PDA

View Full Version : Bird comments on Armstrong and the PG position...



docpaul
07-26-2007, 04:29 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers.html

Q. I am wondering what was wrong with Darrell Armstrong last season in that (backup point guard) role. He was a veteran leader who always made an impact when he was on the floor. He was also a very good long-range shooter which is another area of need. Will Darrell be back next season and if so in what role? (From Jake in Indianapolis)

A. We haven't made that decision as of now. Darrell provided a lot of energy last year and gave us good backup for some short minutes off the bench. We also feel that if Marquis Daniels can stay healthy this year, we'll probably use him at the point for short minutes. We're going to play a different style this year where it really doesn't matter who makes the entry pass to start the offense, it's going to be a lot of players. You might see (Mike) Dunleavy, Marquis, Jamaal (Tinsley), of course, and even (Danny) Granger can get the ball up the court and get us into our offense.

------

Very interesting comments which seem to evolve the role of floor general this year.

underwave
07-26-2007, 04:35 PM
our team has a lot of player with multiple talents. but i don't see what real stregth that has for now. if only o'brien could tie this up.

above all the concers the fans could have, i just wish the best out of pacers.

carpediem024
07-26-2007, 04:37 PM
We're going to play a different style this year




:neutral:

pianoman
07-26-2007, 04:56 PM
It's good to hear that someone like Dunleavy, daniels, or granger will be bringing the ball up the court. Dunleavy did play some pg in GS didn't he?

Cactus Jax
07-26-2007, 05:14 PM
It's good to hear that someone like Dunleavy, daniels, or granger will be bringing the ball up the court. Dunleavy did play some pg in GS didn't he?

Well he cant be worse than Anthony Johnson.

Isaac
07-26-2007, 06:25 PM
carpediem I hope you aren't skeptikal that this team is going to play a different style. Unlike the promises of that last year, we actually have a new coach that will coach the way he always has.

It is hard for me to say what we should or shouldn't do this offseason because I feel like maybe all these guys deserve a shot with a new coach, because personally I think a new coach is a bigger change then a change of 5-9 players like we have had the last couple seasons.

Then if it doesn't work you trade Jermaine at the deadline and rebuild.

BlueNGold
07-26-2007, 06:30 PM
Deja Vu. More comments from Bird that make me very, very concerned....just like last summer the heat is getting to everyone's heads!

This talk of Dunleavy or especially Granger bringing the ball up the court reminds me of the time TPTB thought Al and JO could handle the front court. People seemed to forget over the summer that Al cannot rebound and JO cannot take the pounding. Now, they seem to forget that these guys will be bringing the ball up against a defender, almost always a quicker one. Once again, it will not work.

As you can see from my Avatar, I am a big Granger fan. But ball handling is not one of his strong points. We need a real ball handler to bring the ball up the floor. AJ was not good at that, but he is better than either Dunleavy or Granger.

I guess we'll have to have another conversation later this year or next after this latest idea falls flat on its face.

Eindar
07-26-2007, 11:51 PM
I don't think this one will fall flat on it's face. While Granger bringing the ball up is indeed a stretch, both Daniels and Dunleavy are very good ballhandlers for their height. There was a very, very small stretch last year where Dunleavy and Daniels were the backcourt, and I loved it.

DgR
07-27-2007, 10:20 AM
BlueNgold I totaly agree. Furthermore I dont think it's a good idea spreading the PG position between 5 guys. The PG needs to be leader on the team- he needs to be in control and be familiar with the players. How would a rag-tag offense of "whoever's got the ball- push it forwards" going to acheive that? It sounds to me like a mess.

count55
07-27-2007, 11:01 AM
I think you're forgetting one of the cardinal rules of O'Brien's offense: The 3 Second Rule.

This is not supposed to be Tinsley inbound to Granger, Granger passes back to Tinsley, Tinsley walks the ball up the court like it has been over the last three years. This is supposed to be get the ball, either out of the basket or on a rebound, and go.

Neither Bird nor Obie are envisioning Granger, Dunleavy, Daniels, etal, bringing the ball up against pressure. What the proposal here is that you have multiple options on moving the ball up the floor quickly and starting your offense from multiple places.

Ultimately, if the pace is slowed down by defensive pressure, then bringing up the ball reverts to JT and the other point guards. However, I think Daniels, Granger, and Dunleavy are all capable enough ballhandlers to bring it up against a defense that's backpedaling.

Now, I'm not saying that we're going to spend the year going up and down the court like a ping pong ball. What I am expecting is that we get into our offensive sets quicker..with 3 or 4 seconds more seconds on the shotclock than we've previously experienced. That should allow even the set plays to become more effective as the defense is less set, we have more time to run them properly.

I'm not a huge fan of the O'Brien offense "rain 3's", but I agree with the idea of getting into the offense faster. In this scenario, you're going to need to have those wings helping to move the ballup the floor quickly. Slaving it to a point guard virtually guarantees we'll be playing into the teeth of a set defense.

We'll see what happens, but I think there's a difference between saying the responsibility of bringing up the ball will be spread around, and saying that we're trying to turn Danny & Jr into point guards.

avoidingtheclowns
07-27-2007, 12:39 PM
I think you're forgetting one of the cardinal rules of O'Brien's offense: The 3 Second Rule.

This is not supposed to be Tinsley inbound to Granger, Granger passes back to Tinsley, Tinsley walks the ball up the court like it has been over the last three years. This is supposed to be get the ball, either out of the basket or on a rebound, and go.

Neither Bird nor Obie are envisioning Granger, Dunleavy, Daniels, etal, bringing the ball up against pressure. What the proposal here is that you have multiple options on moving the ball up the floor quickly and starting your offense from multiple places.

bingo

Naptown_Seth
07-27-2007, 02:09 PM
He was also a very good long-range shooter which is another area of need.
Jake's question jumped the shark right there, or maybe he stopped watching after November.


Danny hasn't shown he has strong ball-handling skills yet, but he is supposed to be working on it. Dunleavy on the other hand I have plenty of faith in to bring it up, at least in transition.

RWB
07-27-2007, 02:15 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the O'Brien offense "rain 3's", but I agree with the idea of getting into the offense faster.


Makes sense because I remember reading somewhere Obie preferred the extra time to break down zone defenses.

eldubious
07-27-2007, 02:29 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Armstrong under contract? Will the Pacers buy him out or is he guaranteed to be traded?

diamonddave00
07-27-2007, 02:40 PM
Armstrong had a 3 year contract signed before the trade last season. But only last season was guaranteed years 2 and 3 were team option. If he plays he's due $1,219,590.00 for this season.

If Bird goes ahead and guarantees the contract the Pacers will be within 1/2 mil of the luxury tax. If the let Darrell go they have 1.7 mil to sign someone and stay under the tax, not keeping Andre Owens only guaranteed $ 100,000 if released would give them a 2.3 mil tax free slot.

Naptown_Seth
07-27-2007, 02:54 PM
BTW, they pushed up court into early offense last year, even after the trade. It was one of the things they did the worst. Countless long passes thrown away or rushed shots before any rebounding could get set up. Often the misplay resulted in a transition TO that led to an easy score for the other team.

Combine that with their general low 3pt shooting and I just don't see where JOB's OFFENSIVE plan is going to work better.

The only reason you hope for JOB/Harter to improve the team is at the DEFENSIVE end. Now if they can get Army to stop gambling for steals 3 out of 5 possessions then you've got something.

count55
07-27-2007, 03:10 PM
BTW, they pushed up court into early offense last year, even after the trade. It was one of the things they did the worst. Countless long passes thrown away or rushed shots before any rebounding could get set up. Often the misplay resulted in a transition TO that led to an easy score for the other team.

Combine that with their general low 3pt shooting and I just don't see where JOB's OFFENSIVE plan is going to work better.

The only reason you hope for JOB/Harter to improve the team is at the DEFENSIVE end. Now if they can get Army to stop gambling for steals 3 out of 5 possessions then you've got something.


I completely agree that the biggest plus of the new coaching staff is on the defensive side of the ball, where I expect Dick Harter's team-focused defense to make a significant impact.

However, errors like those noted above are as much a function of understanding and confidence as it is of skill, if not moreso. It will be O'Brien's main job to get the players to be comfortable in the new offense and understand their roles.

Now, I was and still am a Rick Carlisle supporter. However, there's a big difference between how players in a slow-down, set-piece offense deal with what feels like "rushing" the offense, and how players feel & perform when the higher tempo is the norm.

I expect an decent improvement in our offense this year. Will it be a quantum leap? No. Will we average 100 pts? No, probably not. We're not going to be the Showtime Lakers or the Suns. However, we should be clearly better than we showed last year.

BlueNGold
07-27-2007, 06:26 PM
I think you're forgetting one of the cardinal rules of O'Brien's offense: The 3 Second Rule.

This is not supposed to be Tinsley inbound to Granger, Granger passes back to Tinsley, Tinsley walks the ball up the court like it has been over the last three years. This is supposed to be get the ball, either out of the basket or on a rebound, and go.

Neither Bird nor Obie are envisioning Granger, Dunleavy, Daniels, etal, bringing the ball up against pressure. What the proposal here is that you have multiple options on moving the ball up the floor quickly and starting your offense from multiple places.

Ultimately, if the pace is slowed down by defensive pressure, then bringing up the ball reverts to JT and the other point guards. However, I think Daniels, Granger, and Dunleavy are all capable enough ballhandlers to bring it up against a defense that's backpedaling.

Now, I'm not saying that we're going to spend the year going up and down the court like a ping pong ball. What I am expecting is that we get into our offensive sets quicker..with 3 or 4 seconds more seconds on the shotclock than we've previously experienced. That should allow even the set plays to become more effective as the defense is less set, we have more time to run them properly.

I'm not a huge fan of the O'Brien offense "rain 3's", but I agree with the idea of getting into the offense faster. In this scenario, you're going to need to have those wings helping to move the ballup the floor quickly. Slaving it to a point guard virtually guarantees we'll be playing into the teeth of a set defense.

We'll see what happens, but I think there's a difference between saying the responsibility of bringing up the ball will be spread around, and saying that we're trying to turn Danny & Jr into point guards.

I see massive turnovers headed our way if that is the plan. Wild cross court passes getting picked off or thrown out of bounds. Dunleavy or Granger getting trapped and turning it over. Even Daniels is hardly proven at PG. Amazingly, this makes me want to give the ball to Tinsley.

At least there's a backup plan this time. Tinsley will find he has very good job security later this year if he's not traded or injured by that time.

Hicks
07-27-2007, 07:19 PM
I don't believe the 3 second rule is about PASSING IT over the half-court line, just hauling *** over it, while someone dribbles it up.

spreedom
07-27-2007, 08:27 PM
If we need PG help so badly, why not give Dee Brown a look?

BlueNGold
07-27-2007, 08:44 PM
I don't believe the 3 second rule is about PASSING IT over the half-court line, just hauling *** over it, while someone dribbles it up.

It's not nearly that easy IMO. They will trap players like MDJ and Granger and force bad passes or steal the ball. At best, it will be painful to watch....and that's assuming they find some way to avoid turning it over. I suspect the only hauling *** we will see is when the other team runs it back for a dunk after a turnover.

I don't mind unconventional if it makes sense. This simply does not make any sense at all. Just like last year, these almost unbelievable plans will fail. I truly hope this is not really the plan....

Give me Jason Kidd, Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, Deron Williams, Kirk Hinrich, Chris Paul or Steve Nash. Why can't we get a PG like that?

DgR
07-27-2007, 09:00 PM
It's not nearly that easy IMO. They will trap players like MDJ and Granger and force bad passes or steal the ball. At best, it will be painful to watch....and that's assuming they find some way to avoid turning it over. I suspect the only hauling *** we will see is when the other team runs it back for a dunk after a turnover.

I don't mind unconventional if it makes sense. This simply does not make any sense at all. Just like last year, these almost unbelievable plans will fail. I truly hope this is not really the plan....

Give me Jason Kidd, Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, Deron Williams, Kirk Hinrich, Chris Paul or Steve Nash. Why can't we get a PG like that?

I agree except for the last line- why would we want any of those chumps when we have Diener? you sir, baffle me.;)

BlueNGold
07-27-2007, 09:29 PM
I agree except for the last line- why would we want any of those chumps when we have Diener? you sir, baffle me.;)

I know getting one of those studs is the exception...but it's not really that rare in the league. We should be able to get one of these guys' brothers at least. ;)

Seriously though, I am having great difficulty understanding some of the ideas coming out of the front office...or wherever they came from...

Haggard
07-27-2007, 10:54 PM
i think Bird is trying to say that the Pacers are going to try to play a team offence this season. Instead of having a 'point guard' setting the offence up you will probably see wing players feeding the ball into the post or to cutters and that is what I think he means when he says 'doesn't matter who makes the entry pass to start the offense' and 'get the ball up the court and get us into our offense'.

Basically its 'As long as we get the ball up the court so we can run our offence.'

but then again Larry's words could mean anything.

dohman
07-29-2007, 07:24 PM
If we need PG help so badly, why not give Dee Brown a look?

I wish we would. He was a heck of a player for the illini

Naptown_Seth
07-31-2007, 03:42 AM
However, there's a big difference between how players in a slow-down, set-piece offense deal with what feels like "rushing" the offense, and how players feel & perform when the higher tempo is the norm.

I expect an decent improvement in our offense this year. Will it be a quantum leap? No. Will we average 100 pts? No, probably not. We're not going to be the Showtime Lakers or the Suns. However, we should be clearly better than we showed last year.
True

And I can't imagine them being worse than those final few months. ;)