PDA

View Full Version : Odd thoughts from the Summer of our discontent



Peck
06-05-2007, 04:13 AM
I was going to do an end of the season wrap up but frankly I'm glad I didn't.

If I would have done it right after the season I would have been to optomistic and had I done it after Rick was shown the door I would have been to pessimistic.

No, not because I wanted to keep Rick around forever but because it was soon after that when Joseph Donnie Walsh was given a lifetime extension by the Simons.

Which brings me right up front to what I have to decide. Do I ignore the big pink elephant in the rooom of Jermaine O'Neal and Donnie Walsh or do I spend virtually every single breath of mine complaining to no end about them?

Frankly I don't know how to go about even talking about this team without dealing with them, but I think my thoughts are so well known there that I feel like I keep banging a drum inside a quiete meditation room. In other words I am the odd man out there.

Here is what I will agree to, and since it's my post I will feel free to break my own agreement :), I'll try and limit my complaints about either of them. Honestly I will try.

Ok, let's get started shall we?

First off it's been awhile since I've done one of these so please forgive the rust. But like all Odd thoughts we are going to go all over the place with this.

Let me start off with thanking everybody who wanted me to post more often and it was odd reading about why I don't post more often. Frankly a couple of years ago I would have been voted the person to please post less:cool:.

Anyway let me clear one thing up right up front. My posting less this past few months has nothing to do with the quality of the board or my diminshed feelings about the Pacers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I do feel bad that my posting plummeted about the time the team started to slide. I feel bad because I really like the fact that the team took a big risk. I don't consider it a failure because I don't think it is a finished product yet, but even if it does flop they rolled the dice and I can appreciate that no matter who ultimately did the trade.

But I don't want to get drug down into who does what or who is responsible for what.

I just want to say that Bball, Hicks (I refuse to call him Mal) and Magic Rat all had truths in thier posting about why I am not here as much.

Frankly I am here as much I just don't post as often.

Anyway Hicks was correct in the fact that by becoming a mod here on the board I do actually try and stear clear of certain controversial topics if I see my fellow mods. have already jumped in. The entire G.S. thread is a prime example of this. There was so much I wanted to say on that thread that it was killing me, however I felt obligated to step back and try and be a non-biased obsever and keep an eye on the thread. I spoke to several of you via p.m. over that thread and I think for the most part that thread stayed free of insults and garbage (for the most part).

Bball is correct as well. The post game 8 meeting sucked the very life out of me. Frankly I was stupid enough to believe that we were committed to change and that everybody was on the same page. We weren't and it showed more and more as the season went on (till the trade) that this was not going to be a all for one and one for all type of atmosphere. I don't want to debate the merits of the meeting or even anybodys interperataion of the meeting or even if it was right or wrong, I'm just explaining that in my mind it took the sunshine I had built up and ****ed on it like an overhydrated dog.

But at the end of the day Magicrat hit the nail on the head, I have opened up two new online stores and between that and still doing my regular job I hardly have time to breath let alone write one of these.

Wow that was a whole lot of B.S. all about me. Dear God let's get off of this and move onto some Pacers talk.

But first I must interupt this regularly scheduled gripe session with an invitation to everyone.

That's right folks, it's fruitdance time.

:dance::dance::pepper::carrot::pineapple:mango::cu cumber::dorange::apple::bdance::bgroovy:

Ok where to start?

Oh hell let's start with Granger.

Hmmmm....I'm curious about Danny. He has flaws and there are times he makes mistakes that you have to wonder about. But then again he has times where he leaves me wondering why are we not making the focus of the offense right now?

I think I'm a little scared about the new coach's love with the three point shot and the fact that Danny can fall into the trap of just standing outside jacking up the three.

However Danny did prove this year that he listens to criticism and after falling into the three point trap he settled down and started going to the rim. Danny going to the rim is a good thing.

What I like the most about Danny is his willingness to take contact. There is nothing weak about Danny and the fact that he is fearless inside just makes him more of a threat IMO.

I'll go out on a limb now and say this. I think this is the year that Danny takes over the leadership of the club. By that I don't mean team Captain, I mean the on floor leader of the club. I think he will average 18ppg and grab between 6-8 rpg. I believe that on the defensive end he will fit right into O'Brians plans as an aggressive ball hawk.

I don't think Danny will every be a superstar but I do believe he can be one of the better players at his position in the east and he can be the anchor of a good team oriented offense.

Shawne Williams. Look I'll just say it now. I like him. From the first time I saw him play last fall I was asking people with me what the hell people were talking about when they were calling him weak. If he is weak then I want to see what people think strong is? I know he didn't bench much in Orlando or something, but this guy does not play a weak game at all. He has a very good nose for the offensive boards and unlike another player on our team who is a good offensive rebounder Shawne can put the ball back into the basket.

His defense will come along with the proper coaching and that is what I hope more than anything this year shows us, coaching that is consitant from game to game.

I think Shawne will grow to a powerforward which will make keeping both him and Diogu hard to do in a few years but for now it is fine. I think Shawne can come in this year and play both forward spots and not suffer. I just don't ever want to see him play guard, EVER.

Again this three point shooting scares the crap out of me, but I'll give it a chance and pray that Shawne doesn't just float around the arc.

Ike Diogu. Again I'm not going to hide it, I like Ike. From the first time I he jumped up and absorbed his firt rebound as a Pacer I knew that he was what I would like. The only thing missing was a bestial roar when he grabbed it.

He has a sweet touch around the basket and unlike others he loves the physical contact. For God's sake we used him to guard Shaq last season a couple of time.

Does he have faults? Oh heck yes he does, but he is young and raw and most of all there is something there to work with. That is why I am not in a tizzy over not having a 1st round pick this year. I consider Ike to be our pick and unless you are talking a high lottery pick I don't think there are going to be a lot of players a whole lot better over the next couple of years.

Diogu, Williams and Granger IMO make a hell of a potent combo of players. If for some reason we could add Bynum I think our front court is set for several years to come.

Troy Murphy. Sweet Lord almighty as bad as Stephen Jackson was treated at the fieldhouse this poor S.O.B. is treated just as bad on here. Is there even one person who will come out and defend Troy?

Here let me make this statement. I consider Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster the exact same player with the exact opposite skill sets. As repulsive as many of you find Troy's lack of defense I find Fosters lack of offense as repulsive. I consider them the same at rebounding which is to say I don't think either of them are great rebounders, yes that's right I said it Jeff Foster is not a great rebounder.

Anyway again back to the three point shooting thing, this one really scares me. Will Troy ever go inside the three point arc again is the only question I have? I like the fact that he opens the floor up with his shot but I don't want him just firing 3's all day long.

Look I'll say this. He is not a great player by any sense of the word, however IMO he is nowhere near as bad as many of you are making him out to be either. Is he overpaid? Yes. Are there several of our players overpaid? Also yes. But at the end of the day unless you are talking about why we can or can't make a trade based on high salary I still have no idea why so many of you care about what players get paid.

Do I think Troy is the answer to what ails this team? No, but I do believe he can be a solid contributer to the long term success of our franchise.

Mike Dunleavy. Again I am astounded about the heat this guy draws. I wonder maybe if Mike didn't start wearing loud clothes, showing gang signs and being more demonstrative on the floor if some of you wouldn't change your tune. In other words I wonder if he isn't a little to Vinella for some of you and by that I don't mean white, I mean plain. There is nothing fancy about Mikes game, he just goes out there and plays a solid game for the most part all game long.

Could he be a better defender? Yes, but I also think Mike would be fine in the right defensive system. A system the Dick Harter will be bringing here very soon.

In fact I look forward to Dick Harters defenses next year more than I look forward to almost anything else.

I am just very very happy that we will once again be having good defensive coach on our team.

I have come to the conclusion after hearing interviews with Mike Brown and frankly just going back and thinking about the last 4 seasons that Rick Carlisls was not a very good defensive coach. He was just a shot manager on the offensive end and that kept scores low and the ball in the Pacers hands for long periods of time, that does not make him a good defensive coach.

I digress

Back to Dunleavy. I think some of you are in for a long few years because I don't think Mike is going anywhere and I don't think that the new coach will be inclined to bench Mike.

Jeff Foster. If a certain other Pacer is no longer here I can live with Jeff staying on in a diminished capacity. However if the other player is still here I'm sorry I want Foster gone, well ok I guess I better see what the new coach will do with him first. Isiah didn't go to Foster very often, only Rick with his system used Jeff as a safety blanket.

Look it's not like I think the guy is a bad player, I don't, I just think his skill set does not work with the other player in our frontcourt. But like all Pacers he gets a fresh start at the beginning of the season, although I am not sure that right now his best value to us is the fact that he is one of the few players who you could get decent value in return for.

Marquis Daniels. Daniels goes down and our team tanks. Do I think Quis is that good? No not really however the skill set he has was one thing other players on our squad lack. He could creat his own shot and unlike Jamaal when he creats his own shot they have a better than average chance that they will go in.

However I'll just say it now. I hope the Pacers are looking to move him. The last thing we need on this club right now is another player who we need, but can't count on because of injury. Is his knee his fault? No, but right now that doesn't matter. If we can get somebody of equal or slightly less value I hope we are persuing this because what he has wrong with his knee will not go away. I like him, I think he could help the club, but at the end of the day I am willing to take a lesser player who will play more often than this.

David Harrison. Needless to say when I saw that Rick Carlisle told the Denver paper that Harrison he thought Harrison was going to be a very good player one day I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or puke.

I'll be honest I don't know what to think anymore. For a long time I blamed Rick, then for almost all of last season I blamed Harrison and I think that is where I still am at.

However I just can not help but wonder if maybe there was a more stable atmosphere and David yanked in and out of games if maybe just maybe he wouldn't at least develop into a servicable backup.

As it stands now I just don't see how David stays in the NBA beyond a couple of years other than his size.

But the damned thing is he has some skills. Now did Rick not know how to utilize those skill? I don't know. I do know that he has to be the dumbest player I've ever seen in many ways but then I've also seen times where I keep dreaming that he will turn it around because of something he has done on the floor.

First thing first I want the new coach/Bird/ Walsh and every member of the Simon family to have a meeting with David and say this. You won't be pulled for making a mistake, you will however be pulled immedatley and you will not go back in the game if you turn and complain to a ref. I don't care if he is hammered right now for the next couple of years David has to shut his mouth. He is to demonstrative and complains to much and now IMO he is a marked man.

Still I don't know what to think about the guy.

Darrell Armstrong. Ok, I soured very rapidly on Armstrong at the end of the year. No not because of his play. I never said anything bad against his play, in fact many times I wish he was running the point down at the end of the season.

No what did it to me was the game he melted down vs. the refs. and and to be restrained and drug off of the floor. I don't remember the circumstance, I don't remember the opponet, I don't remember the ref. All I know was that it was totally uncalled for and frankly a *****ty example for a guy who was supposed to be there to set the example.

While I like him as a player and he seems to be involved in the overall bench, I don't think I will be offended if he is not back this year.

Keith McCloud. I like him. Solid backup, solid player on both sides of the floor. If you tell me that Keith was our first backup p.g. next year I will tell you I have no problem with it. I don't think Keith is a starter, but as a backup I think he will be fine.

This brings me to Jamaal Tinsley.

Frankly I don't see where there can be a major improvement by him next year. However I will have a wait and see approach. If you tell me that Rick being gone will somehow cause him to not be injured then fine. If you tell me that Rick being gone will mean that Jamaal will now play pressure defense fine.

Look I used to be a big Jamaal fan but I just soured on him. But I am willing (I guess) to see if maybe there wasn't a real problem between him and Carlisle. We'll see.

I'm not going to talk about Marshall and Greene because we didn't get to see enough to know anything more than they probably didn't need to be on the floor a whole lot more than they were. Well that's not entirely true. In fact if Greene is in with another point guard he actually can be a defensive differance maker. Actually now that I think about is under O'Briens defenseive schemer I wonder if maybe we won't see more from Greene? We'll see.

Maceo Baston. If ever there is player I feel sorry for this is him. Whenever he got the chance to play he showed he could play in the NBA, but because of Foster and the other player Baston barely ever got off of the bench. Then when he did start getting the time he broke his toe and wasn't able to play at the same level anymore.

Look I like him and think he could be a solid contributer to winning team. But there is just no real room for him here next season if we don't make other moves. Now if we move another player for a center from L.A., as long as we don't take back anther power forward with him then he could get some time. But if we don't move the other player there is just not enough time to go around and he is to old to be waiting.

While I like him for his sake I think he should opt out and just move on even if it is for less money.

Ok, there I managed to talk about most of our players and didn't even once digress into talking about Walsh or O'Neal. It about killed me but I did it.

I will make another post probably entitled "Everything I think is wrong with the team" and talk about them.;):propeller

Anyway let me hit anthother couple of topics before I move on.

I am sending out my respect to the Detroit Pistons. I am not saying they are at an end, however I do think there are likely changes ahead on the horizen for them. I know most of the people on this board hate them, but I respect the job that Joe D. has done putting together a real honest to God team of good players. No superstars just very good players. For the past 6 years through three coach's Detroit has been one of the best teams in the league and frankly I think they have done a great job.

Now to Rick Carlisle.

I think I have resigned myself to the fact that I think I'm glad he is gone. I don't think he was a bad coach, far from it. But for whatever reason he just does not get along with his players and I am not 100% sure why.

I do hope that whoever comes here will not employ the same old ball controlling offense that Rick used. There is nothing wrong with low post offense but it has to be a weapon, not the only weapon in the arsenal.

At the end of the day it was just time to move on.

Ok, I've got to get out of here for now. If you made it this far then you have more patience than most people or you are high and staring at the screen blankly.:D

Rest assured though there is another part coming and in that I will be more inclined to take on tougher subjects.

owl
06-05-2007, 07:02 AM
Frankly Peck, you should have put in your JO comments. I am ready for a change and if JO brings a real center to this team then that is probably a
good thing. The other thing this team desparately needs is a shooting
gaurd, more so than a point IMHO. Good job.

indygeezer
06-05-2007, 07:04 AM
OK..Pacer Nation heeeee's BAAAaaaack! And none too soon. You have spurred the following "One-liners".

"David Harrison will be our starting center by Christmas."
I said that to you once at a forum party..........can I take it back now?

Can the new coach prevent Tinsley from going "Tin Cup" on us? Can the new coach prevent Sinuspoutinitis?

I join the Troy Murphy fan club.....because Brad Miller is too broken down and too expensive to bring back (and beside, any trade that would bring him back would prolly also require the return of a certain knucklehead).

Troy should be our bu-5 while I think Jeff would look real good in a Spurs uni.
I wonder if the Spurs would give us Tony Parker for Jeff Foster???? Hmmm where's the trade checker?

I Like Ike...we need to have a full-time opening for him.

Army certainly didn't score points as a coach with his meltdown.

We still need a big-man coach.

As big of a fan of the ABA as I was, I wouldn't mind if the NBA dropped the 3-pointer. While they're at it they can bring back the Center Jump....and do away with the idiotic "flagrant foul" rule.

Gee, I thought I was the only closet Marquis Daniel doubter. :eek:

While I feel bad for David Craig and his demotion, the med staff made a bad series of blunders with Tins and Bender and someone had to pay the price.
(I see people holding this against LB in other threads and needed to comment on it)

If we are in a full-blown rebuild then I want to see our youngsters on the floor alot this year, let us see what they've got.

I'm satisfied with the JOb hiring..for now.

What happend to my Elmer Fudd pix down by the flag and can my avatar be made a bit bigger, please?

OK...we've seen the trailor....when is the main feature coming?

Post more often


(what On-line store????)

owl
06-05-2007, 08:20 AM
(what On-line store????)


Yeah!! Link? PM if necessary

avoidingtheclowns
06-05-2007, 10:40 AM
Oh hell let's start with Granger.

Hmmmm....I'm curious about Danny. He has flaws and there are times he makes mistakes that you have to wonder about. But then again he has times where he leaves me wondering why are we not making the focus of the offense right now?

I think I'm a little scared about the new coach's love with the three point shot and the fact that Danny can fall into the trap of just standing outside jacking up the three.

However Danny did prove this year that he listens to criticism and after falling into the three point trap he settled down and started going to the rim. Danny going to the rim is a good thing.

What I like the most about Danny is his willingness to take contact. There is nothing weak about Danny and the fact that he is fearless inside just makes him more of a threat IMO.

I'll go out on a limb now and say this. I think this is the year that Danny takes over the leadership of the club. By that I don't mean team Captain, I mean the on floor leader of the club. I think he will average 18ppg and grab between 6-8 rpg. I believe that on the defensive end he will fit right into O'Brians plans as an aggressive ball hawk.

I don't think Danny will every be a superstar but I do believe he can be one of the better players at his position in the east and he can be the anchor of a good team oriented offense.

in total agreement about your danny assessment. i also worry about O'Bs offense and turning danny into an arc lurker. hopefully he'll have figured out that he is most successful when combining his threat of being able to hit outside shots with his driving to the rim.


Shawne Williams. Look I'll just say it now. I like him. From the first time I saw him play last fall I was asking people with me what the hell people were talking about when they were calling him weak. If he is weak then I want to see what people think strong is? I know he didn't bench much in Orlando or something, but this guy does not play a weak game at all. He has a very good nose for the offensive boards and unlike another player on our team who is a good offensive rebounder Shawne can put the ball back into the basket.

His defense will come along with the proper coaching and that is what I hope more than anything this year shows us, coaching that is consitant from game to game.

I think Shawne will grow to a powerforward which will make keeping both him and Diogu hard to do in a few years but for now it is fine. I think Shawne can come in this year and play both forward spots and not suffer. I just don't ever want to see him play guard, EVER.

Again this three point shooting scares the crap out of me, but I'll give it a chance and pray that Shawne doesn't just float around the arc.same concerns about floating around the arc. i am more on jay's bandwagon when it comes to shawne (i think its jay...) in believing that shawne is tremendously overhyped. i don't think he's a bust or anything, i just didn't see these flashes of brilliance last season. what i saw was a rookie that proved he was a solid draft choice, even if we did pass up on PGs and SGs.


Ike Diogu. Again I'm not going to hide it, I like Ike. From the first time I he jumped up and absorbed his firt rebound as a Pacer I knew that he was what I would like. The only thing missing was a bestial roar when he grabbed it.

He has a sweet touch around the basket and unlike others he loves the physical contact. For God's sake we used him to guard Shaq last season a couple of time.

Does he have faults? Oh heck yes he does, but he is young and raw and most of all there is something there to work with. That is why I am not in a tizzy over not having a 1st round pick this year. I consider Ike to be our pick and unless you are talking a high lottery pick I don't think there are going to be a lot of players a whole lot better over the next couple of years.i really wish there was a switch we could flip on and turn ike into a barkley type of player - a guy who you rarely noticed was the same height as jordan but playing much bigger players. i want him to be a little smarter and more aggressive on the defensive end. oh, and for god sakes if you're going to be a talented post player you're going to have to learn to pass out of the double team.


Diogu, Williams and Granger IMO make a hell of a potent combo of players. If for some reason we could add Bynum I think our front court is set for several years to come.we can only hope.


Troy Murphy. Sweet Lord almighty as bad as Stephen Jackson was treated at the fieldhouse this poor S.O.B. is treated just as bad on here. Is there even one person who will come out and defend Troy?

Here let me make this statement. I consider Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster the exact same player with the exact opposite skill sets. As repulsive as many of you find Troy's lack of defense I find Fosters lack of offense as repulsive. I consider them the same at rebounding which is to say I don't think either of them are great rebounders, yes that's right I said it Jeff Foster is not a great rebounder.

Anyway again back to the three point shooting thing, this one really scares me. Will Troy ever go inside the three point arc again is the only question I have? I like the fact that he opens the floor up with his shot but I don't want him just firing 3's all day long.

Look I'll say this. He is not a great player by any sense of the word, however IMO he is nowhere near as bad as many of you are making him out to be either. Is he overpaid? Yes. Are there several of our players overpaid? Also yes. But at the end of the day unless you are talking about why we can or can't make a trade based on high salary I still have no idea why so many of you care about what players get paid.

Do I think Troy is the answer to what ails this team? No, but I do believe he can be a solid contributer to the long term success of our franchise.the problem is murphy is making the salary of a guy that should be playing big minutes for a team, but when he was playing for us last season the only time you noticed him was on the defensive end when he would let people like webber or rasheed walk all over him. my hope is that with a full year in a new situation that murphy can return to a solid double double guy and with harter/obrien preaching defense murphy can drink that koolaid. the biggest problem is his salary and length of his contract. it puts us in a bind when we would need to re-sign danny, ike and bynum if we land him. murphy isn't exceptional at anything and the warriors were having a difficult time moving him before we strolled along so i don't think he's going to have any trade value right now. he could be a contributor but i think he could contribute equally by relieving us of his salary in a trade. i'm willing to see what he does with the new coach and a full season in indiana if we can't move him though.


Mike Dunleavy. Again I am astounded about the heat this guy draws. I wonder maybe if Mike didn't start wearing loud clothes, showing gang signs and being more demonstrative on the floor if some of you wouldn't change your tune. In other words I wonder if he isn't a little to Vinella for some of you and by that I don't mean white, I mean plain. There is nothing fancy about Mikes game, he just goes out there and plays a solid game for the most part all game long.

Could he be a better defender? Yes, but I also think Mike would be fine in the right defensive system. A system the Dick Harter will be bringing here very soon.i think mike is a good team defender and that harter's coaching can only improve that and hopefully improve one-on-one defense too. i am much more willing to accept dunleavy's contract because while i certainly think its too high, he is quite serviceable. he doesn't disappear like murphy. he takes too many threes for his low percentage so i would like to see him take a step in ala luol deng in chicago and he might see his numbers soar. he certainly helps the offense not necessarily as a playmaker but as a part of it that helps it run more smoothly albeit not showing up in the boxscore. by the way how different is Vinella than Vanilla? i guess im looking for some context...

ultimately if some team was begging for mike i'd have to seriously consider moving him for financial reasons but i certainly don't find him dead weight.


In fact I look forward to Dick Harters defenses next year more than I look forward to almost anything else.

I am just very very happy that we will once again be having good defensive coach on our team.

I have come to the conclusion after hearing interviews with Mike Brown and frankly just going back and thinking about the last 4 seasons that Rick Carlisls was not a very good defensive coach. He was just a shot manager on the offensive end and that kept scores low and the ball in the Pacers hands for long periods of time, that does not make him a good defensive coach.i don't think rick has ever been considered a defensive coach per se. i think rick has been considered an offensive genius who has a style that works with a really strong defense. look at the seasons with mike brown as an assistant or when they both (carlisle and harter) were assistants for bird. it was when brown left and we had o'neill and then TPTB pushed him out in favor of person (WTF?!???) that rick's offensive style combined with the players on the roster that the pacers offense seemed to show holes.

i am firmly in the "I LOVE RICK CARLISLE" camp. and i don't understand the concept of getting rid of him and making sweeping changes to the lineup at the same time. i think this last year was unsuccessful because you took away the PG that could score (AJ) and made danny granger develop into the stud 3pt shooter (Al didn't start shooting them until closer to the trade and I doubt Rick wanted Troy to camp out around the arc) because of trading AJ, Austin and Peja.


Jeff Foster. If a certain other Pacer is no longer here I can live with Jeff staying on in a diminished capacity. However if the other player is still here I'm sorry I want Foster gone, well ok I guess I better see what the new coach will do with him first. Isiah didn't go to Foster very often, only Rick with his system used Jeff as a safety blanket.

Look it's not like I think the guy is a bad player, I don't, I just think his skill set does not work with the other player in our frontcourt. But like all Pacers he gets a fresh start at the beginning of the season, although I am not sure that right now his best value to us is the fact that he is one of the few players who you could get decent value in return for.i like his energy but his inability to finish a layup disturbs me. if we could somehow genetically combine murphy and foster together, he'd be worth the combined salary of the two. i think depending on the other moves we make, we should probably consider moving foster.


Marquis Daniels. Daniels goes down and our team tanks. Do I think Quis is that good? No not really however the skill set he has was one thing other players on our squad lack. He could creat his own shot and unlike Jamaal when he creats his own shot they have a better than average chance that they will go in.

However I'll just say it now. I hope the Pacers are looking to move him. The last thing we need on this club right now is another player who we need, but can't count on because of injury. Is his knee his fault? No, but right now that doesn't matter. If we can get somebody of equal or slightly less value I hope we are persuing this because what he has wrong with his knee will not go away. I like him, I think he could help the club, but at the end of the day I am willing to take a lesser player who will play more often than this.i am a quis fan. i don't really think he's overpaid for the production he showed us last year. yes he was injured but that seems to be a theme for our players. even jamaal was basically healthy for all of last season, so i'm not willing to write the guy off yet, when he offers a lot of promise within this new system.


David Harrison. Needless to say when I saw that Rick Carlisle told the Denver paper that Harrison he thought Harrison was going to be a very good player one day I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or puke.what the hell was he supposed to say? "actually, i think david has been a tremendous disappointment as a player and the fact that my former or soon-to-be former employers felt the need to keep him on my roster was a crime against the game of basketball itself. he won't stop *****ing to the refs, he's out of shape and has an IQ somewhere roughly between a cucumber and the worlds largest ball of twine." rick is certainly more of a politician than that... i don't know if you can say the book is completely shut on david. i just would like another team to wait on his progress.


I'll be honest I don't know what to think anymore. For a long time I blamed Rick, then for almost all of last season I blamed Harrison and I think that is where I still am at.

However I just can not help but wonder if maybe there was a more stable atmosphere and David yanked in and out of games if maybe just maybe he wouldn't at least develop into a servicable backup.

As it stands now I just don't see how David stays in the NBA beyond a couple of years other than his size.

But the damned thing is he has some skills. Now did Rick not know how to utilize those skill? I don't know. I do know that he has to be the dumbest player I've ever seen in many ways but then I've also seen times where I keep dreaming that he will turn it around because of something he has done on the floor.

First thing first I want the new coach/Bird/ Walsh and every member of the Simon family to have a meeting with David and say this. You won't be pulled for making a mistake, you will however be pulled immedatley and you will not go back in the game if you turn and complain to a ref. I don't care if he is hammered right now for the next couple of years David has to shut his mouth. He is to demonstrative and complains to much and now IMO he is a marked man.

Still I don't know what to think about the guy.i'd be willing to give him ONE more shot IF we bring in bynum and a big-man coaching expert to work with bynum, ike and david. and we have the talk you mentioned above. outside of that, its only a million or so, buy him out or cut him if we can't send him somewhere.


Darrell Armstrong. Ok, I soured very rapidly on Armstrong at the end of the year. No not because of his play. I never said anything bad against his play, in fact many times I wish he was running the point down at the end of the season.

No what did it to me was the game he melted down vs. the refs. and and to be restrained and drug off of the floor. I don't remember the circumstance, I don't remember the opponet, I don't remember the ref. All I know was that it was totally uncalled for and frankly a *****ty example for a guy who was supposed to be there to set the example.

While I like him as a player and he seems to be involved in the overall bench, I don't think I will be offended if he is not back this year.as i recall rick was thrown out of the same game. i tend to believe with army that he was trying to fire the team up. we were in the midst of our 11-game losing streak i think. i think he may have taken it too far, but i wasn't offended by it. i'm more offended by mike d'antoni's constant straight-legged, hands-in-pockets convulsing he does after every whistle.


Keith McCloud. I like him. Solid backup, solid player on both sides of the floor. If you tell me that Keith was our first backup p.g. next year I will tell you I have no problem with it. I don't think Keith is a starter, but as a backup I think he will be fine.ditto


Frankly I don't see where there can be a major improvement by him next year. However I will have a wait and see approach. If you tell me that Rick being gone will somehow cause him to not be injured then fine. If you tell me that Rick being gone will mean that Jamaal will now play pressure defense fine.

Look I used to be a big Jamaal fan but I just soured on him. But I am willing (I guess) to see if maybe there wasn't a real problem between him and Carlisle. We'll see.i guess i'm with you here too. i see it as jamaal's problem not rick's but he used to be fairly talented, maybe the change of coach will help.


Maceo Baston. If ever there is player I feel sorry for this is him. Whenever he got the chance to play he showed he could play in the NBA, but because of Foster and the other player Baston barely ever got off of the bench. Then when he did start getting the time he broke his toe and wasn't able to play at the same level anymore.

Look I like him and think he could be a solid contributer to winning team. But there is just no real room for him here next season if we don't make other moves. Now if we move another player for a center from L.A., as long as we don't take back anther power forward with him then he could get some time. But if we don't move the other player there is just not enough time to go around and he is to old to be waiting.

While I like him for his sake I think he should opt out and just move on even if it is for less money.i think he can find a place on another team, which will disappoint me because i like the guy. but as you said, if we're loaded at that area and need backcourt help we're going to have to let him move on.

OakMoses
06-05-2007, 10:55 AM
Great Post. That's probably the closest I've ever come to agreeing with nearly everything somebody's posted.

I'm glad to see that somebody agrees with me that Shawne Williams is not a guard. I'd put Granger in the same category. They're 3's who can play 4 in a small ball lineup, not 3's who can play 2 (like Dunleavy).

I like Ike and I firmly believe that if this player you refuse to mention is gone and Ike gets 30 minutes a game that we'll be very happy with his production. Undersized PF's are faring very well in today's NBA. Ike may well be cut in the mold of Elton Brand or Zach Randolph.

Where I disagree with you is about Marquis Daniels. I'll be sad if he's not on the roster next year. Not hari-kiri sad, but a little bit blue. I'd love to see what he can do at the point, and JOb has said he'll play him there. I'd give him one more year to see if he can get healthy and then move him if he can't. I do believe that the Pacers would have been a playoff team if he'd played all season.

All that being said, I do believe the Pacers should bring in a combo guard who's a good shooter and defender so that a Daniels injury would not be so devastating. Acie Law, Charlie Bell, and Delonte West are guys who come to mind.

MagicRat
06-05-2007, 11:00 AM
Yeah!! Link? PM if necessary

Check his avatar.....

Unclebuck
06-05-2007, 11:47 AM
Couple of points.

Hopefully Dunleavy will be used as a facilitator - someone whom the offense will run through as opposed to someone who will be standing at the 3 point line waiting to end the play - I hope Mike starts the plays. I could see the majority of our offense running through either Daniels or Mike. Especially with our shinny new point guard who will be a defender first and a shooter second.

As far as to whether Rick is a good defensive coach or not. He let others handle the defense. During his first stint here as an assistant - Harter handled the defense (same thing at Portland) and then when Rick became head coach, Kevin O'Neill handled the defense in Detroit and during the one season here - and of course Mike Brown ran the defense when he was here for two seasons. Rick stayed out of the nuts and bolts of the defense.

However, and this is a big however - I consider Rick a good defensive head coach. Because he emphasized it and spent a lot of time on defense - just because he didn't do the defense himself doesn't mean that he didn't believe defense was the key - he just let others coach that part of the game, but as the head coach he sets the tone anbd defense was always important.

The defense was so bad this year proves this whole theory - when Rick doesn't have a good defensive coach things fall apart. In fact I think Rick somewhat took over the defense the last 4 or 5 weeks of the season in an attempt to salvage it.

idioteque
06-05-2007, 11:57 AM
A few thoughts of my own...think of it as my introduction to this board.:happydanc

I'll start with the big issue that is on everyone's mind: JO. But I will say that I am tired of talking about the trade, and I hope everyone else is, too. We got what we got and it's over. Harrington was never fitting into the offense and he was never that good anyway. Jackson had to get out of town. Saranus was terrible. Honestly the player that I miss the most was Powell. He has potential to be pretty decent in the future.

But, anyway, as of right now to me the trade is just :deadhorse

But back to JO. I think it's time to let him go. With our roster right now, no GM could possibly retool it to the point where we are a championship contender in 2-3 years. And honestly, with all the injuries JO has sustained, there are only 2-3 years left where he'll be putting up 18 and 10 like he is now. I think it's best for both parties to ship him off to LA. LA lives and dies by what Kobe says, and Kobe wants a title NOW without really thinking about the future. If they are able to get JO and also able to get Camby for Brown's expiring like some people say they are, then they have a 2-3 year window to win at least one more title. Granted, after that their franchise might be wrecked for the next 5-7 years and Kobe might want out, but they'll possible get Kobe's title to him right to order, and that's really all they're focusing on right now.

I do JO to LA only if we get Bynum and the pick. There is a chance that this kid has the ability to lead our franchise for years to come. It's a gamble, but his play last year suggests that he's rapidly improving. I think that if Bynum develops into a good center, we have a real weapon that many times don't have, because really how many good centers are there out there right now? Say Bynum develops into the league's next great big man...I don't care how unattractive our market may seem to some fans, having a prized center like Bynum in an age where good C's are a premium will attract some free agents to this team. Say Bynum becomes our main contributor in a few years, and then you've got Danny putting in 16-18 a game and Ike contributing down low, being a 12 and 8 player or so. Not to even mention the possible role that Shawne would be playing if he develops into anything Even if at that point our team is like, on the level that say Chicago is right now, that means that we're on the brink of winning a title if we add a little more talent, and say that appeals to someone who can hit a three, like say, an aging Ray Allen who signs on 3 or 4 years down the line. Bynum makes things interesting and could revolutionize everything. Or, he could turn out just to be an alright center. I think he's worth taking the gamble on. It would give us way more than any deal with New York ever could. The NY deal maybe gets us in the playoffs for a few straight years, but I don't see it ever giving us a championship, which is what I want. I've see the team in the ECF enough. I'm ready for the next step, even if it does take maybe a few years of sucking. And I just don't see Boston giving up Al Jefferson for O'Neal, ever.

I say the pick because this draft seems to be pretty stacked, and if Bynum screws up, at least maybe we have a good PG or SG for the future. Surely TPTB can't screw up on Bynum AND the pick right? :eek:

And Odom is a nice little prize. He averaged 16 and 10 on a team with the most aggressive first option in the league. If he can play the 4 for us, I don't really see what's wrong with that.

I really like Keith McLeod. He's a good backup PG, nothing more and nothing less. I like him because he seems like a relatively reserved guy who isn't going to cause any AJ-esque drama. In other words, unlike AJ, he knows that he's a backup. I'd sign him for two more years and then let him go on with his inevitable journeyman career if we can find someone a little bit faster and a little bit better in that period of time.

Baston is probably going to have to go. Which is a shame because like others I tend to like the guy. I don't think Obie is going to put us in a breakneck offense that often, 3 second rule nonewithstanding. Baston was a run and gun type player in Israel. He'd be a good backup for a team like the Suns or the Warriors or something.


Here let me make this statement. I consider Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster the exact same player with the exact opposite skill sets. As repulsive as many of you find Troy's lack of defense I find Fosters lack of offense as repulsive. I consider them the same at rebounding which is to say I don't think either of them are great rebounders, yes that's right I said it Jeff Foster is not a great rebounder.

I get what you're saying. It's an interesting dilemma. Players like Dennis Rodman, Jeff, or a Dale Davis type who are good defensive players but horrible offensive players are seen by the fans as "blue collar players" who "work hard to help the team" despite their inferior skill sets. Players with good offensive skills and bad defensive sills are more likely to be seen as lazy and thus disliked by the fans. Maybe it is a bit of a double standard but I think you can see what I'm saying.

I like Quis and I hope we hold onto him. He was good in limited time last year due to injury. Like it has been said, he has a skill set that most of the players on this team lack. I am concerned about his knee. Offseason indications point to the knee being "good" but what else would the Pacers say? That his knee is in terrible shape and he's the next Bender? I would shop him around a bit but if we can't get anything definitively good for him, then hold on and see what happens.

There will probably be more to come from me as well.

The state of Pacer nation is as such that Kravitz is now referring to "what is left of it." If Andrew Bynum ever takes this team to great heights, then we were the fans that were on what was once a very empty bandwagon.

:buddies:

Evan_The_Dude
06-05-2007, 12:32 PM
I agree on most accounts, but I disagree with the part about your Murphy and Foster evaluation. I've watched Murphy ever since he was a rookie (I lived in Oakland at the time), and I've also watched Foster his whole career. Believe me, they're very different rebounders. Murphy doesn't get those tough rebounds, or those tip-tip-tip rebounds, and he's not nearly the offensive rebounder Foster is. Murphy tends to get long rebounds, or rebounds that only a guy 6'11" or taller can get anyway. He's good at getting position, but he's not good at out toughing anybody to get the rebound.

Foster is more of a banger. He's much tougher, and he's much quicker to the ball. He gets in the right position and can out tough and out quick most of his opponents to the ball. He also is excellent at tapping the ball out to give us another possession. I'd consider him a great rebounder.

The thing I do like about Murphy is his ability, and willingness to drive to the basket, something rare for a big man. I also like when he comes off a pick n roll and fades to the corner for a 20 footer. He can hit all day long from 20 feet at either corner. I hate when he camps out at the three. I also don't think his defense is as bad as advertised. I just think he needs a coach that's 100% committed to defense like OB and Harter.

Hicks
06-05-2007, 12:59 PM
dcpacersfan, nice "first" post. :)

Arcadian
06-05-2007, 01:06 PM
I'm glad that JO and Management were left out. There are other things in Pacerland.

It looks like fans are ready to embrace the potential of Danny, Shawn, Ike, the rumored #19 pick and the new pg everyone is sure we are going to get. Reminds me of the good old days when JO, Al and Jon were going to lead the Pacers to multiple championships. Well those were happier times and I look forward to hearing potential used as a compliment. I just wonder how long it will last.

Here's my thing about Mike and Troy. On a team rebuilding I think they are good enough to take minutes away from players we are trying to develop, bad enough to not get us out of the first round in the East and paid enough to restrict our player movement. On a club rebuilding around three forwards they don't fit.

I think Peck was taking a did at Foster by comparing him to Murphy. Kinda like JO=Gooden.

Naptown_Seth
06-05-2007, 01:40 PM
or do I spend virtually every single breath of mine complaining to no end about them? (DW and JO)Didn't you already choose this option about 5 years ago?

;)



However Danny did prove this year that he listens to criticism and after falling into the three point trap he settled down and started going to the rim. Danny going to the rim is a good thing.
True. Back in December when I was noticing his bad trend to stand at the arc only, even on breaks, I ran a chart comparing his total points to his 3PA vs FGA ratio. The results at the time showed a clear trend that when he MIXED IT UP MORE he scored more. The nights when all he did was shoot the 3 his scoring was way down typically. The 3 is a weapon in his arsenal, but so is the post and hopefully he can get his dribble-drive on par with those 2 aspects, or even add in a nice catch and shoot ala Dunleavy. To be the #1 scorer for an NBA team you have to have at least 3-4 scoring options in your bag.

BTW, you're happy that RC is gone, but who do you think told Danny to drive more? You think he read online posts and decided to tell Rick to shove it? Hardly. Adjustments to player's games have to be attributed to the coaching staff most of all, at least during the regular season.

And on that same line, it was clear that Dunleavy started out as a 3pt guy when he got here and once Rick saw that failing he adjusted the play calls to Dun's strength, the catch and shoot mid-range shot where his 2P% went through the roof.

We also saw wimpy Troy get less playing time after he showed his lack of defense or tough rebounding (his P48 really lagged behind Foster's in similar minutes).

To me all of that and more is mostly on Rick. I like JOBs track record as a defensive coach, but his offenses have ranged from blah to bad. His teams win by keeping the score low and counting on isos and 3pt jacks to get just enough points to win. If you hated 03-04 I'd advise not showing up next season.

I liked the 03-04 team so I can live with JOB's approach. I just think too much stock is placed in the coaching change fixing things. You still have to have the car no matter what kind of driver you are.

Anthem
06-05-2007, 01:45 PM
Peck, good post.

I think the idea that people hate Dunleavy is overblown. I like Dun fine, I just don't like him as our starting shooting guard. He can't shoot and he's not a guard. Other than that, he's a very nice player. I'd be fine with him as a starting SF if we didn't have Granger, but we do. I'd be fine with him as a backup SF, but I'd like Shawne to get those minutes to see if he's going to develop anything. So where does that put Dun?

With Murphy, I just don't see what he brings us. What good is being 7 feet tall if you hang out at the 3pt line? I'd be thrilled if we moved both Foster and Murphy and gave Baston and Ike more minutes, to be honest.

Anyway, good to have some more odd thoughts.

ABADays
06-05-2007, 01:58 PM
Nice first post Peck - uh - I mean welcome back!

Naptown_Seth
06-05-2007, 03:15 PM
Rebouding reality check

Foster P48
06-07 16.8
05-06 16.6
04-05 14.9

He led the team in P48 boards all those years.

Dale Davis in his 3 BEST years of P48 rebounding
99-00 16.5
92-93 15.3
91-92 15.1

Troy's entire career
01-02 10.7
02-03 15.4
03-04 13.6
04-05 15.3
05-06 14.2
06-07 10.7

End of story. These aren't black magic. Dude gets a rebound, someone puts a hash mark in his stat line. Period. You can't be a better rebounder if you don't actually get more rebounds.


Save the debate, I know the counter-points:

1) Not all rebounds are the same - sorry, but Dale stood on the FT lane just as much as Foster, Dale hauled in the uncontested misses on defense just as much as Jeff did too. The both played as non-scoring, defense and rebounding specialists and were both placed in similar spots on the floor during plays.

Now you have missed inside shots, but even I - the person who started the thread discussing Jeff's missed shots early last season and even ripped his rebounding total in the Denver game where nothing came from his rebounds, they were off his own misses, or he got credit when it was really a tip scrum that other players had more impact on - recognize that typically he shoots above 50% and just doesn't put up enough FGAs to get his own rebounds.

Jeff hit an UNUSUAL spot of very poor inside shooting last fall, that's why I mentioned it at the time. It was out of character for him. He was coming off of 3 years of 54-52-55 FG%, so dropping sub-40 early in the year was odd. He ended back up at 47 for the year in part due to 60% in JAN and 55% in APR.

Plus, let's not pretend that Dale (or Troy) never rebounded their own misses either. In 99-00 Dale missed 300 shots but only had 256 offensive rebounds so it's not like he was making good on every thing he ever pulled down either.

Last year Jeff missed 137 shots, but he pulled in 252 offensive boards, a sum total well in the black. Even if you assumed that every single offensive board was on his own miss the guy still had more than 100 offensive rebounds.


2) Per48 doesn't take into account fatigue and diminishing returns in those extra minutes - true. However Jeff is not a 10 minute flash in the pan either. He does go out for 20-25 on many nights, he is asked to get physical with the other team's biggest guy and he has played hurt on many nights over the last few years.

Let's compare those P48 rebound numbers again with MIN PER GAME includeded.

Dale
99-00 16.5 in 28.7 min
92-93 15.3 in 27.6 min
91-92 15.1 in 20.3 min

Foster
06-07 16.8 in 23.2
05-06 16.6 in 25.1
04-05 14.9 in 26.1

So those extra 2-3 minutes really blew up Dale's P48 totals? Strongly doubtful.

And Troy's minutes
01-02 10.7 in 17.7
02-03 15.4 in 31.8
03-04 13.6 in 21.8
04-05 15.3 in 33.9
05-06 14.2 in 34.0
06-07 10.7 in 27 (roughly)



But I have some counters of my own too...

1) TEMPO. One huge caveat for Troy in those good seasons with GS - TEMPO. Notice the drop when he hit Indy's tempo. Now let's also keep in mind that Dale played first off with a Pacers team that had the Celtics in a PLAYOFF game at 90 points at the end of the 3rd quarter. That was the slow-paced Celtics.

Then his best year, 99-00, came on a team that was 3rd in the NBA at scoring, a team that was most comfortable in shoot-outs going above 100 points each night.

Jeff meanwhile has pulled in his rebounds with a team more comfortable around 92 a night. The one benefit he's had is some poor shooters on some of those teams (like last year).

2) TEAMMATES. Jeff has played with one of the Pacers all-time greatest RPG players, Jermaine. Troy was typically the main big on his GS teams and Dale's main competitor for rebounds was the notoriously soft Rik Smits.

This is not to say that Dale couldn't have done the same with JO, but if we are pointing the finger on "easy" rebounds how can both JO AND Foster be getting all the FT misses and uncontested looks?


3) Offensive RPG - these are at the scoring area, that part of the court most heavily defended by the other team. Offensive boards even on the FT lane are harder to come by due to lane position. I don't think any reasonable fan would ever argue that offensive rebounds aren't tougher to get than defensive boards.

With that in mind, here's the P48 OFFENSIVE rebounds only, the 5 best seasons for each player

Jeff
02-03 7.06
06-07 6.94
05-06 6.79
99-00 6.70
04-05 6.17

Troy
04-05 5.07
02-03 4.36
03-04 3.78
05-06 3.72
01-02 3.28

Dale
92-93 6.17
06-07 6.12
93-94 5.86
91-92 5.83
99-00 5.78

In other words, not even close. Dale put up nice numbers himself on the offensive glass, but Troy's numbers prove my point better than any other number. The guy is not a tough rebounder. He plays on the outside and his numbers back it. Plus IMO even when he's on the inside he gets outhustled and outmuscled for boards that Foster would be able to get.



Please note this isn't just 1 or 2 flukes. I consider this a pretty exhaustive look at all 3 players and the test results say that Peck's theory that Jeff is no better than Troy as a rebounder is soundly disproven. Troy has NEVER put up the kinds of numbers Jeff does on the glass.

Peck hates to hear it, refuses to accept it to the point of being dogmatic about it, but Jeff as a PF rebound specialist was clearly Dale's equal. Dale was better than Jeff in 2 primary ways - much better on picks and had a respectible enough turnaround to help out on offense at times more than Jeff can.


Oh, one last thing
Jeff - 5.7m, 6.2m next 2 years
Troy - 9.2m, 10.1m, 11.0m, 11.9m the next 4, so he only costs you about $4m more per year and for an extra 2 years in order to get less rebounds and far worse defense.

So yeah, about equal. :rolleyes:

Peck
06-05-2007, 03:38 PM
Rebouding reality check

Foster P48
06-07 16.8
05-06 16.6
04-05 14.9

He led the team in P48 boards all those years.

Dale Davis in his 3 BEST years of P48 rebounding
99-00 16.5
92-93 15.3
91-92 15.1

Troy's entire career
01-02 10.7
02-03 15.4
03-04 13.6
04-05 15.3
05-06 14.2
06-07 10.7

End of story. These aren't black magic. Dude gets a rebound, someone puts a hash mark in his stat line. Period. You can't be a better rebounder if you don't actually get more rebounds.


Save the debate, I know the counter-points:

1) Not all rebounds are the same - sorry, but Dale stood on the FT lane just as much as Foster, Dale hauled in the uncontested misses on defense just as much as Jeff did too. The both played as non-scoring, defense and rebounding specialists and were both placed in similar spots on the floor during plays.

Now you have missed inside shots, but even I - the person who started the thread discussing Jeff's missed shots early last season and even ripped his rebounding total in the Denver game where nothing came from his rebounds, they were off his own misses, or he got credit when it was really a tip scrum that other players had more impact on - recognize that typically he shoots above 50% and just doesn't put up enough FGAs to get his own rebounds.

Jeff hit an UNUSUAL spot of very poor inside shooting last fall, that's why I mentioned it at the time. It was out of character for him. He was coming off of 3 years of 54-52-55 FG%, so dropping sub-40 early in the year was odd. He ended back up at 47 for the year in part due to 60% in JAN and 55% in APR.

Plus, let's not pretend that Dale (or Troy) never rebounded their own misses either. In 99-00 Dale missed 300 shots but only had 256 offensive rebounds so it's not like he was making good on every thing he ever pulled down either.

Last year Jeff missed 137 shots, but he pulled in 252 offensive boards, a sum total well in the black. Even if you assumed that every single offensive board was on his own miss the guy still had more than 100 offensive rebounds.


2) Per48 doesn't take into account fatigue and diminishing returns in those extra minutes - true. However Jeff is not a 10 minute flash in the pan either. He does go out for 20-25 on many nights, he is asked to get physical with the other team's biggest guy and he has played hurt on many nights over the last few years.

Let's compare those P48 rebound numbers again with MIN PER GAME includeded.

Dale
99-00 16.5 in 28.7 min
92-93 15.3 in 27.6 min
91-92 15.1 in 20.3 min

Foster
06-07 16.8 in 23.2
05-06 16.6 in 25.1
04-05 14.9 in 26.1

So those extra 2-3 minutes really blew up Dale's P48 totals? Strongly doubtful.

And Troy's minutes
01-02 10.7 in 17.7
02-03 15.4 in 31.8
03-04 13.6 in 21.8
04-05 15.3 in 33.9
05-06 14.2 in 34.0
06-07 10.7 in 27 (roughly)



But I have some counters of my own too...

1) TEMPO. One huge caveat for Troy in those good seasons with GS - TEMPO. Notice the drop when he hit Indy's tempo. Now let's also keep in mind that Dale played first off with a Pacers team that had the Celtics in a PLAYOFF game at 90 points at the end of the 3rd quarter. That was the slow-paced Celtics.

Then his best year, 99-00, came on a team that was 3rd in the NBA at scoring, a team that was most comfortable in shoot-outs going above 100 points each night.

Jeff meanwhile has pulled in his rebounds with a team more comfortable around 92 a night. The one benefit he's had is some poor shooters on some of those teams (like last year).

2) TEAMMATES. Jeff has played with one of the Pacers all-time greatest RPG players, Jermaine. Troy was typically the main big on his GS teams and Dale's main competitor for rebounds was the notoriously soft Rik Smits.

This is not to say that Dale couldn't have done the same with JO, but if we are pointing the finger on "easy" rebounds how can both JO AND Foster be getting all the FT misses and uncontested looks?


3) Offensive RPG - these are at the scoring area, that part of the court most heavily defended by the other team. Offensive boards even on the FT lane are harder to come by due to lane position. I don't think any reasonable fan would ever argue that offensive rebounds aren't tougher to get than defensive boards.

With that in mind, here's the P48 OFFENSIVE rebounds only, the 5 best seasons for each player

Jeff
02-03 7.06
06-07 6.94
05-06 6.79
99-00 6.70
04-05 6.17

Troy
04-05 5.07
02-03 4.36
03-04 3.78
05-06 3.72
01-02 3.28

Dale
92-93 6.17
06-07 6.12
93-94 5.86
91-92 5.83
99-00 5.78

In other words, not even close. Dale put up nice numbers himself on the offensive glass, but Troy's numbers prove my point better than any other number. The guy is not a tough rebounder. He plays on the outside and his numbers back it. Plus IMO even when he's on the inside he gets outhustled and outmuscled for boards that Foster would be able to get.



Please note this isn't just 1 or 2 flukes. I consider this a pretty exhaustive look at all 3 players and the test results say that Peck's theory that Jeff is no better than Troy as a rebounder is soundly disproven. Troy has NEVER put up the kinds of numbers Jeff does on the glass.

Peck hates to hear it, refuses to accept it to the point of being dogmatic about it, but Jeff as a PF rebound specialist was clearly Dale's equal. Dale was better than Jeff in 2 primary ways - much better on picks and had a respectible enough turnaround to help out on offense at times more than Jeff can.


Oh, one last thing
Jeff - 5.7m, 6.2m next 2 years
Troy - 9.2m, 10.1m, 11.0m, 11.9m the next 4, so he only costs you about $4m more per year and for an extra 2 years in order to get less rebounds and far worse defense.

So yeah, about equal. :rolleyes:

:highhorse:

I could try and refute your opinion, oops sorry since you have stated it they are solid facts unable to be disputed by even God himself, but what would be the point.

It is impossible to discuss something with somebody who believes what they state are facts and what everybody else states is an opinion.

You should have your own website where each of us could tune in each day and be told what to think. That would save us all a lot of trouble of having to think each day.

Hicks
06-05-2007, 03:46 PM
Seth I see you side-stepping Troy's offense on your last point. If Troy was as horrible on offense as Jeff I'd agree.

And I also disagree with you that a rebound is a rebound is a rebound. WHEN and HOW you get the rebounds is more important. Does Jeff gets the bulk of his rebounds in the first 3 quarters or the 4th? Does he get clutch rebounds in big moments? Can he be contained by boxing him out, or can he fight his way into position anyway?

I think Jeff is a tough guy, but he's not a bulky, "GET THE F OUT OF MY WAY" guy. He's "just" very, very scrappy. Dale was tough as well but also just a rock to try to move. I also think because of that he'd be more likely to grab big rebounds in the waning moments of a close ballgame.

Evan_The_Dude
06-05-2007, 04:55 PM
Jeff can average 0 points per game for an entire season as far as I'm concerned. If the offense is set up correctly, we wouldn't have to worry about Jeff becoming effective offensively. If he doesn't care about scoring, and all he cares about is helping the team by rebounding and playing scrappy defense, then damnit that's the type of player I want to stay here. I bet every team in the NBA would love to have a 0ppg 10rpg (depends on his minutes) Jeff Foster. We really shouldn't be taking him for granted.

OakMoses
06-05-2007, 05:09 PM
Naptown - Great post. I always appreciate the statistics you can dredge up.

As far as the three players are concerned, you have three very different types of rebounders.

Dale Davis was a big, strong, very physical guy. He got position and refused to give it up.

Jeff Foster is a hustle rebounder. He gets his share of position, but most of his rebounds come from simply wanting the ball more than the other guys. He's willing to tip the ball and jump 10 times in a row and most other guys aren't.

Troy Murphy gets rebounds because he's tall and he has a knack for being in the right place. He's not a tough guy like Dale. Tinsley could probably push Troy out of the way if he wanted to. He also doesn't hustle like Foster. Statistics, however, do not lie. Even though Troy's numbers are not as good as Dale's or Jeff's, you'd be hard pressed to say that he's a bad rebounder as many are wont to do. He gets rebounds by being in the right place at the right time, and he's there often enough that it's not a coincidence. If Troy could put on 10 pounds of muscle he'd be a darn good rebounder.

I think it's hard to question that it goes like this in order of rebounding studliness:

1. Foster 2. Davis 3. Murphy

To Peck's original point, I've always said that if you could combine Jeff and Troy you'd have an almost great PF.

Since86
06-05-2007, 05:25 PM
Foster is horrible when it comes to "solid" rebounding. He grabs rebounds by standing 10-15ft away and tracking them down. Dale was a rebounder who fought for position and used tough play to grab his.

Also, let's not forget that during Dale's prime he was playing beside AD and Rik. His best years, phsyically wise, aren't his best rebounding years. Same with both Rik and Antonio. They weren't just battling the other team, they were battling each other.

Also, during those prime years, 94-00, the Ps were out side of a top 2 seed in the East one time. They were either 1 or 2, 5 out of 6 times. They played at a lot higher level basketball wise, comparative to the rest of the league, which resulted in better effeciency on the offensive end.

Yes, JO is a better rebounder than Rik or AD, but the rebounding wise as a whole team doesn't follow that trend.

From 02-07 the Pacers have only rebounded the ball less than 3400, one time. That same length of time (five seasons a piece), throwing out the 98-99 season because it was only 50 games, from 94-00 the Pacers missed the 3400 mark 3 times.

Jeff had more opportunities to rebound.
http://basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/

sig
06-05-2007, 05:54 PM
After watching Quis for 3 years in Dallas and following him for 1 year in Indy, I think he should either be moved out or limited to a role off the bench. I read the same things here that I read on the Mavs forum when he was a Mav. Most love his versatility. I am included in that group. This years injury was his knee. Last years injury was his shoulder. In his 2nd year, it was his ankle. He wasn't injured in his rookie year but really didn't start playing until February. He is a SG who can't shoot but can do most else. He is versatile enuff to play some PG and SF. I think he a perfect role player off the bench.

IMO, the Pacers have to many SF's and need to get a solid starting SG. I don't see how they can keep all 3 of Dunleavy, Williams and Granger. If they obtain Odom then they have another SF. Granted some of those guys can play other positions but they are best suitd at SF. They really need to move one for a SG or PG if Tinsley goes.

Bball
06-05-2007, 07:05 PM
After watching Quis for 3 years in Dallas and following him for 1 year in Indy, I think he should either be moved out or limited to a role off the bench. I read the same things here that I read on the Mavs forum when he was a Mav. Most love his versatility. I am included in that group. This years injury was his knee. Last years injury was his shoulder. In his 2nd year, it was his ankle. He wasn't injured in his rookie year but really didn't start playing until February. He is a SG who can't shoot but can do most else. He is versatile enuff to play some PG and SF. I think he a perfect role player off the bench.

IMO, the Pacers have to many SF's and need to get a solid starting SG. I don't see how they can keep all 3 of Dunleavy, Williams and Granger. If they obtain Odom then they have another SF. Granted some of those guys can play other positions but they are best suitd at SF. They really need to move one for a SG or PG if Tinsley goes.

Never underestimate Walsh's desire (pipe dream) to load up on players that can play multiple positions. This basically translates into a collection of SF's.

-Bball

idioteque
06-05-2007, 07:06 PM
dcpacersfan, nice "first" post. :)

I appreciate it, especially coming from someone with almost 24,000 posts on this board. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

ABADays
06-05-2007, 07:43 PM
Foster is horrible when it comes to "solid" rebounding. He grabs rebounds by standing 10-15ft away and tracking them down. Dale was a rebounder who fought for position and used tough play to grab his.

Also, let's not forget that during Dale's prime he was playing beside AD and Rik. His best years, phsyically wise, aren't his best rebounding years. Same with both Rik and Antonio. They weren't just battling the other team, they were battling each other.

A rebound is a rebound and every player gets those kind of rebounds. Besides - tracking them down isn't a bad trait.

:-o RICK REBOUNDED!?!?!?! Which game was that?

Hicks
06-05-2007, 07:51 PM
A rebound is a rebound and every player gets those kind of rebounds. Besides - tracking them down isn't a bad trait.

:-o RICK REBOUNDED!?!?!?! Which game was that?

Answer me this: If you could add one of two guys to your team, which would you choose (assuming they're basically identical in every other way):

1) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, and he's too small/weak to get in position to grab any more rebounds.

2) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, but he's big/strong enough to bully his way in anyway.

indyman37
06-05-2007, 08:00 PM
Answer me this: If you could add one of two guys to your team, which would you choose (assuming they're basically identical in every other way):

1) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, and he's too small/weak to get in position to grab any more rebounds.

2) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, but he's big/strong enough to bully his way in anyway.
Ooohhhh....tough one. :D

ABADays
06-05-2007, 08:04 PM
Well of course I would want #2. Does that mean I would want Rodman over Foster - HELL NO!

What I am saying here with the explanation presented was - you can get the toughest rebounder in the world, but if the other team is shooting long jumpers and missing, more than likely the tough guy isn't going to get the rebounds or be in the position to track them down whereas a "Foster" rebound may have meant he outhustled a guard to ball. A lot of factors play into rebounding. The idea is to deny the team a second chance so I'm not going to diminish what Foster does.

So on our team - who's rebounds are more valuable - Foster's or JO's?

indyman37
06-05-2007, 08:21 PM
So on our team - who's rebounds are more valuable - Foster's or JO's?
Maybe it's just when I get to watch Pacer's games...but I can only remember like 7 or 8 times when JO has had 10 or more rebounds. Foster (in the what, like 20 something minutes a night?) can easily get you 10. But if they were both putting up the same number of rebounds, I would choose JO easily because he, usually unlike Jeff, he can put it back in. Shoot...JO might even make the bucket, draw the foul, and convert the three point play. Now thats something I haven't seen Foster do in a while.

ABADays
06-05-2007, 08:59 PM
Maybe it's just when I get to watch Pacer's games...but I can only remember like 7 or 8 times when JO has had 10 or more rebounds. Foster (in the what, like 20 something minutes a night?) can easily get you 10. But if they were both putting up the same number of rebounds, I would choose JO easily because he, usually unlike Jeff, he can put it back in. Shoot...JO might even make the bucket, draw the foul, and convert the three point play. Now thats something I haven't seen Foster do in a while.

I would agree with that. But it was rebounding we were talking about. If it was about a combination of scoring and rebounding I wouldn't have even responded ;)

indyman37
06-05-2007, 09:09 PM
I would agree with that. But it was rebounding we were talking about. If it was about a combination of scoring and rebounding I wouldn't have even responded ;)
True, true.

owl
06-05-2007, 09:24 PM
Happy Birthday tomorrow!!!

MR, I can't make out Pecks avatar. Sorry eyesight not as good as it used to be.

ChicagoJ
06-05-2007, 10:30 PM
-snip-
Foster is more of a banger. He's much tougher, ...

At first I read that to say, "Foster is a banger."

I almost had a heart attack.

Now if we're going to say "Foster is more of a banger" than Murphy then okay - I was pumped up about getting Murphy but I had no idea how unphysical he is.

To say that Foster is more physical than Murphy really does say something about Murphy. And sadly, it seems to be true.

We need to get rid of both of them and find a true presence in the paint. Period.

Unclebuck
06-05-2007, 10:54 PM
Oh brother. I will refrain from defending Foster

Anthem
06-05-2007, 11:13 PM
At one time, Foster had a tendency to only get long rebounds, or to get rebounds to get to a certain place first. But he didn't get rebounds in traffic. Peck's point has historical accuracy.

But not modern accuracy. Jeff has grown as a player, and these days he gets plenty of rebounds in traffic. This is no longer a real issue.

JayRedd
06-05-2007, 11:31 PM
Maybe it's just when I get to watch Pacer's games...but I can only remember like 7 or 8 times when JO has had 10 or more rebounds. Foster (in the what, like 20 something minutes a night?) can easily get you 10. But if they were both putting up the same number of rebounds, I would choose JO easily because he, usually unlike Jeff, he can put it back in. Shoot...JO might even make the bucket, draw the foul, and convert the three point play. Now thats something I haven't seen Foster do in a while.

JO had 10+ rebounds 35 times in the 69 games he played (he averaged 35:30 mpg). He also had one stretch early in the yaer where he went 14 out of 19 games with 10+ boards.

ChicagoJ
06-05-2007, 11:38 PM
Its a humerous "fact" on PD that JO is not as good of a rebounder as Jeff.

Nobody in the real world believes that, but on PD its true.

MagicRat
06-05-2007, 11:56 PM
Is there even one person who will come out and defend Troy?

I'm sure Skaut would, but he hasn't posted lately. He must've taken the train out of town. Perhaps when he's finished riding the rail he'll post again.......

indyman37
06-06-2007, 11:04 AM
JO had 10+ rebounds 35 times in the 69 games he played (he averaged 35:30 mpg). He also had one stretch early in the yaer where he went 14 out of 19 games with 10+ boards.
Yeah, I really don't get to watch many games...

OakMoses
06-06-2007, 12:53 PM
Answer me this: If you could add one of two guys to your team, which would you choose (assuming they're basically identical in every other way):

1) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, and he's too small/weak to get in position to grab any more rebounds.

2) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, but he's big/strong enough to bully his way in anyway.

If your real question is whether or not I'd rather have Dale Davis or Jeff Foster, it's really not much of a debate. Dale in his prime was a much much better player than Jeff.

As for the JO v. Foster rebounding battle, I think it's all about focus. They are both very good rebounders. The difference is that Foster is asked to rebound, play defense, and screen for ball-handlers. JO is asked to score and block shots. JO is the more physically gifted player, so if his focus was on rebounding, he'd probably get more rebounds than Jeff. Jeff, however, does hustle quite a bit more than JO. It's really kind of a mute point, however. They're both good rebounders and we should be glad to have both of them.

Since86
06-06-2007, 03:11 PM
A rebound is a rebound and every player gets those kind of rebounds. Besides - tracking them down isn't a bad trait.

:-o RICK REBOUNDED!?!?!?! Which game was that?

A rebound is definately not the same as a REBOUND.

What I mean by that is this: which is more important, #1 - a rebound with 30secs to go before half time of a close game, or #2 - a rebound to go with 30 secs to go before the end of a close game?

Dale had a way to pull down clutch rebounds. If he was in the area, he was going to over-power and just out will his way to that board. I can remember just knowing that Dale would be right there, and if he got one hand on it, it was his.

Jeff is a different type of rebounder. He exploits the other teams laziness. He doesn't come up with those late game rebounds, unless they bounce 15ft from the rim. He doesn't over-power people or out will them. He just phsyically can't do it.

Also I'll remind you that this was a time with big time phsyically powerful players, i.e. the Charles Oakley's.

There's a reason why Dan Gazurich (sp?) gives Jeff absolute fits. Is because he stands beside Jeff when the shot goes up and runs it down with him. They're they same player, and I would trade either straight up for one another back and forth if I could.

When a team focuses on putting a body on Jeff, he is ineffective. A team couldn't do that to Dale.

Unclebuck
06-06-2007, 04:46 PM
Its a humerous "fact" on PD that JO is not as good of a rebounder as Jeff.

Nobody in the real world believes that, but on PD its true.

....oh why bother

Elgin56
06-06-2007, 09:47 PM
A rebound is definately not the same as a REBOUND.

What I mean by that is this: which is more important, #1 - a rebound with 30secs to go before half time of a close game, or #2 - a rebound to go with 30 secs to go before the end of a close game?

Dale had a way to pull down clutch rebounds. If he was in the area, he was going to over-power and just out will his way to that board. I can remember just knowing that Dale would be right there, and if he got one hand on it, it was his.

Jeff is a different type of rebounder. He exploits the other teams laziness. He doesn't come up with those late game rebounds, unless they bounce 15ft from the rim. He doesn't over-power people or out will them. He just phsyically can't do it.

Also I'll remind you that this was a time with big time phsyically powerful players, i.e. the Charles Oakley's.

There's a reason why Dan Gazurich (sp?) gives Jeff absolute fits. Is because he stands beside Jeff when the shot goes up and runs it down with him. They're they same player, and I would trade either straight up for one another back and forth if I could.


When a team focuses on putting a body on Jeff, he is ineffective. A team couldn't do that to Dale.


UM, if he is getting that much attention from the other team, don't you think that it helps JO get some rebounds that he wouldn't have gotten if Jeff's man was not sagging off of him?

Any rebound is clutch regardless when it happens, just like a steal or a three pointer. If your team wins by one point, ANY REBOUND AND CONVERSION GOES TO THE WIN, NO MATTER WHEN IT TOOK PLACE IN THE GAME.

Since86
06-07-2007, 03:16 PM
UM, if he is getting that much attention from the other team, don't you think that it helps JO get some rebounds that he wouldn't have gotten if Jeff's man was not sagging off of him?

Any rebound is clutch regardless when it happens, just like a steal or a three pointer. If your team wins by one point, ANY REBOUND AND CONVERSION GOES TO THE WIN, NO MATTER WHEN IT TOOK PLACE IN THE GAME.

You only really need one person to box him out, and they do that by face-boxing. It's really pretty simple, I did it all the time even at the HS level.

There are so many variables throughout the course of the game, you can't say everything is just as equal. Certain plays are called during situations, certain players are in the game during situations, and so forth. Saying a rebound at the 9:40 mark in the third is just as important as one at the :02 mark in the fourth isn't true. Why is Reggie so clutch, or Jordan, if every shot/rebound/steal is all the same?

Because of pressure. Any player can knock down a shot in the 2nd quarter, how many can, or want too, take the last shot of the game and have faith that they're going to make it? There are big differences on the level of a play depending on the situations.

Elgin56
06-07-2007, 05:10 PM
You only really need one person to box him out, and they do that by face-boxing. It's really pretty simple, I did it all the time even at the HS level.

There are so many variables throughout the course of the game, you can't say everything is just as equal. Certain plays are called during situations, certain players are in the game during situations, and so forth. Saying a rebound at the 9:40 mark in the third is just as important as one at the :02 mark in the fourth isn't true. Why is Reggie so clutch, or Jordan, if every shot/rebound/steal is all the same?

Because of pressure. Any player can knock down a shot in the 2nd quarter, how many can, or want too, take the last shot of the game and have faith that they're going to make it? There are big differences on the level of a play depending on the situations.

Every basket adds to the final score and a basket scored in the first quarter counts as much as one scored in the last minute or second of a game, take away the points from the first quarter shot and the last second shot is meaningless. Truth is you need the early score to make it possible for the game to be decided by a last second shot, without one the other isn't possible.

You have morphed your oringinal proposition, that all rebounds aren't equal, into the merits of a clutch shooter or shot, not the same IMO.

Unclebuck
06-07-2007, 05:17 PM
I'll defend Troy. He might excel in O'Brien's offensive and defensive system. But he needs to come off the bench. One good thing is Troy won't be left on "an island" as he tries to defend anyone one-on-one

MagicRat
06-07-2007, 10:06 PM
MR, I can't make out Pecks avatar. Sorry eyesight not as good as it used to be.

Parasource - Rescuing You From High Prices!

And apparently I missed out on wishing Peck a happy 4-0. So.......Happy Belated 40th, you geezer........

Naptown_Seth
06-08-2007, 01:06 PM
Answer me this: If you could add one of two guys to your team, which would you choose (assuming they're basically identical in every other way):

1) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, and he's too small/weak to get in position to grab any more rebounds.

2) The one who grabs 11 rebounds per game, and when the game is on the line down the stretch, the other team really focuses in on forcing him out of rebounding position, but he's big/strong/quick/savvy enough to get them anyway.
fixed...seriously, it's not just muscle, and Foster does get those late game rebounds.

I think it's a mistake to assume that rebounding effort is just totally different at the end, that some players just decide to turn it on later...and frankly who cares because your team is ahead by the end if your guy got all 11 boards before crunch time while the other guy only got 7-8 typically.

Who in their right mind gives away possessions all game long just because it isn't worth the effort?

Hey, sure Jackson had 5 turnovers, but only 1 of those was in crunch time. Those other 4 turned into 6 points, but really who cares because that was way back in the 2nd quarter when points weren't at full value yet. ;)


If your real question is whether or not I'd rather have Dale Davis or Jeff Foster, it's really not much of a debate. Dale in his prime was a much much better player than Jeff.In my post I also indicated that Dale was the better overall player than Jeff. You could ask him to score as the focus of a play a couple of times per game (though not for a much higher rate than Jeff typically puts up) which isn't the same as just scrapping for points, he was a much better shot blocker and a much better defender.

I only take exception to the diss on Jeff's rebounding. He's legit and while I'm not a big fan of anecdotel evidence I've watched him track down EXTREMELY tough rebounds in extremely big situations. His effort in game 2 of the 2004 playoffs vs Detroit was a major reason the Pacers won that game. Now in my book being a major factor in a playoff win against your chief rival is kind of a big deal (that's for JayRedd :) ).

I strongly disagree with Since86. The Pistons response to that game 2, and game 3 as well when he still was a factor was to finally plant Sheed and Ben on him at every chance. They didn't just finally "man up" on him after not caring. Hell, they tried to react to him in game 2 in fact but couldn't get it done.

Guys "box him" all the time, then he swims them anyway and beats them across the court to a rebound.

And as Elgin points out, if you have to FOCUS on Jeff then you clearly aren't focusing on someone else. Jeff has put up numbers in every situation, starter, bench, have the team suspended, hurt, himself playing hurt, different coaches, and obviously over several seasons both regular and playoffs.


PLAYOFFS ONLY - REBOUNDS PER 48 CAREER
Foster - 16.3
Dale - 14.4
Troy - never been there, probably just coincidence, right?

I'm sorry but they don't keep "final 2 minutes of close games" stats on hand for easy access...but of course that tells me that none of you have them either and are at best using conjecture and questionable memories (based on how you remember the rest of these rebounding results) to place this "Jeff fails in crunch time while Dale didn't". You don't truly have verification for that opinion. On the other counts the results as counted up by a neutral party back my opinion that Jeff REBOUNDED as effectively or more so than Dale.

No point in bringing into the discussion other parts of their games (like defense) because that isn't in contention. It's a straw man in terms of a debate on rebounding.

Naptown_Seth
06-08-2007, 01:30 PM
....oh why bother
I'll bother with it. Jay, are you kidding????

Of course people in the real world believe that. JO doesn't make the AS game on rebounding alone. He doesn't get paid on rebounding alone. He doesn't start based on rebounding alone.

Foster's paycheck and starters role ARE based almost totally on his ability to rebound.

JO's game is well-rounded and strong in many areas. No one is calling them equal in other ways.

But having watched nearly every game over the last 4 years I'm comfortable in saying that Jeff is a better REBOUNDER than JO. JO is far more likely to get pushed out of a rebound than Jeff is.

I mean JO's FG% is lower than Jeffs, JO takes more shots than Jeff and many of those are just as close to the rim as Jeff. So on that count, the "he only gets his own misses" angle, shouldn't JO destroy Jeff in offensive rebounds? But he doesn't.

It shows that Jeff isn't just getting his own misses, he's getting other player's misses too, and that's helpful and difficult to do.


JO is a good rebounder and I think unfairly bashed by semi-admitted "haters" like Peck. It's the fact that that he's a great defender, at times a great scorer AND ALSO a solid rebounder that he's a star player.

If Jeff could defend and score like JO he'd be considered the better player, but in other aspects its just not that close. Jeff is a decent defender, but he can't block shots like JO. And on offense it's painfully lopsided in JO's favor.


JO and Jeff were the 2 players that I was entirely satisfied with last season and the 2 starters I'd most like to see return.


Now if we're going to say "Foster is more of a banger" than Murphy then okay - I was pumped up about getting Murphy but I had no idea how unphysical he is.
Now this is an experience we have in common. I never noticed how unphysical Troy was till I saw Jeff playing with him at the same time and crushing him in rebounding. Stuff Troy didn't even sniff were things that Jeff would come from nowhere to take away.

When Jeff is injured you look at his playing style and understand why. Troy getting "beat up" seems virtually impossible given his style. Granted Troy can drop the 3 at a great rate, but to me he's as one dimensional as Jeff, except in a less helpful way (from a big).


To Peck's original point, I've always said that if you could combine Jeff and Troy you'd have an almost great PF.
What, no shot and soft on defense? ;)
I think a 40% 3ball guy who could get you 15-16 per 48 (in 25-30 minutes let's say) would border on AS, at least if he was putting up 12-14 points with that shooting. Of course the Pacers couldn't afford to keep a player like that, he'd make a lot more than Foster does at least.

Since86
06-08-2007, 01:50 PM
Every basket adds to the final score and a basket scored in the first quarter counts as much as one scored in the last minute or second of a game, take away the points from the first quarter shot and the last second shot is meaningless. Truth is you need the early score to make it possible for the game to be decided by a last second shot, without one the other isn't possible.

You have morphed your oringinal proposition, that all rebounds aren't equal, into the merits of a clutch shooter or shot, not the same IMO.

You can't say, "Oh if he hit that 3 in the 2nd qtr that would have given us 3 more points, and we only only lost by 2, so we would have won."

It doesn't work that way. When the situation changes, variables, so does everything else. There isn't a predetermined path about games. Change one thing, and everything following changes, not just adding or subtracting those points/rebound.

Every shot isn't as important as it's counterpart, every rebound isn't as important either. Further along in a game you go, and the closer the game is, the more important they become.

Scenerio: Shooting a 3 in the 1st quarter with 10secs left on the shot clock or shooting one in the 4th of a tight game, which would you rather see? You have a lost more time to adjust to a missed/made shot, or missed opportunity to get a rebound, from the first than you do in the 4th.

An offensive rebound down by 1 in the first qtr isn't as important as an offensive rebound down by 1 with 10secs to go in the game. It's just not.

And also, I don't think I have morphed. You said every rebound, shot, steal, or whatever is just as "clutch" no matter what part of the game it takes place.

Elgin56
06-08-2007, 04:28 PM
You can't say, "Oh if he hit that 3 in the 2nd qtr that would have given us 3 more points, and we only only lost by 2, so we would have won."

It doesn't work that way. When the situation changes, variables, so does everything else. There isn't a predetermined path about games. Change one thing, and everything following changes, not just adding or subtracting those points/rebound.

Every shot isn't as important as it's counterpart, every rebound isn't as important either. Further along in a game you go, and the closer the game is, the more important they become.

Scenerio: Shooting a 3 in the 1st quarter with 10secs left on the shot clock or shooting one in the 4th of a tight game, which would you rather see? You have a lost more time to adjust to a missed/made shot, or missed opportunity to get a rebound, from the first than you do in the 4th.

An offensive rebound down by 1 in the first qtr isn't as important as an offensive rebound down by 1 with 10secs to go in the game. It's just not.

And also, I don't think I have morphed. You said every rebound, shot, steal, or whatever is just as "clutch" no matter what part of the game it takes place.


Every shot isn't as important as it's counterpart, every rebound isn't as important either. Further along in a game you go, and the closer the game is, the more important they become.

I know that it has been awhile since I was in school, but the value of two points doesn't change depending on when it was scored. Going by your theory, why do they keep score in the first three quartersof the game, if the points and rebounds don't matter as much?

The bolded part of your post makes no sense at all, sorry not trying to be an a%^^%^s, but your contention that early game shots and rebounds aren't as important as ones later in the game, is just ludicrous. :confused:

Since86
06-08-2007, 04:46 PM
Of course every two points are important, but the pressure/"clutchness" of them aren't equally valued.

Getting an offensive rebound down by 1 with less than 10secs to go, is a lot more important (can change the outcome of the game easier) than getting an offensive rebound during the first quarter.

Yes, you need offensive rebounds in the first, to get you into the position of only being down 1, but you have the opportunity to make up for a missed change so early in the game.

Players are either known as chokers or clutch players by what they do at the end of games, not the other way around. Players, *cough*JO*cough*, are critized all the time because they play well 1-3 but when it counts during the 4th they come up short.

Why? Because the 4th, especially late in the 4th, are known as money situations. They can directly lose or win you a game. There's a reason why a big shot late in the game, or a big rebound/steal, are known as "daggers."

PaceBalls
06-08-2007, 04:59 PM
Every shot isn't as important as it's counterpart, every rebound isn't as important either. Further along in a game you go, and the closer the game is, the more important they become.

I know that it has been awhile since I was in school, but the value of two points doesn't change depending on when it was scored. Going by your theory, why do they keep score in the first three quartersof the game, if the points and rebounds don't matter as much?

The bolded part of your post makes no sense at all, sorry not trying to be an a%^^%^s, but your contention that early game shots and rebounds aren't as important as ones later in the game, is just ludicrous. :confused:

right, 2 points is 2 points and rebound is a rebound.
But there are other factors involved. Such as the psychology of a team that is up by 4 or down by 4 later in the game. Say a team makes a shot they would have missed. That could effect a range of things such as coaching decisions, substitutions, and the emotion of the players... the "run" a team gets on. That factors in to the later stages of the game. So I can kinda see his point in that light.

Elgin56
06-08-2007, 10:17 PM
Of course every two points are important, but the pressure/"clutchness" of them aren't equally valued.

Getting an offensive rebound down by 1 with less than 10secs to go, is a lot more important (can change the outcome of the game easier) than getting an offensive rebound during the first quarter.

Yes, you need offensive rebounds in the first, to get you into the position of only being down 1, but you have the opportunity to make up for a missed change so early in the game.

Players are either known as chokers or clutch players by what they do at the end of games, not the other way around. Players, *cough*JO*cough*, are critized all the time because they play well 1-3 but when it counts during the 4th they come up short.

Why? Because the 4th, especially late in the 4th, are known as money situations. They can directly lose or win you a game. There's a reason why a big shot late in the game, or a big rebound/steal, are known as "daggers."

I understand what you are saying about clutch shots and rebounds, however you are wrong in your contention that rebounds have some sort of scale as to their worth. A rebound in the first quarter that leads to a score is just as important as one in the last few seconds, one can't exist without the other.

Following your logic, why read the first chapters of a book, because they are not as important as the final chapter. If a team gets off to a good start and builds a huge lead in the first three quarters and then loses that lead in the fourth and has to fight in the final seconds to win the game on a clutch shot, without the huge lead, built in the first three quarters, the clutch shot would not have been possible.