PDA

View Full Version : Short thoughts on the Washington game



Peck
11-15-2007, 04:49 AM
I have to be brief tonight so this will be fast hitting.

Look there is no bigger critic/hater of Jermaine O'Neal than myself, however there is no real way to make the coralation that Jermaine's return to extended min. and an increased role in the offense has been the sole reason for the teams collapse.

It is a contributing factor, IMO, but even I won't say it's the main one.

Also for the Troy Murphy haters out there you cannot pinpoint his return to our losing ways either.

There are a lot and I mean a lot of reasons that this team is in totall collapse right now, and make no mistake this team right now is exactly like last season during the 11 game skid. The record isn't there yet, but all you have to do is watch the body language and you will see this team is in trouble.

Where at the beginning of the season I had no doubt in my mind we were going to play hard and win those games, I have now for the last three games been of the firm belief that we had no hope of winning.

Read Mike Dunleavy's quote in today's star to show you that there is already some discourse in the troops.

"Your guess is as good as mine," Dunleavy said when asked what happened to their running game. "I thought we were going to run, too. We ran through training camp; we ran the first few games of the year. I don't know."

Now this can be read in several ways.

1. The team is not functioning properly and therefor the running game is not working. (this is possible)
2. Once again # 7 has inserted his opinion on the offense and even though there was tough talk about running, the truth is they are at least slowing the pace a little to keep him happy.
3. The coach's want to run, the players want to run, the two left overs have decided not to run and when you are the person who determines where the ball goes you can really influance the plays.
4. Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, Daniels and others have just stopped running for whatever reason.

Or there probably are about 10 other ways to read that, but to me it say's something is wrong.

However let's not go to far overboard on one thing, we are missing Ike Diagu. I may be wrong because I'm not looking up his stats right now but wasn't he avg. almost 14 ppg before the injury?

That's not chump change.

I know this is going to be vastly unpopular to say but I will say it anyway. Jeff Foster can not be on the floor at the same time as Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley until they get out of thier scoring slumps.

I don't like him in there when they are scoring but right now we have to have 5 legitimate offensive options on the floor in that starting lineup.

Right now we have Granger, who is inconsistant. Dunleavy who has all but vanished and that's it.

Oh Jermaine & Jamaal are getting thier points but they are taking a large amount of shots to get them and while Jeff has made a nice attempt at that jumper, we desperately need another offensive weapon on the floor.

Till Murphy comes back I would really have no problem with the Pacers staring either Daniels or Williams and playing Danny at the 4.

Again in this game Travis Diener has made me believe that we should be scouring the NBDL for a better backup p.g.

As of yet, there is nothing there. I still don't understand why he is playing ahead of Owens.

It is obvious that O'Brien has already given up (at least for now anyway) on Harrison, Diener and Owens.

Each of their min. have gone down dramatically over the past few games and frankly who can blame him.

It's not time to panic yet, however I will say this, if this team does reach a double digit losing streak (which I believe it will soon) a real shakeup is in order.

I don't mean a major trade or anything, although that should be looked at as well. But I mean it may be time to shake up the lineup.

However I don't even know how you go about doing that with the roster we have.

Ok, this post is to negative.

Let me address some positives to end with.

Danny shot poorly but I thought he battled all night long.

While I hate Foster with O'Neal, I thought Jeff really brought it and truely put it all on the line.

Travis Diener did actually hit a shot, so I guess there is that.
:dance:

Time to regroup and try again, the season can turn around just as fast the other way if the planets align correctly.

kept
11-15-2007, 05:40 AM
John Calipari, head coach of the Memphis Tigers, said on PTI regarding the Marbury and Thomas controversy (as he coached Marbury when he was with the Nets) that if a team wants to trade a player that player is given ample playing time and shot attempts to improve his trade value.

Marbury instead benched himself, putting Thomas on the hot seat. Calipari said his intention was to get Isiah fired. However, it could be true in this case of giving Jermane and Jamal more shots to improve their trade value.

Jermaine is clearly unhappy, and its affecting his play. Just my thought.

DGPR
11-15-2007, 05:40 AM
I agree that the body language is reminiscent of last year's glorious "streak". Jamaal Tinsley for some reason enjoys putting up hideous jump shots and extremely contested shots in the lane. Jermaine is obviously bothered by an injury settling for jump shots instead of taking it strong to the hole. Granger seems to be mixing it up by taking shots outside, but also driving through the lane and getting good looks. Those types of shots aren't falling for him consistently but I believe as time goes on he should be able to get a handle on them.

Marquis looked like the only one that knew what he was doing against the Wizards last night. JOB should definitely consider replacing Tinsley with Quis in the starting lineup, and letting Tinsley know he's not the only point guard on the team. Except for a couple of instances, Daniels' decision making and playmaking abilities looked ten times better than Tinsley's on any given night.

Who the hell is David Harrison and why is he sitting on the Pacers bench in a Pacers uniform? Shawne Williams is looking pretty good right now, giving decent production off of the bench in the minutes he is given. I would suggest a trade for a young point guard or shooting guard. Just throwing out ideas.

In closing Marquis Daniels played 31 minutes while Tinsley played 22 minutes against Washington. More of that please.

indygeezer
11-15-2007, 06:36 AM
Jamaal reminded me last night why I hate his so-called "game" so much.

I cannot think of a worse team to send him to so as I said the other day, I'll go with sending him to a colder place. Minnesota.




and I don't care what we get back.

Evan_The_Dude
11-15-2007, 08:53 AM
Minnesota already has Telfair. I don't think they need or want another New York street ball point guard that can't shoot worth a damn.

Speed
11-15-2007, 09:17 AM
One of the main problem is what we have known, you don't have a go to guy at the end of games or a go to play, like in the days of Reggie.

I've never seen the team more lost at the end of games than this years, wow.

You can run in the main part of the game and you can run at the end, but you have to have someone who can use a go to move that the other team has to stop or it will score everytime, usually the other team has to over extend something to stop that go to move or play and a smart team then counters to exploit that.

As far as I can tell the plan is to

A.) have Tinsley take a really bad shot.

B.) Have JO take a really bad shot.

C.) Have someone throw it out of bounds or to the other team.

It's early, but I'm starting to vote for C and just get a good draft pick. :)

All is not lost, but they are the anti sum is greater than the parts idea that makes a team good.

If this continues, I'd really be okay with just keeping Danny, Dunleavey, and Foster and just hoping to land a franchise player in the next couple of drafts.

JO is as good as he'll get, and its conjecture or subjective on how good you think he is or isn't.

Danny should be kept, he keeps getting better and is honest about it.

Dunleavy is a guy who understands the game and is a glue guy.

Foster is never, not trying.

Otherwise, I suppose you could keep Ike, see where that goes.

I guess I'm kinda knee jerk reacting, but I was equally as concerned trough 3 games, they just don't seem to be able to understand what it takes.

Oh and Shawne I think plays with more poise for his age than half the guys on the team and I think he's uber coachable and will continue to get better.

So thats it honestly.

Granger
Shawne
Ike
Dunleavy
Foster

Then go from there.

McKeyFan
11-15-2007, 09:30 AM
Peck, your post is very disturbing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's disturbing simply because you are getting at the core of the issue.

I hadn't seen the Dunleavy quote. That is disturbing. Your four options for how to interpret it are excellent. It's one of those four, and it's got to be either JO complaining or Tins and JO's control of the ball slowing things down.

But, would either of those things stop the other three from cutting? Didn't they run around and cut and stuff the first few games?

I don't know. I'm still confused. Maybe they are indeed showcasing JO and Tins for a trade. Heck of a showcase :rolleyes:

MagicRat
11-15-2007, 10:18 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/SPORTS04/711150489

If we're pulling quotes from the Star article, how about:

I'm not really enjoying it right now," Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal said.

Or

"I don't know what's going on," Tinsley said. "I don't have an answer. I know I'm running. It's frustrating, but what can I do?"

Or this from everybody's favorite Tell It Like It Is reporter:

The days of the Pacers getting the ball up the court quickly have been replaced with the point guard getting out on the break, looking over his shoulder and not seeing players filling the lanes.

BillS
11-15-2007, 10:53 AM
I disagree that Dunleavy's comment has to mean that there are locker room problems over the offense.

I think it means that the roster right now just isn't capable of making the offense work. When the running offense gets bogged down, this team just doesn't know how to create something to get past it. Either that or we really have a bunch of nagging little injuries that slow you down if you favor them - and players who aren't willing to push through them.

Passing lanes get shut down and everyone is waiting for someone else to move first. No one - and I mean NO ONE - wants to go near the post, so the only movement options are across the perimeter - the hesitation on doing so leads to sloppy passes and turnovers.

If JO is asking for the ball more in the post, why is he staying away from it? One would think he'd be putting himself in there and unable to get to the ball (as happened last year), rather than getting the ball but hanging around the top of the key miles away from the lane. This tells me he is trying to move out of his comfort zone to get to the ball instead of demanding it get fed to him his way only.

It doesn't help that we're once again becoming the kind of team that lets opposing shooters get into the zone such that every heave toward the basket goes in, no matter how well the defenders might start doing later in the game.

It seems obvious to me that this is an execution issue rather than a buy-in issue.

bellisimo
11-15-2007, 11:06 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/SPORTS04/711150489

If we're pulling quotes from the Star article, how about:

I'm not really enjoying it right now," Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal said.

Or

"I don't know what's going on," Tinsley said. "I don't have an answer. I know I'm running. It's frustrating, but what can I do?"

Or this from everybody's favorite Tell It Like It Is reporter:

The days of the Pacers getting the ball up the court quickly have been replaced with the point guard getting out on the break, looking over his shoulder and not seeing players filling the lanes.

I totally noticed that in last nights game.
In transition JT was the fastest player to go down the court which meant that all the players were trailing and coming back just in time for the defense to settle down and all I could say was WTF?!?!

bellisimo
11-15-2007, 11:09 AM
on another note - lately I've seen JT pull a Mark Jackson move by posting up the guards a bit more frequently - unfortunately the only person who he can pass it to is a JO who is out of his range. If they were to run that play with either DG or even DunDun in that mid-range shot I think we could see a lot more success

Pacerized
11-15-2007, 11:13 AM
I'm happy with the # of shots J.O. is taking. If we're going to keep J.O. he needs to be happy and in spite of the fact that he says he's not happy because we're losing, I know he needs to be the focal point of the offense to be happy. I want to see J.O. be the 20/10 player he was last season and to do that he needs to be the focal point. However, if we want to trade J.O. the exact same philosophy applies just like Calipari suggest. We would need J.O. to get his #'s back to all star form if we hope to get fair value out him in a trade and I think that's where this is going.

idioteque
11-15-2007, 11:52 AM
As much as some of you like to dislike Tins trading him right now for next to nothing is the worst idea ever.

Yes, I'm not the biggest fan of Tinsley. He makes some stupid passes and takes a lot of stupid shots.

But I'd still rather have him starting than Deiner or Owens. And don't play the Marquis card, because it's pretty obvious he'll never play more than 50 games in a season.

Since86
11-15-2007, 03:35 PM
I disagree that Dunleavy's comment has to mean that there are locker room problems over the offense.

I think it means that the roster right now just isn't capable of making the offense work. When the running offense gets bogged down, this team just doesn't know how to create something to get past it. Either that or we really have a bunch of nagging little injuries that slow you down if you favor them - and players who aren't willing to push through them.

:wave: There's quite a few of us who have been saying this for quite some time, and was the base root of the reason why trades should have happened this summer and not letting go of RC.

RC played the style of basketball that they were able to play. Before someone jumps in and says all he knew was slow ball, this is the same man who was responsible for the offense under Bird and they were anything but a dump it in offense.

So lets see what we're stuck with. A team that couldn't handle a structured offense, so you fire your coach and bring in a "run" but definately gun coach. Well they aren't running and they look like their shooting with a mussle loader from the Revolutionary War. You either replaced the supporting cast, or drafted new ones, and changed coaches. What else is there left to do?

All avenues except one have been tried. Make the turn and get a deal(s) done.

BillS
11-15-2007, 03:54 PM
RC played the style of basketball that they were able to play. Before someone jumps in and says all he knew was slow ball, this is the same man who was responsible for the offense under Bird and they were anything but a dump it in offense.

I said this a couple of times myself, that RC's play calling was because the run style didn't work. Since the perception was that RC "always" called the shots, players could get away with fooling themselves that their run failures were still due to too much control by the coach.

I think that sometimes you have to prove it to both players and fans before making the changes - otherwise you go nowhere due to second-guessing. Since we all figured this was a "learning curve" year anyway, it doesn't hurt having these players run smack into a coach who basically lets them do what they've wanted and therefore lets them fail at it. Whatever the result (trades or a return to more half-court focus), the players and the fans are more likely to accept it. Given the past few years, acceptance is important.

Peck
11-15-2007, 04:03 PM
Um, guys before we all jump all over the coaching (either Rick or Jim) and say that this team can't run I want to point out one little thing.

The team ran when a certain player wasn't playing. Was it a huge success? No, it was barely even mediocre. But guess what, this style is also less than mediocre as well.

So if both end in the same results then if it were up to me I would much rather see an offense that was entertaining to watch.

I've said all along Rick not only was responsible for the Pacers offense under Larry, he also ran the Detroit teams that did not focus on one low post offenseive player either.

Also whenever # 7 was out for extended times with an injury or suspension the team was totally differant as well.

Again, I am not laying the total blame for the current play on #7 but there has to be some consideration of it.

I guess what I'm saying is we have changed the coach, we have changed the entire supporting cast (minus one) and the results are still pretty much the same.

Shade
11-15-2007, 05:11 PM
Even shorter thoughts on the Washington game:

We suck.

naptownmenace
11-15-2007, 05:29 PM
Also whenever # 7 was out for extended times with an injury or suspension the team was totally differant as well.

I disagree with this. The team played terribly when JO was on the bench and Washington's lead increased or stayed the same while he was out. I didn't see any improvement.

I can't lay the blame on JO, not the last two nights anyway. He and Foster are the only players playing respectable defense. Everyone else has been a step slow.

The biggest problem is at the PG position - in particular we have a PG that has turned the ball over at crucial points of the game in each of the 5 losses. At least we're getting some good defense out of JO and his offense has improved with each game.

CableKC
11-15-2007, 06:36 PM
However, it could be true in this case of giving Jermane and Jamal more shots to improve their trade value.

Jermaine is clearly unhappy, and its affecting his play. Just my thought.
What happens when JONeal and Tinsley are given more shots but is still shooting horribly?