PDA

View Full Version : Jack or Mike



vali_31
07-28-2007, 04:15 PM
Right now given the situation of the team and taking into account factors like On court performance, Off court behavior, Salary Etc... who would you rather have:

Unclebuck
07-28-2007, 04:17 PM
Oh my

rexnom
07-28-2007, 04:19 PM
Jack...considering that we have eighty-five or so SFs and no starter-quality perimeter defenders or SGs...now let the debates begin...

Despite this, I really, really like Mike. If we had a quality SG and didn't have Granger, I would love Mike at the 2. Also, if Mike comes back magically with a jumpshot...

ABADays
07-28-2007, 04:19 PM
I wouldn't want Jackson back if he was the 2006 MVP.

rexnom
07-28-2007, 04:20 PM
Oh my
This should be a fun debate, shouldn't it? Maybe we should just have the admins close the thread and get it over with.

vali_31
07-28-2007, 04:33 PM
Please believe me my intentions by doing this have nothing to do with stirring up the pot. I did this because I wanted to know what the consensus around PD was regarding these two players. I thought we could have an interesting discussion without having people calling eachother biased or anything... Just to know eachothers opinions.

Howevers If the admins feel this could get ugly They should close it.

Kegboy
07-28-2007, 04:36 PM
Considering, as bad as he is, Dun's still a better shooter, that's easy.

Trader Joe
07-28-2007, 04:40 PM
I'm not touching this.

I'll just say on court Jack.

Off court Dun.

Can we merge them together.

Pacersin2033
07-28-2007, 04:44 PM
Jack simply because of his contract and he fills a bit of a need, although other issues make it a close call.

Y2J
07-28-2007, 04:59 PM
I'll take Wacko Jacko due to the fact that we need to rebuild and his contract is shorter. I think they're about equal overall talents.

OnlyPacersLeft
07-28-2007, 05:05 PM
i'll take jackson over dunleavys milk drinking @$$ any day! he's so soft and crumbles under pressure. If he had a wide open layup to win the NBA finals he'd BLOW IT...jackson was the man in the clutch. I'd take jackson over dunleavy anyday...well hey hate to say this but the "Charechter guys" arent always the guys with the most talent.

Kstat
07-28-2007, 05:20 PM
Jack...not a big fan of hard lemonade.

BlueNGold
07-28-2007, 05:26 PM
I'd have to say I'm tired of the drama, head cases and high maintenance players, so I'm going with MDJ. Clearly not as talented as Jack, but neither are that great. No player...even two...of Jack's calibre make this team a contender.

Quis and Granger are just about as good right now anyway. Williams might be soon. All generally keep their traps shut just like MDJ and get to work.

We do need a player with some fire now, though. A real leader at PG would be just the ticket for this team.

GrangerRanger
07-28-2007, 05:30 PM
Mikey. All the way.

speakout4
07-28-2007, 05:50 PM
Where is the neither box?

FlavaDave
07-28-2007, 06:02 PM
This is like Sophie's choice, except the opposite because I don't want either.

DgR
07-28-2007, 06:02 PM
Jack because we need scoring- his shot is inconsistent- but at times he can take over a game+ he's clutch+ he's a better defender. Dun is consistant- but he's consistently worse than Jack.

BTW I do like Dun and have no problem with him being on the team- and I do think he'll be considerably better next year- but up till now he was a liability on defence and not exactly stellar on offense.

Infinite MAN_force
07-28-2007, 06:12 PM
uhhh... Rush?

Course we dont really know how he will pan out, but im up for trying something different at SG.

for the record, Dunleavy is the ideal backup 3. He could even start if we didnt have Granger and had better pieces around him. His contract bothers me, however.

Good riddens to Stephan Jackson in any event.

ajbry
07-28-2007, 07:13 PM
29-9. The disjoint of this fanbase continues to astonish me.

I'll take the dude who's at least one tier above the other. The same one who is a much more prolific scorer. The one who is a very good defender. The one who teammates love to play with. The one who plays with emotion. The one who is clutch as hell.

And that guy is Stephen Mother****ing Jackson.

BlueNGold
07-28-2007, 07:26 PM
Stephen Mother****ing Jackson.

You got that right.

rexnom
07-28-2007, 07:34 PM
It doesn't strike anyone as odd that Golden State felt perfectly OK in trading J-Rich? To anyone here, it would seem as if they have a gap at SG. Not to them, of course. I think Jack is the fan's nightmare (unless you like passion, heart, and guts of course) but a player's dream. He seems to have a good work ethic and everyone he plays with loves the guy.

I am so happy for Jack...so glad that he found a home. He has blossomed into their second-best offensive threat and best defensive player. I don't think he could ever really fit here, which is SO unfortunate because, as a player, like him or not, he is exactly what Jim O'Brien would LOVE right now at the 2 guard spot.

denyfizle
07-28-2007, 07:39 PM
I'm not a fan of DunDun, but I'd take him any day over Jack. Jack is high risk low reward type of player. He will make you happy on 3 or 5 plays but will make you want to pull your hair out for about 10-15.

BlueNGold
07-28-2007, 08:13 PM
It doesn't strike anyone as odd that Golden State felt perfectly OK in trading J-Rich? To anyone here, it would seem as if they have a gap at SG. Not to them, of course. I think Jack is the fan's nightmare (unless you like passion, heart, and guts of course) but a player's dream. He seems to have a good work ethic and everyone he plays with loves the guy.

I am so happy for Jack...so glad that he found a home. He has blossomed into their second-best offensive threat and best defensive player. I don't think he could ever really fit here, which is SO unfortunate because, as a player, like him or not, he is exactly what Jim O'Brien would LOVE right now at the 2 guard spot.

J-Rich is a liability on defense...so that might be it. They needed to improve in that area and they did when they got Jack.

As for Jack, it's not his passion, heart and guts that is the problem. The truth is, Jack is STILL a nightmare to many fans who value passion, heart and guts very highly.

The difference here is, those same fans ALSO value an additional facter.....character. A minority of fans on this board, as you can see from the poll numbers, don't give a rat's a$$ about character.

There is nothing that is going to bring our views together on that it seems.

Kstat
07-28-2007, 08:15 PM
It doesn't strike anyone as odd that Golden State felt perfectly OK in trading J-Rich? To anyone here, it would seem as if they have a gap at SG.

Um, Marco Belinelli...

DisplacedKnick
07-28-2007, 08:26 PM
One's a criminal.

One isn't.

Easy choice for me anyway.

I could expand on that, talk about behavior destructive to a team, etc. but it pretty much boils down to the above.

Moses
07-28-2007, 08:30 PM
In before ajbry's Jack love fest.

ajbry
07-28-2007, 08:30 PM
The character angle is so damn tedious and boring, y'all ain't got anything else?

Jason Richardson: “I’ve known him for years. He’s a good-hearted guy, always smiling and joking. He brings a lot of team chemistry... He’s the type of guy that keeps everything together. People just look at the off-court things that happen, and they don’t know the person he is. Steve’s a great person.”

Marcus Thompson of the Contra Costa Times: “He takes the younger players under his wing, taking them shopping, dispensing advice, lending an ear. What’s more, he does the little things that are unbecoming of a millionaire thug. He looks people in the eye when they talk to him, as if he cares about what they’re saying. He frequently doles out handshakes, half-hugs and, to women, pecks on the cheek. He returns phone calls. He mends fences, lifts spirits, makes others feel special.”

Baron Davis: "He is the leader of this team and if you ask anyone on this team, he is the heart and soul of this team."

BlueNGold
07-28-2007, 08:44 PM
The character angle is so damn tedious and boring, y'all ain't got anything else?

Jason Richardson: “I’ve known him for years. He’s a good-hearted guy, always smiling and joking. He brings a lot of team chemistry... He’s the type of guy that keeps everything together. People just look at the off-court things that happen, and they don’t know the person he is. Steve’s a great person.”

Marcus Thompson of the Contra Costa Times: “He takes the younger players under his wing, taking them shopping, dispensing advice, lending an ear. What’s more, he does the little things that are unbecoming of a millionaire thug. He looks people in the eye when they talk to him, as if he cares about what they’re saying. He frequently doles out handshakes, half-hugs and, to women, pecks on the cheek. He returns phone calls. He mends fences, lifts spirits, makes others feel special.”

Baron Davis: "He is the leader of this team and if you ask anyone on this team, he is the heart and soul of this team."

One of the nicest guys I ever met manufactured LSD in his bathtub and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. No, he wasn't nice just because he was selling. It was because he had some genuine positive qualities of caring for other people. But he also had a serious problems making the wrong choices.

Wrong choices are also Stephen's problem. That does not make him a monster. It does make him a liability...and not just at the ticket counter.

JB's Breakout Year
07-28-2007, 08:46 PM
Dunleavy is the first guy I'd want traded from our current roster, but I'd still take him over Jackson.

What gets lost in all of Jackson's extracurricular stuff is that he is a very mediocre player. He's a turnover machine and a streaky shooter. Dunleavy's not a good shooter either, but at least you don't have to put up with all of the other crap.

ajbry
07-28-2007, 09:15 PM
What gets lost in all of Jackson's extracurricular stuff is that he is a very mediocre player.

Please expand on this. I'd love it.

rexnom
07-28-2007, 09:17 PM
Please expand on this. I'd love it.
I don't even know why you even try. Let's just be happy for Jack. He's found a good place. I'm just sad that Indy missed out on him by making him the scapegoat.

Elgin56
07-28-2007, 09:32 PM
I see not much has changed in my absence.

Move on, Dun is here and Jack is not, so why debate something that has no meaning to what the Pacers are now.

eldubious
07-28-2007, 10:14 PM
I like Dun as a back-up, he's versatile and skilled. If he ever finds his shot, he'll be an all-star. Now, if the question was Jackson or Murphy, I'll take Jackson in a heartbeat, just because of the huge waste that Murphy has turned out to be.

rexnom
07-28-2007, 10:27 PM
I like Dun as a back-up, he's versatile and skilled. If he ever finds his shot, he'll be an all-star. Now, if the question was Jackson or Murphy, I'll take Jackson in a heartbeat, just because of the huge waste that Murphy has turned out to be.
If we were starting this team from the beginning, I might take Mike to begin with. I really like his game. Unfortunately we have two guys at his position that are supposedly "our future" and plenty of guys who can't shoot or can't defend well.

Unclebuck
07-28-2007, 11:27 PM
I see this debate about as noteworthy as if we had a debate: Artest or Peja who would you rather have right now.

GrangerRanger
07-28-2007, 11:36 PM
Your avatar scares me..

And Mike is really considered our future?

rexnom
07-28-2007, 11:39 PM
Your avatar scares me..

And Mike is really considered our future?
I don't know if that was directed at me but I was referring to Williams and Granger.

Tom White
07-28-2007, 11:59 PM
29-9. The disjoint of this fanbase continues to astonish me.

I'll take the dude who's at least one tier above the other. The same one who is a much more prolific scorer. The one who is a very good defender. The one who teammates love to play with. The one who plays with emotion. The one who is clutch as hell.

And that guy is Stephen Mother****ing Jackson.

So, then also - The one that is still facing court dates? The one who is suspended by the league for the first seven games of next season?

Clutch? Are you kidding me? Unless clutch is getting techs in the playoffs, and thereby costing your team.

What a moron.

As for the "disjoint" of this fan base - I think you need to consider who is really "disjointed".

RamBo_Lamar
07-29-2007, 07:23 AM
Dun...that's an easy choice.

While maybe not as good of a shooter, has a more diverse skillset.

And he doesn't seem to be the type that thinks it's perfectly ok to cuss out
his coach whenever he feels like.

Jack made significant contributions toward the Pacers being perceived as a
group of thugs, and this ****ed off alot of the fanbase.

He had to go, and I am glad he's gone once and for all.

It's just too bad he didn't take some of his groupies along with him.

Unclebuck
07-29-2007, 08:19 AM
I truly believe that Dunleavy is a better player than Jackson. And that is when I take everything both have to offer and everything that both bring with them. On court, off court all the stuff, Dunleavy is a better player

Roaming Gnome
07-29-2007, 09:11 AM
As rexnom mentioned....I'm just happy that Jack is on a team where he can get a fresh start and be loved and appreciated, but I'm even happier that he isn't with this team anymore because there was no way that this fan base would have accepted him no matter how much he would have tried to clean up his act/image.

As for who I'd rather have as a player on this team....I'm easily going to say Dunleavy. Character matters to me and I don't think dunleavy played that poorly as a Pacer last season.

Tom White
07-29-2007, 10:21 AM
It's just too bad he didn't take some of his groupies along with him.

Isn't that the truth.

I think a couple of our members should transfer to warriorsworld.net, they might be surprised to see how many of the GSW fans want to trade Jackson already.

JayRedd
07-29-2007, 01:03 PM
Stephen Jackson is the better player.

Mike Dunleavy Jr. is the better player to be on Indiana Pacers roster.

naptownmenace
07-29-2007, 03:11 PM
This was a very tough choice for me because I actually like both players. I didn't really want Jack to be traded but I was able to see MDJ as a decent player - good when he's agressive offensively.

I guess I'd prefer having the guy that is the best player on the both sides of the court. Seeing how Jack has the ability to shut down Dirk in 4 games in the playoffs and Mike hasn't shut anyone down his entire career made the decision a lot easier for me.

When Jack is focused, he is an All-Star caliber player. The jury is still out on MDJ (but he has the potential).

Y2J
07-29-2007, 03:32 PM
Please expand on this. I'd love it.


Inefficient scorer (lousy fg%, sub-par 3%, low number of free throw attempts)
Horrible rebounder
Turnover prone
Average defender
Poor on-court attitude (argues too much with the officials, lets the fans get to him, too many techs)


Add it all up and he really is quite mediocre. He has some good qualities, but the negative outweighs the positive.

BlueNGold
07-29-2007, 03:48 PM
When Jack is focused, he is an All-Star caliber player. The jury is still out on MDJ (but he has the potential).

All-star? That's like the flip side of the guy who said he was mediocre.

He's neither mediocre or all-star calibre. He's an average starting SG in the league IMO...which is not bad at all...but that's not all-star calibre. Also, he's focused enough of the time while on the court to measure his worth.

Now, if you took his good games and you doubled them in number, you might be right. But the truth is, he's far too inconsistent to be considered one of the best 2 or 3 SG's in the east. Not when you have Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Dwayne Wade, Rip Hamilton, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen and Michael Redd in the way.

ajbry
07-29-2007, 05:33 PM
Isn't that the truth.

I think a couple of our members should transfer to warriorsworld.net, they might be surprised to see how many of the GSW fans want to trade Jackson already.

What are you smoking? Don't pass the **** over here. Jack is EASILY the 2nd or 3rd (behind Baron and sometimes Biedrins) favorite Warrior in the eyes of Golden State fans. Trust me, I know a hell of a lot more about their fanbase than you will. Don't try and pass your disillusioned little wishes on us and devalue a fan favorite in Oakland. And don't call me a moron, you ain't never going to know me nor would I give you the privilege and honor of doing so.

Y2J, your argument is always the same. Do you have it saved in a Word document and copy and paste it every time there's a PD discussion about Jack ? Pertaining to that, for someone who isn't very good and hated by the fanbase, this place LOVES to talk about Stephen Jackson. I wonder why.


Inefficient scorer? How does 20 PPG in the playoffs sound? How does two straight seasons of being a top-25 scorer sound? Modern-day swingmen do not shoot a high percentage, you have to realize it's not some bizarre anomaly where he's the only shooting guard or small forward who's shot selection could be improved.
Horrible rebounder? Seriously, who cares? Dude played the 2-guard in Indiana. Make sure to let me know the next time Dunleavy's 2 extra rebounds singlehandedly win a game.
Turnover prone? He's 6'8 (a scrub like Diogu could never dream of some of Jack's dimes) and his passing abilities were on display in the playoffs. Anyone knows that his turnovers are usually a result of careless play and are inexcusable, like when he's doing a jab-step and a defender with quick hands pokes it away. I don't defend that. But for all his mistakes, he comes up with some real nice plays in regards to distributing the ball as well.
Average defender? Dude, did you watch the playoffs? Or are you just in denial?
Poor on-court attitude? Agreed. Don Nelson said the only person who can stop him is himself. Which would also mean he's pretty much an All-Star caliber player... Hmm.


Man I am so weary of these fake *** discussions where I'm the only consistent advocate against a gang of delusional Jack detractors. We all know the dude has flaws, but to constantly undermine his accomplishments and insult him by comparing him to Mike Dunleavy, Jr. is insane.

rexnom
07-29-2007, 05:40 PM
What are you smoking? Don't pass the **** over here. Jack is EASILY the 2nd or 3rd (behind Baron and sometimes Biedrins) favorite Warrior in the eyes of Golden State fans. Trust me, I know a hell of a lot more about their fanbase than you will. Don't try and pass your disillusioned little wishes on us and devalue a fan favorite in Oakland. And don't call me a moron, you ain't never going to know me nor would I give you the privilege and honor of doing so.

Y2J, your argument is always the same. Do you have it saved in a Word document and copy and paste it every time there's a PD discussion about Jack ? Pertaining to that, for someone who isn't very good and hated by the fanbase, this place LOVES to talk about Stephen Jackson. I wonder why.

Inefficient scorer? How does 20 PPG in the playoffs sound? How does two straight seasons of being a top-25 scorer sound? Modern-day swingmen do not shoot a high percentage, you have to realize it's not some bizarre anomaly where he's the only shooting guard or small forward who's shot selection could be improved.
Horrible rebounder? Seriously, who cares? Dude played the 2-guard in Indiana. Make sure to let me know the next time Dunleavy's 2 extra rebounds singlehandedly win a game.
Turnover prone? He's 6'8 (a scrub like Diogu could never dream of some of Jack's dimes) and his passing abilities were on display in the playoffs. Anyone knows that his turnovers are usually a result of careless play and are inexcusable, like when he's doing a jab-step and a defender with quick hands pokes it away. I don't defend that. But for all his mistakes, he comes up with some real nice plays in regards to distributing the ball as well.
Average defender? Dude, did you watch the playoffs? Or are you just in denial?
Poor on-court attitude? Agreed. Don Nelson said the only person who can stop him is himself. Which would also mean he's pretty much an All-Star caliber player... Hmm.
Man I am so weary of these fake *** discussions where I'm the only consistent advocate against a gang of delusional Jack detractors. We all know the dude has flaws, but to constantly undermine his accomplishments and insult him by comparing him to Mike Dunleavy, Jr. is insane.
I'm with you, I really am...but to me, it's not even worth it anymore. It's why I try to stay away from debates with ultra-conservatives. It's just meaningless. You don't get anything from this debate. Just let it die, man. Jack is happy. GS is happy. Indy has a serious hole at SG. People change, let's move on.

AesopRockOn
07-29-2007, 05:52 PM
Yeah, seriously, this debate needs to die. Both sides are :deadhorse to no avail. Anyone's opinions or points seem irrelevant. Just walk away.

FlavaDave
07-29-2007, 06:12 PM
He's neither mediocre or all-star calibre. He's an average starting SG in the league

English


Adjective

mediocre
Ordinary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ordinary): not extraordinary; not special (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/special), exceptional (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exceptional), or great (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/great); of medium (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medium) quality;
ETYMOLOGY:
French <tt>médiocre</tt>, from Latin <tt>mediocris</tt> : <tt>medius</tt>, middle



That's a very commonly misunderstood word, but that's the point people are making. He's just average, so who cares?

BlueNGold
07-29-2007, 06:17 PM
English


Adjective

mediocre

Ordinary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ordinary): not extraordinary; not special (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/special), exceptional (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exceptional), or great (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/great); of medium (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/medium) quality;
ETYMOLOGY:
French <TT>médiocre</TT>, from Latin <TT>mediocris</TT> : <TT>medius</TT>, middle

You forget about the players sitting on the bench.

Jack is an above average SG in the NBA since he is an average starter. That makes him a good SG....NOT mediocre. But he's still not an all-star. As soon as he makes the all-star team, let me know.

JayRedd
07-29-2007, 06:21 PM
He's certainly special.

Big Smooth
07-29-2007, 09:27 PM
Yeah, seriously, this debate needs to die. Both sides are :deadhorse to no avail. Anyone's opinions or points seem irrelevant. Just walk away.

I think it's time for a poll on AD vs DD! AMIRITE? :D

LG33
07-29-2007, 09:50 PM
Let me just say this. I'm okay with Michael Dunleavy and Stephen Jackson. But not Michael Jackson.

ChicagoJ
07-30-2007, 10:19 AM
Inefficient scorer (lousy fg%, sub-par 3%, low number of free throw attempts)
Horrible rebounder
Turnover prone
Average defender
Poor on-court attitude (argues too much with the officials, lets the fans get to him, too many techs)
Add it all up and he really is quite mediocre. He has some good qualities, but the negative outweighs the positive.

I'm really, really scared to say this,

but I agree with Y2J 100%.

That's right on. I don't need to add anything. Except that he argues too much with teammates and coaches, as well.

Tom White
07-30-2007, 10:27 AM
And don't call me a moron, you ain't never going to know me nor would I give you the privilege and honor of doing so.

I was speaking of Jackson.



Man I am so weary of these fake *** discussions where I'm the only consistent advocate against a gang of delusional Jack detractors.

Thus my comment about who may be "disjointed". If you hate all of us "delusional" types, why keep coming back for more?

ChicagoJ
07-30-2007, 10:35 AM
Inefficient scorer? How does 20 PPG in the playoffs sound?

It sounds like he got on the right side of one his short "can't miss" streaks. Had Warriors lasted much longer in the playoffs, he would've shown back-to-back-to-back 3-19, 1-13 and 4-17 games.


How does two straight seasons of being a top-25 scorer sound? WTF? #25 in scoring was Baron Davis at 20ppg. SJax was #68. Try again.


Modern-day swingmen do not shoot a high percentage, you have to realize it's not some bizarre anomaly where he's the only shooting guard or small forward who's shot selection could be improved.

Disagree. He's the poster child for "taking shots he shouldn't because he once got luck and hit it three times in a row."


Horrible rebounder? Seriously, who cares? Dude played the 2-guard in Indiana. Make sure to let me know the next time Dunleavy's 2 extra rebounds singlehandedly win a game.

You don't watch many games, do you?


Turnover prone? He's 6'8 (a scrub like Diogu could never dream of some of Jack's dimes) and his passing abilities were on display in the playoffs. Anyone knows that his turnovers are usually a result of careless play and are inexcusable, like when he's doing a jab-step and a defender with quick hands pokes it away. I don't defend that.

Right, we all agree he's a turnover machine.


Average defender? Dude, did you watch the playoffs? Or are you just in denial?

So in Nellie's gimmick defense, SJax proved capable of defending a highly acclaimed power forward. What really happened was that Nellie utterly outcoached Avery Johnson - the student had no *adjustment* for the master. Everybody knows a seven-game series is all about adjustments, and Avery Johnson was exposed a young, one-trick pony. Especially on offense where he's still largely relying on the system Nellie installed but without Nellie's genious to go along with it.

SJax is average when he's defending players his size on the wing. (That's assuming he's gotten downcourt and isn't yapping at his coaches, teammates, or referrees. When that happens, and that is quite often, he's an inadequate defender.


Poor on-court attitude? Agreed. Don Nelson said the only person who can stop him is himself. Which would also mean he's pretty much an All-Star caliber player... Hmm.

And Nellie was saying that because quite often, SJax does stop himself. But not only himself, his whole team. There have been many times SJax appears to help his opponents more than he helps his own team.


Man I am so weary of these fake *** discussions where I'm the only consistent advocate against a gang of delusional Jack detractors. We all know the dude has flaws, but to constantly undermine his accomplishments and insult him by comparing him to Mike Dunleavy, Jr. is insane.

Sorry, but you should notice that you're the only one defending him against well-reasoned, but passionate responses. If there is anyone that is delusional, its, uh...

And you keep coming back for more, so we'll keep giving it to you, I guess. I figure you must enjoy it. The man was Public Enemy #1 because he brought it on himself. And considering, this was the town/ franchise that Ron Artest destroyed, it was quite an accomplishment to become Public Enemy #1.

-------------------------------------------

In team basketball, MDJr > SJax. Period.

If the league sponsors a 1-on-1 tourney, you might get some of the people here that voted for Dunleavy to switch to Jackson. I wouldn't - I'd switch to somebody else because neither player would last very long in that tournament, either.

But lastly, I'd hate to watch those two get into a game of M-I-S-S-I-S-S-P-P-I. It would last for months. Or a match of "around the world."

Elgin56
07-30-2007, 11:21 AM
It sounds like he got on the right side of one his short "can't miss" streaks. Had Warriors lasted much longer in the playoffs, he would've shown back-to-back-to-back 3-19, 1-13 and 4-17 games.

WTF? #25 in scoring was Baron Davis at 20ppg. SJax was #68. Try again.



Disagree. He's the poster child for "taking shots he shouldn't because he once got luck and hit it three times in a row."



You don't watch many games, do you?



Right, we all agree he's a turnover machine.



So in Nellie's gimmick defense, SJax proved capable of defending a highly acclaimed power forward. What really happened was that Nellie utterly outcoached Avery Johnson - the student had no *adjustment* for the master. Everybody knows a seven-game series is all about adjustments, and Avery Johnson was exposed a young, one-trick pony. Especially on offense where he's still largely relying on the system Nellie installed but without Nellie's genious to go along with it.

SJax is average when he's defending players his size on the wing. (That's assuming he's gotten downcourt and isn't yapping at his coaches, teammates, or referrees. When that happens, and that is quite often, he's an inadequate defender.



And Nellie was saying that because quite often, SJax does stop himself. But not only himself, his whole team. There have been many times SJax appears to help his opponents more than he helps his own team.



Sorry, but you should notice that you're the only one defending him against well-reasoned, but passionate responses. If there is anyone that is delusional, its, uh...

And you keep coming back for more, so we'll keep giving it to you, I guess. I figure you must enjoy it. The man was Public Enemy #1 because he brought it on himself. And considering, this was the town/ franchise that Ron Artest destroyed, it was quite an accomplishment to become Public Enemy #1.

-------------------------------------------

In team basketball, MDJr > SJax. Period.

If the league sponsors a 1-on-1 tourney, you might get some of the people here that voted for Dunleavy to switch to Jackson. I wouldn't - I'd switch to somebody else because neither player would last very long in that tournament, either.

But lastly, I'd hate to watch those two get into a game of M-I-S-S-I-S-S-P-P-I. It would last for months. Or a match of "around the world."


Damn, tha's some good stuff there, I'm telling you!

Slick Pinkham
07-30-2007, 11:31 AM
I prefer having mild indigestion to having a tumor.

Jay said everything else better than I ever could. I think that this worn-out subject should be permanently retired.

Naptown_Seth
07-30-2007, 12:11 PM
Considering, as bad as he is, Dun's still a better shooter, that's easy.
You did see the 3pt numbers with the Pacers, right? Jack was at least at 30%, and would have been closer to his typical blah 34% were it not for that first few weeks post-car encounter shooting (he was 25% in NOV, 34 and 38 the next 2 months).

Dun on the other hand had a great NOV in GS and then that was the end of that. In April with the Pacers he shot....16% from 3. ONE-SIX. This after going 30 and 31 in the previous 2 months from deep.

And if you were tired of Jack's low 30s shooting last year imagine the GS fans who watched Dunleavy shoot SUB 30 FOUR STRAIGHT MONTHS from 3, with 3 of those months being sub 25%. Picture Jack shooting 10% lower than he ever did with the Pacers, 10% lower than what fans already hated. (and this was 2.5-3 per game, not 1 shot every few nights)



The debate is pointless since it's a done deal, but the terms should be pretty well-defined by now.

Jack
Better outside shot
Better defender
Better finisher at rim
More natural at the SG spot
Cheaper contract

Dun
Better inside jumper
Better rebounder
Character
Less TO prone
Better points per shot guy (due to 2pt%, FTA and FT% are even)

Passing was a dead heat, though for some reason there are those at PD that picture Dun as nearly a PG and Jack as a massive ball hog. A/TO ratio was 1.4 for both guys, Jack had more assists but also more TOs.


I'm all for people that prefer Dun based on the list above, but I'm sick of hearing people that prefer him (or Jack for that matter) based on a fabricated reality of what either player actually produced on the court. Character is key, fine, but don't like Dun because he hands out 4 more assists per game or shoots the 3 better because the fact is that he doesn't.



Kegboy, I assume your point was in total FG% (ie, 2P%), which as I say is true and fine with me if that's why you prefer him. I think nearly 90% of the board has gone with character and often enhances the other aspects in order to justify that stance, thus my rant.

Naptown_Seth
07-30-2007, 12:34 PM
And considering, this was the town/ franchise that Ron Artest destroyed, it was quite an accomplishment to become Public Enemy #1.
:bs:

All you have to do is still be on the team. Right now Danny Granger is in line to be hated and run out on a rail, right after the pitchfork and torch crowd get done running out Tinsley-JO-Bird-Murph-Foster-Dun-Harrison-Quis....

There's a set heirarchy of blame that fans latch on to, but NO PLAYER is above being the next fall guy, he just moves up the PE#1 list when a guy above him is moved. To me at least 50% of the fanbase is totally irrational and runs from reason to reason like a madman trying to chase down blame.


It's Al - the baby wanted to start so we fixed him good by sending him to ATL (later we really, really want him back, his fanjam and opening night fan responses prove this)

It's Ron - Ron goes, things don't get better

It's Saras

It's AJ - and Jay, you were leading the mob against him in fact (don't worry, I've been in some mobs myself it seems)

It's Bender and AC's contracts - things don't get better, TPTB actually end up getting some new bloated deals on the books instead

It's Jackson - Jack goes, things actually get much worse

It's Rick - we'll see what comes next...

That's why fans love Diener. He hasn't been a Pacer long enough for them to hate him. Conseco might as well be renamed Salem Court House at this point.


You know people see me compare Dun and Jackson and think I loved Jack or something. While I did like several parts of his game and liked him as a Pacer in general, especially seeing him tough out injuries when the rest of the roster was out every other day, I don't feel much differently about Dunleavy.

I don't like that he gets more money than Jack did and I hate that he's another SF with no 3pt shot because the team really needs a SG that can hit the bomb, but in general I can support him as a Pacer, he brings as much positive to the team as Jack did. I don't even hate Troy despite his contract and lousy defense. The only thing I hate is seeing people elevate replacements who's output in the NBA has been no better, simply because they haven't been involved with enough Pacers failure yet.

In the end I find myself ripping on a very likeable guy like Army because fans take his squirrel-on-adrenline act as a sign of productivity, ignoring stuff like him chucking really, really poor 3pt selections at a sub-30 rate and gambling so badly on defense that his man ends up in the lane with him at the 3pt line looking back; the same fans that boo'd Jackson for taking poor 3pt shots and getting beat less on defense than Army.

You want to boo Jack's game, fine. Just make sure to boo Army or Dun or whomever for doing the EXACT SAME THING. Is that really too much to ask for? The outrageous EQUAL reaction to on-court production?

ChicagoJ
07-30-2007, 01:00 PM
Wanna know a secret? I don't like Darrell Armstrong at all, and my fingers are crossed that he's not coming back.

I don't like Dun's FG%. But I haven't figured out which shots he shouldn't take.

There's a difference between "all players are subject to criticism" and the unorganized movement of unconnected Pacers fans that all grew to utterly dislike SJax. I never cared for his shot selection or turnovers, but he reached a new stratosphere on November 25, 2005 when I realized just how me-first he was as he threw tantrum after tantrum at his coaches and teammates in that embarassing loss against Atlanta.

(My boy Ron sat out that game after injuring his finger against Cleveland the night before. So silly me, I was expecting to see a happy/ "normal" team enjoy their freedom from the bipolar monster. Instead, the dysfunction was even stronger. :shudder: )

Trader Joe
07-30-2007, 02:26 PM
Wanna know a secret? I don't like Darrell Armstrong at all, and my fingers are crossed that he's not coming back.

I don't like Dun's FG%. But I haven't figured out which shots he shouldn't take.

There's a difference between "all players are subject to criticism" and the unorganized movement of unconnected Pacers fans that all grew to utterly dislike SJax. I never cared for his shot selection or turnovers, but he reached a new stratosphere on November 25, 2005 when I realized just how me-first he was as he threw tantrum after tantrum at his coaches and teammates in that embarassing loss against Atlanta.

(My boy Ron sat out that game after injuring his finger against Cleveland the night before. So silly me, I was expecting to see a happy/ "normal" team enjoy their freedom from the bipolar monster. Instead, the dysfunction was even stronger. :shudder: )

I'll second that feelings on Armstrong. He hurt us more than he helped last season on the whole. His first couple weeks were nice, but after that he was pretty garbage.

ChicagoJ
07-30-2007, 04:18 PM
Continuing down the DA tangent...

DA = bad shot selection, turnovers, then busts his butt with "effort" and sometimes makes up for it (many times does not). Fans think he's a hero and can do no wrong.

SJax = bad shot selection, turnovers, then blames it on the official. Fans think he's an idiot and can do no right.

I dislike both players.

When I see DA, I think of Heywoode Workman. Just enough "acting" added to the "hustle" and the fans fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Please give me guys that can actually play the game without making a bunch of mistakes in the first place.

count55
07-30-2007, 05:27 PM
Continuing down the DA tangent...

DA = bad shot selection, turnovers, then busts his butt with "effort" and sometimes makes up for it (many times does not). Fans think he's a hero and can do no wrong.

SJax = bad shot selection, turnovers, then blames it on the official. Fans think he's an idiot and can do no right.

I dislike both players.

When I see DA, I think of Heywoode Workman. Just enough "acting" added to the "hustle" and the fans fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Please give me guys that can actually play the game without making a bunch of mistakes in the first place.

To take a slightly different angle on the Haywoode Workman thing, I think Haywoode was one of those guys, kinda like Austin, who needed to play a lot of minutes to be effective.

If you used him in short minutes, then all you got was the mistakes. However, he was sort of like the opposite of the law of diminishing returns. The more he played, the more he contributed.

Now, I certainly believe Jackson was an upgrade, and he turned into one of my favorite players, but Haywoode did have his moments here that were worth remembering.

As to DA, I believe that as little as three or four years ago, his performance would've been almost universally panned. However, after watching the last two years of misery, even the misguided effort was a breath of fresh air.

Still, it does not exempt him from my "Gritty Hustler" theorem.


People are more willing to like a bad basketball player who busts his *** than a good basketball player who's a touch lazy. Of course, people forget the most important thing about a bad basketball player who busts his *** is that he is, in fact, still a bad basketball player.

JayRedd
07-30-2007, 05:40 PM
People are more willing to like a bad basketball player who busts his *** than a good basketball player who's a touch lazy. Of course, people forget the most important thing about a bad basketball player who busts his *** is that he is, in fact, still a bad basketball player.

Agreed.

It's a different sport and not entirely the same, but it reminds me of asinine Red Sox fans who don't like Manny Ramirez because he doesn't run out every ground ball. Okay, maybe if he sprinted down the line after every weak grounder, he's get at most 4-5 singles per season. But he could also injure his fat, lazy self. So why don't you stop worrying about a few potential singles that probably wouldn't ever amount to runs anyway and concentrate on the .310 AVG/35 HR/110 RBI/.600 SLG he posts like clockwork every season.

ChicagoJ
07-30-2007, 05:46 PM
People are more willing to like a bad basketball player who busts his *** than a good basketball player who's a touch lazy. Of course, people forget the most important thing about a bad basketball player who busts his *** is that he is, in fact, still a bad basketball player.

Well said.

But I think that's just a Pacers thing. That's certainly not true in Chicago, or LA, or Cleveland, or just about anywhere else. Now, they REALLY appreciate a guy that is talented AND hustles, and that's what I want, too.

ChicagoJ
07-30-2007, 05:48 PM
Don't read too much into my Workman example. Its more that by watching Workman was how I figured out to articulate what was wrong. Its not that Workman is the poster child for "no talent, but works his *** off."

We all know that player is Dale Dav...

Errr... nevermind.

:maniac:

count55
07-30-2007, 05:57 PM
Oh, and to clarify, the Jackson I was referring to as one of my favorite players was Mark...(given the thread, I thought I should clear that up).

Elgin56
07-30-2007, 10:52 PM
:bs:

All you have to do is still be on the team. Right now Danny Granger is in line to be hated and run out on a rail, right after the pitchfork and torch crowd get done running out Tinsley-JO-Bird-Murph-Foster-Dun-Harrison-Quis....

There's a set heirarchy of blame that fans latch on to, but NO PLAYER is above being the next fall guy, he just moves up the PE#1 list when a guy above him is moved. To me at least 50% of the fanbase is totally irrational and runs from reason to reason like a madman trying to chase down blame.


It's Al - the baby wanted to start so we fixed him good by sending him to ATL (later we really, really want him back, his fanjam and opening night fan responses prove this)

It's Ron - Ron goes, things don't get better

It's Saras

It's AJ - and Jay, you were leading the mob against him in fact (don't worry, I've been in some mobs myself it seems)

It's Bender and AC's contracts - things don't get better, TPTB actually end up getting some new bloated deals on the books instead

It's Jackson - Jack goes, things actually get much worse

It's Rick - we'll see what comes next...

That's why fans love Diener. He hasn't been a Pacer long enough for them to hate him. Conseco might as well be renamed Salem Court House at this point.


You know people see me compare Dun and Jackson and think I loved Jack or something. While I did like several parts of his game and liked him as a Pacer in general, especially seeing him tough out injuries when the rest of the roster was out every other day, I don't feel much differently about Dunleavy.

I don't like that he gets more money than Jack did and I hate that he's another SF with no 3pt shot because the team really needs a SG that can hit the bomb, but in general I can support him as a Pacer, he brings as much positive to the team as Jack did. I don't even hate Troy despite his contract and lousy defense. The only thing I hate is seeing people elevate replacements who's output in the NBA has been no better, simply because they haven't been involved with enough Pacers failure yet.

In the end I find myself ripping on a very likeable guy like Army because fans take his squirrel-on-adrenline act as a sign of productivity, ignoring stuff like him chucking really, really poor 3pt selections at a sub-30 rate and gambling so badly on defense that his man ends up in the lane with him at the 3pt line looking back; the same fans that boo'd Jackson for taking poor 3pt shots and getting beat less on defense than Army.

You want to boo Jack's game, fine. Just make sure to boo Army or Dun or whomever for doing the EXACT SAME THING. Is that really too much to ask for? The outrageous EQUAL reaction to on-court production?



You want to boo Jack's game, fine. Just make sure to boo Army or Dun or whomever for doing the EXACT SAME THING. Is that really too much to ask for? The outrageous EQUAL reaction to on-court

production?


Seth, why do you keep blurring the line, fans are booing Jackson for more reasons than his on court performance. Every one of his flubs on the floor are magnified because of his off court behavior. Oh yeah, fans don't need your approval to boo players of their choice, no matter how much it rubs you raw.

Naptown_Seth
07-31-2007, 12:13 PM
Wanna know a secret? I don't like Darrell Armstrong at all, and my fingers are crossed that he's not coming back.

I don't like Dun's FG%. But I haven't figured out which shots he shouldn't take.

There's a difference between "all players are subject to criticism" and the unorganized movement of unconnected Pacers fans that all grew to utterly dislike SJax. I never cared for his shot selection or turnovers, but he reached a new stratosphere on November 25, 2005 when I realized just how me-first he was as he threw tantrum after tantrum at his coaches and teammates in that embarassing loss against Atlanta.

(My boy Ron sat out that game after injuring his finger against Cleveland the night before. So silly me, I was expecting to see a happy/ "normal" team enjoy their freedom from the bipolar monster. Instead, the dysfunction was even stronger. :shudder: )
Well I think my issue there is that I'm certain Jackson isn't a "me first" player. He isn't. He wants the team to win and he has his own beliefs on how that's going to happen, what he needs to be allowed to do as well as the other players.

He showed his ability to defer when needed last NOV. His shot was crap so we saw increased effort in other areas.

Same with "effort". Jackson pulled himself off the floor and got back to it many times over. He gets tough as nails on defense. Forget Dirk, I was about 10 feet away when he was doing the same thing to DWade a few years ago. He was very physical, intense and disruptive. He's gotten on Kobe that way as well (then gets a tough foul call, flips out, gets T'd...)


His problem is TEMPER. He doesn't work well with his frustrations and instead of productively working with Rick he'd throw a fit about what the coach was doing. I strongly doubt it was ever "I gots to get mine". It was "that play sucks" or "why are you taking me out, I got this under control". He was VERY SLOW to admit when he was wrong, and had a fit all the way out the door in the meantime.

That IS unpleasant, it is a flaw. But it's not the same as "selfish jerk". It applies the same to his ref arguing. I've pointed out and posted the photos before of Jackson as the PEACEKEEPER with AJ and a ref in that instance, though I saw it many times over.

When he's not frustrated, when it's not his issues, then he's freaking great as a team voice and center of emotion/effort. Then something doesn't go his way and he's a wrecking ball for the team situation.


My defense has always been that he was a $10m player that lost $4m just for his crap attitude when it came to dealing with frustration.


Oh, and the shot selection...fits right into the frustration angle. He'd press, he'd force, and he'd try to be the hero all the time. Part of going to the next level for himself (beyond his temper) is learning when to step back from that and find a better way to be involved.


If he'd control his temper and lose some of the hero-complex that makes him press situations he has no business trying to make happen, you'd see a very strong SG option with great consistancy. Until then it's ultra-streaky, yapping at refs and plenty of turnovers to go along with all the good he brings.

This is also why I'm not so uptight about his "character". I honestly believe his moral code is pretty solid, I think he has some good citizenship behaviors in him. But just as on court, something gets out of control and here comes the hero (I'll get my gun and stop this brawl right now, I'm coming to save you Ron) and the temper. He's clearly his own worst enemy.

Unlike Artest I find Jackson's reactions pretty freaking consistant to be honest. I don't think he's ever going to get over the hump completely on his issues either.

Los Angeles
07-31-2007, 12:27 PM
You can't isolate any of Jackson's actions or attributes on or off the court. You can't pretend that one of them doesn't exist.

He's a complete package. You get the good with the bad. And baby, that's a WHOLE lot of bad.

Dunleavy is a better choice over Jackson because well, He's less of everything (good and bad) but mostly less of a headache.

JayRedd
07-31-2007, 12:31 PM
He wants the team to win and he has his own beliefs on how that's going to happen

He certainly does.

Unfortunately, these beliefs are all over the place and there's really no telling how what type of approach to the game he'll be taking at any given minute. It's like trying to predict the direction of a tornado.

Will he play solid, lock-down D on the next possession? Or lolly-gag and start gambling for steals?

Will he keep making sure JO gets the a touch in the post early in the offense? Or will he launch an ill-advised 3 while closely guarded after the initial swing pass from the PG?

Will he slash hard to the paint off of screens? Or will he just stand out near the hash-mark for possession after possession?

Will he attack the basket off the dribble? Or will he settle for low-percentage jumpers for the next two quarters?


I think you illustrate this whole thing really good below.

And, I'm not saying his inconsistently is really all that much worse than many other players in the League....but


a high-level of inconsistency + highly passionate intensity + a chip-on-his-shoulder mentality + a long-term contract + off-court shenanigans + history + fan's perception = someone the Pacers just couldn't have on the roster anymore



When he's not frustrated, when it's not his issues, then he's freaking great as a team voice and center of emotion/effort. Then something doesn't go his way and he's a wrecking ball for the team situation.

My defense has always been that he was a $10m player that lost $4m just for his crap attitude when it came to dealing with frustration.

Oh, and the shot selection...fits right into the frustration angle. He'd press, he'd force, and he'd try to be the hero all the time. Part of going to the next level for himself (beyond his temper) is learning when to step back from that and find a better way to be involved.


If he'd control his temper and lose some of the hero-complex that makes him press situations he has no business trying to make happen, you'd see a very strong SG option with great consistancy.

Until then it's ultra-streaky, yapping at refs and plenty of turnovers to go along with all the good he brings.

Naptown_Seth
07-31-2007, 12:32 PM
You want to boo Jack's game, fine. Just make sure to boo Army or Dun or whomever for doing the EXACT SAME THING. Is that really too much to ask for? The outrageous EQUAL reaction to on-court

production?


Seth, why do you keep blurring the line, fans are booing Jackson for more reasons than his on court performance. Every one of his flubs on the floor are magnified because of his off court behavior. Oh yeah, fans don't need your approval to boo players of their choice, no matter how much it rubs you raw.
They boo'd him prior to Rio, that's the problem.

Ron got the biggest suspension. His first game after that in a Pacers uniform - biggest cheers of anyone at FanJam. He was a flipping folk hero at that point.

So let's save the character angle. It had very little to do with that. JO and AJ were in that brawl, neither got boo'd for it either.

Character/Rio became a convenient whipping point for fans that were already sick of his poor shooting and ref yapping. I said in my initial post that there are reasons to prefer Dunleavy. Only an insane person would read my Jackson comments and think I see no flaws in his game/atittude.

I just prefer to see some more truthful and fair reasoning behind it all. I've seen posters right here at PD say that they hate that Jackson never apologize about Rio!!! Something he personally did (not his lawyer) almost immediately and fully. That's the kind of problem I mean, the false issue used to tag on more blame and hatred.

This just in, Jackson hates kittens and ice cream too, let's get him! Isn't it enough just to find his game and temper frustrating and to be happier with Dun's flaws/strengths instead? What Jackson is by most descriptions anymore is a total characature, he (and Ron to some extent too) has become the Paul Bunyan of Pacers problem players. Why he was 25 feet tall and would rip out the hearts of 8 refs at a time just for fun.

For me it's just "eh, he was kind of frustrating at times". Same as Dunleavy is now.

Naptown_Seth
07-31-2007, 12:42 PM
"Chip on the shoulder" - good call JayRedd, I should have said that. That ties into that hero complex too.

But the thing is I think the Pacers needed some of that edge as well. People say it looked like the team quit on Rick. Isn't it odd that the guy who always yelled at Rick left and suddenly then the team quit on him? 4 NEW guys quit on Rick after 2 weeks? Shawne quit during his final 2 months when he got a ton of PT?

I don't buy it. I think the team lost any sense of passion, and as destructive as fire can be when out of control you also kinda need at least some fire to make the engine go. Isn't that what people loved about Army? Well unlike Army Jackson could get to the rim and was at that point shooting the 3 about 6% better which helped him make good on some of his fire.

Heck, Saras, much as he struggled, was also a fire guy big time. Dun and Troy are hard workers but certainly come off as more low-key. Tinsley seemed vacant at times. Danny doesn't have the cache to be the voice yet.

So the main issue for me was that they gave up an SG which they couldn't afford to do, and shipped out a lot of the emotional drive which they also couldn't afford to do. Is it just coincidence that the Warriors emotional drive went through the roof after the deal? Was Harrington driving that upward, I doubt it.

I've always said that I was fine with trading Jackson, but that the problem was they treated it like an "OMG, this has to happen yesterday, someone deal him STAT" situation, got totally irrational about it and showed a total lack of vision and leadership when it came to trading him (and Al, which many of us think was the bigger factor here...he was the one coming off a benching at halftime, not Jackson).

ChicagoJ
07-31-2007, 12:45 PM
Bingo. He was brought here to be the fourth option, not the hero.

It IS his fault he was trying to play hero. And that exactly fits my definition of "me first."

Los Angeles
07-31-2007, 12:58 PM
Bingo. He was brought here to be the fourth option, not the hero.

It IS his fault he was trying to play hero. And that exactly fits my definition of "me first."

Wait wait wait ...

When he came back from his suspension, He not only was asked to be the hero, we desperately NEEDED a hero.

Or was 04/05 just a dream?

That year ruined Jackson, ruined Tinsley, ruined JO. I'll probably never get over it.

ChicagoJ
07-31-2007, 01:58 PM
He was suspended 30 games. The team's best palyer was suspended 15. The team's "hero" served a one-game suspsension when he got healthy.

There was no need for a hero. That team had Reggie and JO.

And Tinsley did an admirable job stepping up when everyone else was suspended/ hurt. Problem was, prior to that happening, neither Rick nor Tinsley believed Tinsley was a capable NBA scorer. Ever since then... ugh.

Los Angeles
07-31-2007, 04:29 PM
Jay - we DID need a hero. Reggie couldn't do it alone and JO popped his shoulder. Jackson stepped up admirably. He just never stepped down. Give me one time frame in the last 3 seasons where there were 3 options ahead of Jackson on the playbook.

Before the brawl? Wrong. Reggie was injured.

Before Ron's trade demand? Wrong. Jackson was ahead of Tinsley. (#3)

While Peja was here? Wrong again. JO was out.

Before he was traded last season? Wrong again. He was #3 behind JO and Al.

While I agree that the original plan the first season was JO/Ron/Reggie/Jack, the fact is it never actually happened. Criticizing him for not playing as the 4th option is hollow. Due to circumstances, he never was the fourth option.

ajbry
07-31-2007, 04:57 PM
Bingo. He was brought here to be the fourth option, not the hero.

It IS his fault he was trying to play hero. And that exactly fits my definition of "me first."

Come on Jay, you can't water down his role like that. Jack was brought in here to be the heir to Reggie's throne and be the #2 option on a consistent basis. Besides, the seasons before had him as the #3 option on a championship squad and the #1 option on a lottery one. Certainly after the brawl, he put up numbers we desparately needed. However, being a shoot-first SG, it got him into trouble once JO and company came back when he wanted to chuck up 18 shots a game rather than 14. The shot selection never improved but the quantity simply decreased.

Jack will never be the #1 option on a winning team, but he can be a damn good #2 or #3 on a playoff team - he's proven that. You just have to reel in his urges to freelance and exert himself too much in order to make an offensive impact. It's definitely a principal reason why Nellie says the only person who can stop him is himself. The dude can take over a game and the day after will take his team out of it. His two playoff series this season illustrate that precisely.

Since86
07-31-2007, 05:02 PM
Come on Jay, you can't water down his role like that. Jack was brought in here to be the heir to Reggie's throne and be the #2 option on a consistent basis. Besides, the seasons before had him as the #3 option on a championship squad and the #1 option on a lottery one. Certainly after the brawl, he put up numbers we desparately needed. However, being a shoot-first SG, it got him into trouble once JO and company came back when he wanted to chuck up 18 shots a game rather than 14. The shot selection never improved but the quantity simply decreased.

Jack will never be the #1 option on a winning team, but he can be a damn good #2 or #3 on a playoff team - he's proven that. You just have to reel in his urges to freelance and exert himself too much in order to make an offensive impact. It's definitely a principal reason why Nellie says the only person who can stop him is himself. The dude can take over a game and the day after will take his team out of it. His two playoff series this season illustrate that precisely.


Jax was most definately not ever slated for the #2 option. JO was clearly #1 and Ron was right behind him.

You're accusing Jay of watering it down, but you're definately trying to make him seem more important than he was. Anyone who thinks he was brought in to be the heir to Reggie, is delusional and needs to seek medical treatment ASAP.

Only a sure fire HOF would be touted as Reggie's heir. Jax just happened to be the next starting SG, and in no way shape or form can be compared to him in any other fashion.

ChicagoJ
07-31-2007, 05:28 PM
Tinsley has been Rick's #2 option since November 20, 2004, except for the few games in 04-05 that Reggie and JO both played in, and the few games in 05-06 that JO and Ron (or JO and Peja) both played in.

I'm not saying I like it that way. I prefer the pass-first Tinsley myself.

SycamoreKen
07-31-2007, 11:01 PM
Where is the neither box?

I was looking for that or the Whe cares we had this discussion 10,000 already.

When will we be adding the "Players the Pacers Have Traded but we still Can't Let Go" forum be created? We could have threads for Detlef, Brad, Ron, Jackson, and whom ever else we need.:p

Peck
08-01-2007, 05:11 AM
Wait wait wait ...

When he came back from his suspension, He not only was asked to be the hero, we desperately NEEDED a hero.

Or was 04/05 just a dream?

That year ruined Jackson, ruined Tinsley, ruined JO. I'll probably never get over it.


Ahem......

Not to involve myself in this highly entertaining topic but we did not need a hero. We had a Hero and the greatest hero at that.

:D;):dance:






http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/news/2000/img/daledavis3.jpg

FlavaDave
08-01-2007, 08:45 AM
we desperately NEEDED a hero.


I agree, we needed a hero at the end of the night. He had to be strong, he had to be fast, and sadly he was also fresh from the fight.

count55
08-01-2007, 09:03 AM
I agree, we needed a hero at the end of the night. He had to be strong, he had to be fast, and sadly he was also fresh from the fight.

No quoting Bonnie Tyler.

DisplacedKnick
08-01-2007, 10:25 AM
No quoting Bonnie Tyler.

Sure that wasn't something Buttercup said while she was scaling The Cliffs of Insanity?

This is my: "I'm sick of this thread let's talk about something else - anything else" effort.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 10:34 AM
Oh no, that's Bonnie Tyler. 100%.

Back at MSA, they'd play that before Chuck Person would take and hit a clutch shot.

That still doesn't make Bonnie Tyler acceptable, however.

FlavaDave
08-01-2007, 11:14 AM
Oh no, that's Bonnie Tyler. 100%.

Back at MSA, they'd play that before Chuck Person would take and hit a clutch shot.

That still doesn't make Bonnie Tyler acceptable, however.


I'm willing to stoop that low to kill this thread.

Kinda like when SoupIsGood (I think?) and I turned an Artest thread into a discussion of Radiohead lyrics. It's a dirty trick, but it works.

DisplacedKnick
08-01-2007, 11:20 AM
Oh no, that's Bonnie Tyler. 100%.

Back at MSA, they'd play that before Chuck Person would take and hit a clutch shot.

That still doesn't make Bonnie Tyler acceptable, however.

Er, you missed my point. I'd prefer to kill this thread with a Princess Bride discussion than talking about Bonnie Tyler. :puke:

(Tries Again) Maybe that was what Arthur said on meeting The Knights Who Say Ni. Or was that what the Knights said on hearing it?

bellisimo
08-01-2007, 11:28 AM
http://mitheral.ca/images/Polaroid/kitten_die.jpg

kill the thread - save the kitty

Slick Pinkham
08-01-2007, 11:34 AM
I have already tried to kill it with quotes from Spinal Tap.

When the arguments are all clearly laid out why we are better off without Jacktard, then the Jack fanboy comes back and refutes none of it but insists on Jack's wonderfulness.

It's like trying to explain to him that it really doesn't matter that his amplifiers have knobs with 11 numbers instead of 10 on it.

He just mutters "But these go to 11... One louder"

FlavaDave
08-01-2007, 11:39 AM
I have already tried to kill it with quotes from Spinal Tap.

When the arguments are all clearly laid out why we are better off without Jacktard, then the Jack fanboy comes back and refutes none of it but insists on Jack's wonderfulness.

It's like trying to explain to him that it really doesn't matter that his amplifiers have knobs with 11 numbers instead of 10 on it.

He just mutters "But these go to 11... One louder"


Or its like trying to get through a metal detector with a cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil in your pants. Eventually, you're gonna get caught.

ChicagoJ
08-01-2007, 11:44 AM
DK,

I'm happy to kill it with a Bonnie Tyler discussion. Princess Bride is too predictable.

We could let S*e*h*n J*c*s*n shoot it, but he'd go 0-5 yet again and it would live another day...

JayRedd
08-01-2007, 12:17 PM
Or its like trying to get through a metal detector with a cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil in your pants. Eventually, you're gonna get caught.

Don't I know it.

rexnom
08-01-2007, 01:51 PM
Don't I know it.
TMI?

Hicks
08-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Cussing out refs.

Cussing out coaches.

Technicals.

Suspensions.

Role in the Brawl.

Rio.

Bad enough his own teammate called him an ***.

"Conduct detrimental to the team."

Mocking the system (and clearly showing he's not sorry for Rio) with his pre-game pat-down joke.

But other than all that, yeah, bring back Jackson! :sarcasm:

ajbry
08-01-2007, 03:47 PM
Bad enough his own teammate called him an ***.

Who said that? I honestly haven't heard of that one before.

Hicks
08-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Who said that? I honestly haven't heard of that one before.

Jack said it after one of the home games against Boston in '05. In hindsight I have a pretty good guess as to who said it, but I have no proof. (Dale). I'll side with Dale 10/10.

ajbry
08-01-2007, 05:17 PM
Alright, thanks clearing that up. I didn't recall it and wasn't sure what you meant.

BlueNGold
08-01-2007, 06:22 PM
Jack said it after one of the home games against Boston in '05. In hindsight I have a pretty good guess as to who said it, but I have no proof. (Dale). I'll side with Dale 10/10.

I believe it. I distinctly recall DD using the quite appropriate term "immature" to describe the TrailPacers before he left for Detroit.

RamBo_Lamar
08-01-2007, 06:56 PM
Cussing out refs.

Cussing out coaches.

Technicals.

Suspensions.

Role in the Brawl.

Rio.

Bad enough his own teammate called him an ***.

"Conduct detrimental to the team."

Mocking the system (and clearly showing he's not sorry for Rio) with his pre-game pat-down joke.

But other than all that, yeah, bring back Jackson! :sarcasm:



Well clearly Jax has proven time and time again he has some serious
character issues that make him undesirable.

I really don't see what is so difficult to understand about this.
The only reason I can imagine somebody would side with or defend
Jax as vehemently as some on here do is because they see some
(or alot) of themselves in him. They strongly identify with his character.

And while it doesn't have anything to do with on-court behavior,
doesn't Jax have something like 20 "illegitimate" kids scattered around
the country from like 5 different women?

I'm really starting to think one of those "illegitimate" kids in particular
lives in a certain well known New England city.