PDA

View Full Version : The Great Controversy: The Pacers Are a Team Without an Identity



NuffSaid
01-03-2008, 08:42 PM
I think the biggest problem with this team currently is that they haven't figured out who they are yet. Over the course of their first 26 games, they played more like an uptempo team pushing the ball on nearly every possession, taking open shots and moving the ball fairly well. I expected alot of turnovers, and I expected they'd lose the rebounding battle on occasion because long jump shots usually means long rebounds. Still, I thought they'd do pretty good despite the early part of the season being more a period of learning and adjustments than a period where the team would run as smooth as a Swiss watch like the Pistons primary four players who have been together for atleast the last 4-yrs. But then came the more desperate T-Wolves (12/21) and the holes in the Pacers' concept of "team defense" over "individual defensive efforts" were made manifest. It was the most points they'd given up all season (to date). That's when I think the real breakdown began.

You see, I think that up 'til that point, the Pacers had a pretty good idea of who they wanted to be as a team. But that loss I believe hurt their psyching. If you saw their next game against the Wizards, you'll recall how they compensated on the defensive end to win the game. It was inspiring to see. After that game, I walked away thinking maybe, just maybe they'd figured some things out and would be on their way to begin separating themselves from the lower seeded teams. But then came the game that started them down this losing spiral - the Hawks, a team clearly on the rise and who like the T-Wolves were hungry for a win. The Pacers got out-played that day and have been getting outplayed ever since. I believe that from that point on they've tried to compensate for their defensive lapses by focusing more on the defensive end than players simply going out and playing their game.

So, now the question is, "Who Are the Indiana Pacers?"

- Are you an uptempo team? Or are they somewhere in the middle?

- Should they run the floor and push the tempo or should they slowly and methodically bring the ball up court and work the offense through set plays?

- Are they a perimeter/jump shooting team? A slashing team? A low-post scoring team? Or are they a combination of the three? And mind you there's nothing wrong with having all three facets of the game at your disposal. The trick is to implement all three in an efficient and effective manner.

- Are they a team who relies solely on team defense or will individual players step up and "body up" their man and NOT rely so heavily on the "help defense" to cover their mistakes?

- Are they a team who relies on the roar of the crowd to motivate them? (And considering the attendance problem at the Fieldhouse, I'd say they need to find another motivator quick if they're relying on the crowd.) Or can they find that motivation from within collectively to ignite their passions and will themselves to win even when all seems lost? Will they fight through adversity or circum to it?

These are the kinds of questions this team needs to answer before they can truly move forward.

Kstat
01-03-2008, 09:35 PM
- Are you an uptempo team? Or are they somewhere in the middle?

Uptempo. Not sure how anybody can say otherwise.


- Should they run the floor and push the tempo or should they slowly and methodically bring the ball up court and work the offense through set plays?

I don't see how they can turn back at this point, at least mid-season.


- Are they a perimeter/jump shooting team? A slashing team? A low-post scoring team? Or are they a combination of the three? And mind you there's nothing wrong with having all three facets of the game at your disposal. The trick is to implement all three in an efficient and effective manner.


Look at the roster. It's loaded with jumpshooters. A halfcourt offense relies on individual scoring and creating, and the Pacers have little of that.


Are they a team who relies solely on team defense or will individual players step up and "body up" their man and NOT rely so heavily on the "help defense" to cover their mistakes?


...did I just hear the word "defense" evoked?

The purpose of help-out defense, by the way, is to ALLOW perimeter defenders to get up on opposing guards, knowing that if they DO get beat off the dribble, there will be help. The Bad Boys entire team strategy revolved around help defense, and it featured sme of the greatest individual defenders ever.

A defender who doesn't trust in his teammates will back 3 feet off his man and allow him to rain jumpers all game long. That's what defenders do when they can't rely on help defense. It doesn't make them better defenders.


Are they a team who relies on the roar of the crowd to motivate them?

Considering their road record is better than their home record? I'd have to say no.

andreialta
01-03-2008, 09:37 PM
i rewatched that new york knicks game where dunleavy was so agressive!!

if only he was like that yesterday. the game before and the games before that

then we will have an identity as having a low post scorer and a triple threat SG. but no, agressiveness is sumthin hard to find for Dun dun and Granger

Tinsley's loss is such a big factor. we loose probably a good 8 points a game just by his ability to quickly pass the ball up to a running Granger, Murphy, Dunleavy for an easy duce.

right now our identity is, we are a .500 team that is mediocre and can easily slip to .400

Rajah Brown
01-03-2008, 10:25 PM
Part of it is personnel. The best stretch the Pacers had was when
Foster was fully healthy and playing extremely well as the 5 when J.O.
was still out. He was doing all the little things as a complimentary guy
that O'B's system requires of that position when optimally run. He
ran the court, he defended as usual, he boarded, he passed the
ball and the lane was open for cutters. We haven't had that since
J.O.'s been back.

And then there's the play at 2 and 3. In O'B's system one of them
has to be the primary go-to guy (ala Pierce when he was in Boston).
If both are that caliber of offensive guys, all the better. Neither
Duns or Danny have the ability or demeanor to be that guy. Both
are close to good enough when Tinsley is playing well and gets
them easy looks and hoops. But w/o a PG making things easier
for them, the're unable to generate that kind of productivity on
their own.

Just my take.

LG33
01-04-2008, 12:06 AM
Thugs, the whole bunch of them.

PaceBalls
01-04-2008, 12:15 AM
They are fast break jump shot shooting team that can't finish layups.

Sure, they play great defense 1 out of every 4 possessions, and when it is good, I start thinking about how great JO is or what great hands our guards have... let's pretend the other 3 defensive possessions don't exist, because WTF... it's kinda hard to be a fan if I really watch that crap.

FireTheCoach
01-04-2008, 12:40 AM
A team without an identity...

This has been a common theme for the last 5 years.

slyder
01-04-2008, 12:48 AM
[QUOTE=Rajah Brown]Part of it is personnel. The best stretch the Pacers had was when Foster was fully healthy and playing extremely well as the 5 when J.O. was still out...We haven't had that since J.O.'s been back.

and where have we heard this before about a zillion times??

Young
01-04-2008, 03:09 AM
I think this team has an idenity.

We clearly know what we want to do on both sides of the court. I think that Jim and his staff have a clear game plan. The problem is we don't have the talent to execute it every night to be a real good team.

andreialta
01-04-2008, 03:14 AM
after seeing IKE as a Black HOle

I think, Marquis is one too! but whe nhe is making shots! we are so good!

D-BONE
01-04-2008, 09:02 AM
Our identity is a poorly constructed, low-talent, porous defensive team. We could try any system or style with the players we have and the results would be fairly similar.

jeffg-body
01-07-2008, 01:50 AM
I think we have a plan for an identity, but we need time to figure out what players we have that will make up that identity. As much as it pains me to say, I think JO is not part of that identity and it is time to part ways with him. For both sides sake. A trade for just cap space and picks would be welcome. It will give us time to see if our young bigs are truly going to develop.

We are a very young team, especially taking away JO, Foster. We need time to see if Hulk, Foster and Daniels are going to be a good fit for this philosophy.

Danny is not cut out to ever be the number one guy, but one hell of a #2 guy is still a great part to the mix. The only way to get a true #1 "the man" type of guy is big cash and the only way to do that is free up space.

Call me crazy, but I like the idea of giving away JO for cap flodder and pick(s) for a shot at a top tier 2 guard like Arenas. We have Granger, SWill, Ike, Dunleavy, and possibly Rush, Harrison and Owens as a good very young core to start with.

JUst imagine a scenerio where we could have cap space to sign an Arenas long term and keep both Danny and SWill. I still like Tins, but getting a young PG to develop won't hurt. Imagine a line-up next year with Tins at the 1, Arenas at the 2, Danny at the 3, Ike at the 4 and Foster at the 5. Bench with Owens/Diener/draft pick for the 1, Daniels/Rush at the 2, Dunleavy/Daniels at the 3, Swill/Murph at the 4, and Hulk/Murph/draft pick at the 5. That would be a young team worth watching.

Remember change is almost always good when there is direction.