's supposed to be our second scoring option now. The only play I saw that we actually ran for him was in the first quarter when he came off a Murphy screen and hit a jumper. All the other times it seemed like he just happened to be open.

I couldn't care less how many times he actually shoots the ball, but he's becoming increasingly more threatening with his jump shot. We need to take advantage of that and maybe run some of the same plays we used to run for Reggie Miller, except incorporate J.O. into the play as well. It's been bothering me ever since the trade. We haven't run many plays for him in any of the games, he just happens to make his open looks. Fine if we're getting away with it right now, but when people around the league take notice, we're going to be SOL.

Shack80
01-28-2007, 10:31 PM
It proves to me that Murphy cannot replace Foster.

Personally, I might need to place a little more value on hanging onto Jeff. I thought post-trade our rebounding was good enough to move Jeff. Not give him away...just move him to upgrade another position. Now I can see we unquestionably need him on defense until someone else steps up. He really is that much better on D.

I agree it shows they are both role players, that have oppisite skills. I wish we could mash them together into one player. That would be a solid all around guy. I think we need both, they fill needs, the question will be how well they are utilised.

arenn
01-28-2007, 10:31 PM
How does getting torched repeatedly by Rasheed help Murphy's confidence? It doesn't help my confidence if my boss sends me out to do a job I'm manifestly unsuited for. And for every minute Carlisle is giving Murphy to help get experience with the team, Diogu and others were sitting and not getting hardly any minutes

The thing about matchup problems is usually that they are bi-directional. If we are going to leave Murphy out there to get eaten alive by Rasheed, then we have to find a way to make Detroit pay for that matchup as well on the other end of the court. We did not find a way to take advantage of matchups that worked in our favor.

I certainly don't blame Rick for this loss. He didn't give up all those offensive boards and second chance points. The team's execution was poor tonight. We had our chances to win this thing and we just didn't grab them. The blame for that is squarely with the players. But Carlisle clearly did not crown himself in glory tonight either.

MagicRat
01-28-2007, 10:32 PM
But in a regular season game - I'm not going to throw a fit

We know who you save those for........

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:33 PM
Yeah but you'd think we would actually run more than one play for a guy that's supposed to be our second scoring option now. The only play I saw that we actually ran for him was in the first quarter when he came off a Murphy screen and hit a jumper.

One play? I saw a lot more than that. In fact we probably ran more plays for Granger tonight than we have in any other game this whole season.

LoneGranger33
01-28-2007, 10:33 PM
Has my campaign to force acceptance of "Toy" as Murphy's new nickname fallen on deaf ears? Or perhaps "ignore" eyes.

BlueNGold
01-28-2007, 10:33 PM
Also, team defense can help cover Murphys weakness.

I'm not too sure about that. Did you see the game?

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:39 PM
Wait a minute. The Pistons shot 37% tonight and Sheed shot 37.5% 6 of 16. What is so bad about that. many of you want Rick to change the whole game plan for a guy who shot 37%?

Los Angeles
01-28-2007, 10:40 PM
LA, you make a great point. If this was game 7 of the ECF and we just left Murphy alone on an island trying to defend Sheed - then I might be a little upset. But in a regular season game - I'm not going to throw a fit

Exactly.

I always thought that Rick's line the other day about "I'm just worried about one game" was a load of hooey anyway. I mean that's textbook coach-speak for "I'm not telling you one way or the other."

If we're going to talk about Rick's failures as a coach, it has little to do with rotations and blah-blah-blah and everything to do with managing the team off the court. Our team consistently forgets to show up for the 1st. It something like 70% of our games we trail at the 1st quarter mark.

Why are our players not sharp and ready when the ball goes up?

That's coaching right there. Our guys should be rabid dogs ready to tear throats out by the tip, instead it's "*yawn* Are we there yet?" Why aren't they ready? That's the responsibility of the coaching staff, and that's where they are failing.

They need to change the routine and snap our guys out of this very alarming trend. There's no hope in the playoffs if this keeps up.

vapacersfan
01-28-2007, 10:40 PM
I'm not too sure about that. Did you see the game?

All but the second quarter.

I saw Sheed sccore most of his points off of jump shots, in which case all you can do is make sure you have a hand in his face.

I missed the second, but I did not see him blow past Murphy many times. JO can help clean that up.

Evan_The_Dude
01-28-2007, 10:44 PM
You know something else that bothers me? Why does the offense almost always stop when Tinsley or JO have the ball? I think Rick needs to go back and review the tape from the 1999-2000 season. He'll notice that no matter who had the ball, the offense would NEVER stop moving. We'd consistently run that wheel play with Mullin, Jackson, and Miller, and it would end up helping Smits offensively.

Why can't the same X & O's coach run that type of offense again? We now have players that have similarities to the starters of that year.

Smits - O'Neal
D. Davis - Foster/ A. Davis - Murphy
Miller - Granger
Mullin - Dunleavy
Jackson - Tinsley

I'm not saying one side is better than the other, I'm just saying that the offensive games of the players mentioned are very similar to the next one. I just don't get how the same coach can run such a garbage offense this time around.

NOTE: Yes I realize Bird was the official coach that year, but Carlisle was the brain behind the offense.

There's only two players that consistently make an effort to get open. That's Armstrong and Marshall. I always see those two moving around on the court. Especially Marshall. That guy has some heart. He runs to the ball and acts like he wants it. Then when he gets it he knows how to make something happen. I really wish Granger was that assertive -- or maybe it's just Carlisle's coaching.(?)

Bball
01-28-2007, 10:48 PM
I finally got to see a complete game with the 'new-look' Pacers. I'm not really sure what I should be taking away from this game tho.

I am curious how Maceo works his way into the lineup (rotation) and then ends up buried on the bench.. yet I don't recall him doing anything that would warrant the demotion.

I'm curious how a team in need of backcourt play can keep Marshall buried on the bench all season long rather than trying to see how he progresses. It's not like we're doing anything this season anyway, so what if we might miss the playoffs because we experimented ourselves out of a couple of potential wins here and there?

That said....
I'm not sure about all the Carlisle hate for this one game. I do believe you have to spend some time working on your system and implementing it rather than throwing the kitchen sink at any one single game in order to squeeze out a win.

You need to design a system, work it, tweak it as necessary, and if it's any good then you'll reap your rewards for it down the road. If you throw the kitchen sink at each game you'll develop nothing as far as consistency.

But I'm also not sure why you don't work a little harder to see what you have on the bench and mixing and matching for a few games. Let some players sink or swim. I really don't care about winning games this season. I really don't. It's not about this season. I don't want to be a playoff speedbump for anyone.

If we get into the stretch drive and we've found something and have a light at the end of the tunnel... then by all means, go into coaching overdrive and pull some wins out of our a$$ with superior coaching and some creativity to try and make or improve our lot in the playoffs.

But right now... let's just see what we have, mix and match, work on the system, and finally consistency.

-Bball

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 10:48 PM
Exactly.

I always thought that Rick's line the other day about "I'm just worried about one game" was a load of hooey anyway. I mean that's textbook coach-speak for "I'm not telling you one way or the other."

If we're going to talk about Rick's failures as a coach, it has little to do with rotations and blah-blah-blah and everything to do with managing the team off the court. Our team consistently forgets to show up for the 1st. It something like 70% of our games we trail at the 1st quarter mark.

Why are our players not sharp and ready when the ball goes up?

That's coaching right there. Our guys should be rabid dogs ready to tear throats out by the tip, instead it's "*yawn* Are we there yet?" Why aren't they ready? That's the responsibility of the coaching staff, and that's where they are failing.

They need to change the routine and snap our guys out of this very alarming trend. There's no hope in the playoffs if this keeps up.



That is another great point- the strange thing is the pacers during the 2004 - 61 win season were great at the start of games - but this year with rare exceptions out defense is horrible in the first quarter

Los Angeles
01-28-2007, 10:49 PM
How does getting torched repeatedly by Rasheed help Murphy's confidence? It doesn't help my confidence if my boss sends me out to do a job I'm manifestly unsuited for. And for every minute Carlisle is giving Murphy to help get experience with the team, Diogu and others were sitting and not getting hardly any minutes

The thing about matchup problems is usually that they are bi-directional. If we are going to leave Murphy out there to get eaten alive by Rasheed, then we have to find a way to make Detroit pay for that matchup as well on the other end of the court. We did not find a way to take advantage of matchups that worked in our favor.

I certainly don't blame Rick for this loss. He didn't give up all those offensive boards and second chance points. The team's execution was poor tonight. We had our chances to win this thing and we just didn't grab them. The blame for that is squarely with the players. But Carlisle clearly did not crown himself in glory tonight either.

This is a very reasonable post.

UB just pointed out that Rasheed only hit 6 shots out of 16. But somehow he was torching Murphy? I don't know anymore. he sure was more athletic than Murphy. murphy looked tired, but the numbers don't support that Rasheed was walking on the guy.

This may very well be a perception vs. reality situation.

Second: Murphy is a starting claiber Center on a playoff contending team. Diogu is a project.

Thanks, but I'll take Murphy on the court 8 times out of 10, especially against a division rival. Let Diogu get his minutes against Atlanta.

Unclebuck
01-28-2007, 11:00 PM
LA, I don't know. In December of 2005 Ike scored 27 points and shot 13 of 15 against the Pistons. (I'd love to see that game.

Pacerized
01-28-2007, 11:31 PM
Murphy is a nice addition, and brings some things we were lacking for in our big men. Foster has always been our best big man defender, and that's not going to change. Murphy is a good rebounder, and adds some needed offense. Foster is a slightly better rebounder, and much better defender. There are a lot of teams that challenge us with athletic big men. I think anytime we play the Pistons, Spurs, Wolves, or Suns Foster should get the bulk of the minutes at center. I really like what I've seen out of this new team so far. If we get another trade before the deadline to upgrade the back court great, if not I like our chances a lot better now then I did a few weeks ago.

3rdStrike
01-28-2007, 11:36 PM
This was the first Pacers game I've watched in awhile...quite some time. I was disappointed that Marquis Daniels wasn't available to play.

I was unimpressed by a lot of things. First of all, I found the PG play to be pretty mediocre. I know Tinsley by stats had a good game, but there were so many times in the first half alone that he or Armstrong would cut into the defense only to miss a completely open player on the perimeter (usually Granger or Marshall).

Secondly, the team is terribly unathletic. I didn't find Harrington or Jackson to be athletic, so this is nothing new, but man. Potential fast breaks were killed by rebounders who fail to throw an easy outlet pass, or in one case Armstrong completely ignored Shawne on both the fast break and then as Williams was completely unguarded on the perimeter.

The rest of the time they don't even TRY to fast break. Period. Nobody runs. Everyone jogs as if they're pushing 300 lbs.

This team's man to man defense is as bad as I've seen in a long time. Dunleavy really is a terrible defender. It's Jermaine O'Neal and 4 mediocre guys, defensively speaking. But the team defense looked pretty good, on the bright side, apart from giving up a lot of offensive boards...which happens when you're playing against Detroit.


On the plus side of things, beyond the team defense I was impressed by Granger's shot. He doesn't have the prettiest jumper by a long ways, but it is money. He needs to be shooting 15-20 shots per game. I thought Tinsley did a fair job playing man defense, other than on the pick and rolls.

Rawle showed a little hustle despite looking cold out there. That happens when you're buried on the bench.

IMO they need to give more minutes to Williams. Marshall as well, but I'd like to see Daniels - Granger - Williams - O'Neal - Foster/Murphy on the floor at the same time.

I have yet to see the passing from Dunleavy that I keep hearing about. Hopefully it will translate into stats one day. But even still, this team badly needs a skilled point guard.

Los Angeles
01-28-2007, 11:51 PM
LA, I don't know. In December of 2005 Ike scored 27 points and shot 13 of 15 against the Pistons. (I'd love to see that game.

OH - I've been a fan for a while - I even drafted him for my fantasy team at the beginning of this year.

Ike was getting decent minutes at GS until he hurt himself, then he never really made it back into the linup. I think both the injury and the benching slowed his development, and I don't want to rush it.

Ike will be ready for a sixth man role (or perhaps more) by this time next year.

If it happens earlier, sure I'll be thrilled. But I think he was forced into too much responsibility at GS early this season, and I don't want to force anything here. I'm willing to ride the tortoise to victory in the Ike Diogu race.

bnd45
01-29-2007, 01:07 AM
For now I'd be okay with Ike getting the same minutes in the 2nd half as he gets in the 1st. Obviously playing all 4 bigs is tough to do, but this would lower JO's minutes a little as well. He's clearly vital to our success, but I'd like to see his mpg com back down to around 34 or 35. Recently he's been playing a lot of 40+ minute games.

quiller
01-29-2007, 01:13 AM
Wait a minute. The Pistons shot 37% tonight and Sheed shot 37.5% 6 of 16. What is so bad about that. many of you want Rick to change the whole game plan for a guy who shot 37%?


I think most people would be shocked if you told them we shot better from the field in the game then the Pistons.... defense and or coach not doing something to correct a defensive laps was not the problem tonight... also player were in proper position to get the board most of the time it was just Detroit had a little more umph in there jump and able to out jump us to the ball or we fumbled the rebound away....

also on the point about granger and lack of passing with the ball and no assists from JO.. I saw a number of plays this game were the pg would penetrate and look to make the pass and our perrimeter player would not be in the proper position on the court to receive the pass.. whether that was the detroit's defense just being good or our players not moving properly who knows..... but it I could tell the team really isn't used to Dun and Murphy yet..... and we were not crisp and seemed a step slow all night. yet only down 4 with a few seconds left.... a good sign to me....

Mourning
01-29-2007, 01:49 AM
I'm certainly not going to read too mucjh into tonights game.

I see there are a couple of threads riping Carlisle - should be fun to read those - it is always easy to rip the coach every a loss

Agreed UB! Sure, he could have done a few things differently, but that was nit what decided the game. And it IS the Pistons we were playing on the second game of a back-to-back, so I pretty much expected this loss.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

edc
01-29-2007, 03:04 AM
Marquis didnt play. No penetrator

McKeyFan
01-29-2007, 03:37 AM
You guys think the difference tonight could have simply been no Marquis?

D-BONE
01-29-2007, 06:41 AM
When you talk about Murphy on Sheed, it's a no brainer that Sheed will get the better of him in the post. True Murph is not the strongest of defenders, but it's really a question of a size advantage. Sheed is a taller, bulkier, and has a greater reach. Add in the fact that Murphy's jumping ability and defense are average at best and you've got the quintessential mismatch on the block.

First off, I think JO should have been switched on to Sheed early in the game when it became evident Troy wouldn't be able to check him. At a certain juncture this became unlikely due to the foul situation with JO. Then you have to be willing to come with more minutes for bench guys that are decent to good interior defenders-a la Jeff and Batston (agree w/Bball!)

Finally, when you're playing a team with a tree lined front line like the Pistons, IMO it would be interesting to experiment with 3 bigs on the court at once. Murph, JO, Foster guarding Weber, Sheed, and Tayshaun respectively. Worth a shot to see how if it would have gotten us a few more of the D boards we let them collect.

Granger or Dunleavy are also options given their height although Dunleavy to me was the least impressive guy going last night. Looked like he was trying but just not really adding anything consistently. Murphy, while having his problems, still managed to collect 10 rebounds. In fact, despit their timely offensive boardwork, we still managed to outrebound them with 3 guys in double figures.

Hope we can find a way to keep Rawle inolved. Hope Tins can play more like he did yesterday on a consistent basis. Always comes strong against the Stones. Shows what he's capable of when he's focused.

naptown
01-29-2007, 06:50 AM
Plain and simple, we lost because we did not match their energy tonight as a team. It happens to every team in the league from time to time throughout the season.

Putnam
01-29-2007, 09:01 AM
Why all this talk about Murphy's defense?

If you could limit Wallace to 6 of 16 in every game, wouldn't you accept that? He averages only a bit over 12 points per game, and if he has to shoot 16 times to get those 12 points, you're making him work. When a big man shoots only .37, that is good.

This game was about fouls and foul shots.

able
01-29-2007, 09:17 AM
Why all this talk about Murphy's defense?

If you could limit Wallace to 6 of 16 in every game, wouldn't you accept that? He averages only a bit over 12 points per game, and if he has to shoot 16 times to get those 12 points, you're making him work. When a big man shoots only .37, that is good.

This game was about fouls and foul shots.

Well considering he scored at the very least 5 of those 6 with Murphy on him and missed at least 6 of the 10 with JO in his face, we can complain a little, but........
JO got into foultrouble due to a strange discrepancy in calls me underneed.
We all know Murphy's D is similar to BM's i.e. close to non-existant, but they both bring/brought a lot of other positives on O so we are supposed to forgive them.

This was little about Rick, this was about the refs not calling a "straight" game and JO having to do to much on D which limited his O

People are feeble, if we believe half of their opinion at midday then we have serious problems at 10 past midday because they have found something else.

I like the game we played, we will win the next one, and the series, we can beat these guys in a 7 game series, and I'm not worried.
This team has a few weeks to come together, and I am sure they will do, it already looks a lot better then it did the past 3 months.

Evan_The_Dude
01-29-2007, 09:37 AM
If this team can just learn to get off to better starts, but still continue to fight til the finish, we'll accomplish something.

owl
01-29-2007, 09:50 AM
Plain and simple, we lost because we did not match their energy tonight as a team. It happens to every team in the league from time to time throughout the season.

I saw positives in this game. Despite being down by 15 twice they fought back to tie. This game was a back to back in Detroit. No Quis.
Pacers won the rebounding battle. Detroit wanted this win badly and still
barely won.

I expect a big win against Boston

Unclebuck
01-29-2007, 10:10 AM
To me the most important stat last night was the number of free throws Rip and Chauncey shot.

naptown
01-29-2007, 10:17 AM
I was not saying anything bad. Was just pointing out we looked a little tired last night. 82 games is a hard grind and it happens some nights. Last night looked like one of those nights to me. Against a lesser team we could very well have still walked away with a victory.

naptown
01-29-2007, 10:20 AM
To me the most important stat last night was the number of free throws Rip and Chauncey shot.

Which very often is the result of being a little tired and not moving the feet as fast as you want on D. So you end up just a bit out of position and using your hands to compensate. And we all know what that gets you..... fouls.

OakMoses
01-29-2007, 11:00 AM
A few thoughts...

1. I'm usually very critical of Tinsley, but he played a decent game tonight. His defensive effort was good. He didn't take too many bad shots. It wasn't a great game, he still dribbled way too much, but it was a good game.

2. We lost this game because JO's shot wasn't dropping in the first half. This is not necessarily his fault, but if we play the same game again and he hits a couple more shots in the first quarter, it's a different game.

3. I'm never quite sure how to feel when Rawle Marshall has the ball. His defense is very solid, and he does some nice things offensively, but he still has a long way to go before being even close to a finished product. He seems out of control and a TO or a forced shot seems just as likely as a bucket. In short, I don't want to see him playing major minutes on this team.

4. Murphy's defense will only be a problem against teams with two strong post scorers. Very few teams have this. In general we can have JO guard the other teams better post scorer. This will take away from his blocks, but it will stop Murphy from getting exploited. This game, as far as Murphy is concerned, reminded me of the post by the Warriors fan soon after the trade. His point was that while Murphy put up good rebound numbers, he does not really block out. He wound up with 10, but he should have had 12-15 if he'd bodied up on Webber instead of just getting pushed out of the way or outjumped.

5. I like RC, but I don't like the Armstrong-Tinsley end-game combo.

brichard
01-29-2007, 08:21 PM
When you talk about Murphy on Sheed, it's a no brainer that Sheed will get the better of him in the post. True Murph is not the strongest of defenders, but it's really a question of a size advantage. Sheed is a taller, bulkier, and has a greater reach. Add in the fact that Murphy's jumping ability and defense are average at best and you've got the quintessential mismatch on the block.

First off, I think JO should have been switched on to Sheed early in the game when it became evident Troy wouldn't be able to check him. At a certain juncture this became unlikely due to the foul situation with JO. Then you have to be willing to come with more minutes for bench guys that are decent to good interior defenders-a la Jeff and Batston (agree w/Bball!)

There are few players in history that frustrate me more than Rasheed Wallace. As you have written, he is basically a matchup nightmare for most teams. A guy that big and athletic who can also shoot the '3' is a difficult guy to guard indeed. And in spite of whatever points he did or didn't score, he has a way of inflicting deep wounds on this team, late in the game when it matters, ala Reggie Miller. And they are always tough, tough shots and you just shake your head and think "What else could we do?" Now I know how the Knicks must have felt all those years eh?

I do agree that JO should have been the person on Sheed. He is the only person who really has the physical strengths to keep Sheed at bay, though I'm sure Sheed will get in JO's kitchen as he always does. But I have to admit that last night it didn't seem to matter much the way the whistles were blowing.

I do think the Pistons would have beaten us last night without the friendly whistles, which is why I think I find it so maddening to play them. You know they are going to hit their tough shots anyway, but then they get some extra trips to the stripe with some ticky tacky foul on Murph. Never mind that JO's spine is out of whack with how far over his back Rasheed climbed with the no-call.

Everything being said I still like this team. The fight was there and I'm confident they will get better with more time together.

speakout4
01-29-2007, 10:06 PM
A few thoughts...

1. I'm usually very critical of Tinsley, but he played a decent game tonight. His defensive effort was good. He didn't take too many bad shots. It wasn't a great game, he still dribbled way too much, but it was a good game.

2. We lost this game because JO's shot wasn't dropping in the first half. This is not necessarily his fault, but if we play the same game again and he hits a couple more shots in the first quarter, it's a different game.

3. I'm never quite sure how to feel when Rawle Marshall has the ball. His defense is very solid, and he does some nice things offensively, but he still has a long way to go before being even close to a finished product. He seems out of control and a TO or a forced shot seems just as likely as a bucket. In short, I don't want to see him playing major minutes on this team.

4. Murphy's defense will only be a problem against teams with two strong post scorers. Very few teams have this. In general we can have JO guard the other teams better post scorer. This will take away from his blocks, but it will stop Murphy from getting exploited. This game, as far as Murphy is concerned, reminded me of the post by the Warriors fan soon after the trade. His point was that while Murphy put up good rebound numbers, he does not really block out. He wound up with 10, but he should have had 12-15 if he'd bodied up on Webber instead of just getting pushed out of the way or outjumped.

5. I like RC, but I don't like the Armstrong-Tinsley end-game combo.

If you think that we lost because of JO well let me suggest that the pistons don't rely on just one guy to have a good game. Is it JO vs. Billups, Hamilton, and Wallace because that is not a fair assessment? Does JO have to be better than all three of those guys?

OakMoses
01-30-2007, 10:30 AM
If you think that we lost because of JO well let me suggest that the pistons don't rely on just one guy to have a good game. Is it JO vs. Billups, Hamilton, and Wallace because that is not a fair assessment? Does JO have to be better than all three of those guys?

Here's the thing with Pacers v. Pistons. I'm sure many people will not agree with this, but if you rank the starters as far as overall skills, it looks something like this:

1. JO
2. Billups
3. Sheed
4. Hamilton
5. Prince
6. Webber
7. Granger
8. Dunleavy
9. Murphy
10. Tinsley

So, does JO have to be better than all three guys? No, but he needs to be markedly better than any one of them, which he wasn't, and our other four guys need to step up, which they didn't.

The advantage we have over the Pistons is that our 6-10 guys are much better than theirs. That was a fact that was clear in this game, and we didn't even have Daniels.

Naptown_Seth
01-30-2007, 04:30 PM
That is another great point- the strange thing is the pacers during the 2004 - 61 win season were great at the start of games - but this year with rare exceptions out defense is horrible in the first quarter
12 points scored wasn't a defensive problem.

I disagree with you that it's been poor defense in the slow starts. And while on the subject let's keep in mind that they went away once Granger was moved to the bench. Following the trade that's reverted back to him starting.

What I saw with those slow starts usually was poor offensive rhythm. Everyone got their first touch, very forced and scripted, and guys didn't really enhance each other's games. Foster coming in as a non-shooter and a traditional pick-setting rebounding-only big seemed to clear up some of the definitions about who should be doing what and the slow starts ended.

Vs Detroit they tried to get JO going and he wasn't up to it. He clearly had a rough start and it wasn't just a case of double teams. I think no Quis also hurt the team, not just by losing his scrappy creative offense that takes junk and makes it into points, but also because Marshall isn't quite there yet. He's more green than Granger on offense at this point.

After they got settled from the slow start everything started to click better, including JO.



Way too much anger considering how the season series with them has gone so far. The Pacers are 2-1 vs Detroit and don't see them for game 4 till April 3rd here in Indy. So my question is "what's the problem again?"

It's fun to expect your team to beat every legit Finals contender on their home court, but it's not very realistic, especially if your team is more like a 45 win team.


I can't wait to wade through the nonsense postings after the Pacers lose in Phoenix or Utah. Rants about how Rick sucks or the team blew it and so on, rather than realizing that those are games that are odds-on losses and a victory is just gravy on a decent year.

And doubly so when you just traded 2 starters the week before.

Naptown_Seth
01-30-2007, 04:37 PM
I notice lots of positives about Rawle, so let me add to my comments on him. Yes, he does have a shooting touch and he is aggressive going to the rim, but he still forces himself into familiar tries/attempts when they really aren't available to him due to the defense. That's what I mean by "green".

On defense he was very solid, he's thin and lanky enough to be a good match with Rip on that end.

He's just not talented enough to create plays on his own, not like Quis is. Maybe this will develop for him, I just don't see it yet.

(ps - getting a ball on the rim isn't "creating plays", anyone can "get their shot" as long as anything that goes up in the air counts as "their shot")