PDA

View Full Version : Where do we go from here - yes a real plan



Unclebuck
01-10-2008, 09:10 AM
Someone in another thread asked where do we go from here. I realize most of you are ready to jump off a cliff or out of a window. But I see light at the end of the tunnel. So instead of bashing everyone connected to the Pacers, I will present a plan for where we go from here.

OK, some of you might think Im crazy, but I think last nights game might very well be the game that turned the season around. (keep in mind that by turn the season around, I don't mean that the Pacers are going to go 30-15 the rest of the way, but rather they have found their voice {thanks Hillary})

Why am I still positive about this team. Mainly because I see somethings that can be done with the players they have on the roster that will really help this team win games. And I suspect the coaching staff has learned these things also.

And here they are.

1) Diener needs to be the back up point guard. He needs to play 10-15 minutes per night. (Sure there might be the occassional game against bigger point guards where he won't be able to play too much) but he runs our offense very well - he can shoot, he is really a good passer - I mean really good, he has a feel for how to run an offense. Sure his defense isn't good, but what else is new on this team. We need Diener to be the backup point guard. Play Diener - I just hope his ankle is OK. He runs the offense so much better than Daniels or Owens and in fact he provides an offensive spark

2) Say goodbye to Ike and David for quite some time. We are going small folks. Shawne is back in the rotation and he will get the minutes that Ike or David would have gotten. Expect to see Granger and Shawne play a lot of power forward. Trying to play a "big" running lineup hasn't worked.

3) What do we do with JO. (I don't want that question to dominate this thread) But we need his defense for sure. Other than that I don't see that we need much else from him. He doesn't fit into this offense, right now I'm at a loss to know what to do with him. I almost want to say, "tell him to play like Jeff Foster on the offensive end" "Don't try to do too much"

4) The Daniels experiment at point guard is over, thankfully. Yes his defense is OK there, but offensively, he struggles and the team comes to a standstill whenever he plays the point. He needs to be operating closer to the basket - it was unfair to him to ask him to play the point.

5) Rush is our best perimeter defender. Who knew, but he is the best at keeping his man in front of him and still applying decent ball pressure.

6) Play Foster more. Really all of you knew this was coming, in fact maybe I should just say that in everyone of my posts. But his defense on Amare last night should earn him a few votes for all defensive team - it was that good. (I think Clark said outstanding defense and Jeff Foster about 10 times last night.

You probably think I am crazy, but I really see this as a turning point in our season. At least as far as this team becoming about as good as they can be. They still have a talent deficit against a lot of teams (If Nash had been healthy the Suns win by 8 points last night in regulation), they will still have bad shooting nights and yes their game is too dependant upon how well they are shooting. But I see a team that can and should come together

granger33
01-10-2008, 09:24 AM
Nice read.

Thats the positive side.

But Negative side is the inconsistency from this team.

Call me a fool but does anyone else think J.J Redick would be an awesome fit coming of the Indiana bench under O'Brien?

I do to see light down the tunnel. But best case senario we will be 7th seed or 8th.

Kofi
01-10-2008, 09:25 AM
1. Stop living in denial and wondering how to "fix" this team and just accept reality - that this team doesn't have the talent level to ever be anything more than a 35 win team.

2. Get rid of the crap and build towards the future with Danny, Shawne, high draft picks, and maybe some cap space.

Pretty simple really.

rexnom
01-10-2008, 09:26 AM
Foster's defense yesterday was as good as I have ever seen him play. And Amare got away with A LOT. He probably won't make an all-defensive team, but he should definitely get serious consideration. Just fantastic last night. I cannot stop raving about this guy.

Also, if JO miraculously did us a huge favor, opted out of his contracted and re-signed for about 9-10mil (i.e. his true value) then I would be a lot more optimistic about this team's future.

rexnom
01-10-2008, 09:26 AM
1. Stop living in denial and wondering how to "fix" this team and just accept reality - that this team doesn't have the talent level to ever be anything more than a 35 win team.

2. Get rid of the crap and build towards the future with Danny, Shawne, high draft picks, and maybe some cap space.

Pretty simple really.
Is it?

Kofi
01-10-2008, 09:30 AM
Is it?

Considering that the biggest factor (the lottery picks) are given to the team, I'd say it is. Just draft well. No headcases, unathletic slugs, or players with poor work ethics.

owl
01-10-2008, 09:49 AM
Also, if JO miraculously did us a huge favor, opted out of his contracted and re-signed for about 9-10mil (i.e. his true value) then I would be a lot more optimistic about this team's future.


JO opting out would be close to miraculous. Sometimes I think JO and Tins are really what
is keeping this team from ultimately succeeding. No doubt this team needs a little different
mix but it has some good pieces.

Putnam
01-10-2008, 10:19 AM
Say goodbye to Ike and David for quite some time. We are going small folks. Shawne is back in the rotation and he will get the minutes that Ike or David would have gotten. Expect to see Granger and Shawne play a lot of power forward. Trying to play a "big" running lineup hasn't worked.


What about fewer minutes for Murphy? It would seem to me going small (and quick) would mean more Ike (now that he's back) and Williams, and less Murphy and (as you say) Harrison.

Rajah Brown
01-10-2008, 10:51 AM
I certainly see the light at the end of the tunnel.....every time we
lose. The more, the better. Bring on that mid-high Lottery pick !

Lineup-wise, in my book, this is our best five in O'B's system.
C-Foster, PF-Williams, SF-DG, SG-Duns, PG-Tins. And win or lose,
as long as O'B isn't cheering on JT's occasional idiocy (ala last night),
they're fun to watch.

30 wins or less or bust !!!

Oneal07
01-10-2008, 11:05 AM
I believe Diener should play more also. I heard last night he didn't play much cause he was a "liability" on defence. I mean, TJ Ford weighs 155 and is 6"1 and is a starting PG. If we're going to be good on offense. especially with our 2nd unit, Diener should play.

The thing about Tinsley is that, when he plays he doesn't push the ball up the court fast enough. Last night was the first time I seen him do that in a long time.

During all the losses, we allow the defence to set up, which should be how our offense run. We need to put more pressure on their defence

Infinite MAN_force
01-10-2008, 11:09 AM
Harrison actually runs the floor pretty well for a 7 footer.

I really like the idea of going small... hopefully we see danny and shawne at the 3 and 4 from now on.

OakMoses
01-10-2008, 11:11 AM
UB,

Thanks for the post. I'm inclined to agree with you about the future of this team. While I don't believe that last night was any kind of a victory, and I'm still irate with O'Brien and Tinsley for what happened at the end of the game, I'd like to believe that we're starting to figure a few things out.

I don't believe that J.O'B is a bad coach, and I don't believe that this team lacks talent. Sure were not as talented as the top-tier teams in the league, but there are probably 10-15 with whom I would not trade rosters. I'm as guilty as anybody about knee-jerk negative posts after terrible losses. Hopefully you're right about O'Brien learning from this loss and we'll see some of the same positives in the future. I certainly won't be one who ever roots for the Pacers to lose. Rebuilding is a long and painful process for most teams, and I'm not sure that the Pacers would survive it (in Indy that is). I think we'll stay the course with this roster, but we'll probably see some moderate to significant changes at the deadline or in the offseason.

Major Cold
01-10-2008, 11:20 AM
If Portland can recover with the players and contracts that they had we can to.

I like Diener and Daniels together with Rush, Williams, and Foster. Not saying that is a starting lineup. But it causes alot of mismatches.

So it appears that DH is not going to be resigned and Rush may.

It is time to trade JO. Picks, defensive big, and cap should be the max that we get in return.

Unclebuck
01-10-2008, 11:38 AM
I like Diener and Daniels together with Rush, Williams, and Foster. Not saying that is a starting lineup. But it causes alot of mismatches.




I really like that lineup also.

I think the player most likely to be traded is Ike Diogu. He has a good contract, he has some talent, but he doesn't fit in to this system at all neither the offensive system nor the defensive system. Ike needs to be traded, and I have been one of his biggest supporters

OakMoses
01-10-2008, 12:04 PM
I really like that lineup also.

I think the player most likely to be trade is Ike Diogu. he has a good contract, he has some talent, but he doesn't fit in to this system at all neither the offensive system nor the defensive system. Ike needs to be traded, and I have been one of his biggest supporters

I agree. I like Ike and think he will be a decent starting PF someday. If I were making a list of Pacers most likely to be traded, he'd be #1 with JO as #2, after that, I don't see us really looking to move anyone.

JayRedd
01-10-2008, 12:04 PM
Call me a fool but does anyone else think J.J Redick would be an awesome fit coming of the Indiana bench under O'Brien?

You're a fool.

pacerfreak
01-10-2008, 12:08 PM
I didn't see the game last nite, (too cheap to buy a LP) but after reading PD for a while and looking at the box score it's clear to see this being a pivitol game as some of you are suggesting. Larry Bird said recently we need to get better @ the PF, C, and, yes, PG position. I think the more games we see like this, (or in my case, read about), it just adds more fuel to the fire for LB and Co. to make moves for us to get better. The way LB came across in the interview I'd bet the farm that something will happen before the trade deadline. We need to expect the worst and hope for the best.

Putnam
01-10-2008, 12:12 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by granger33 http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/images/buttons/PDbuttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=641181#post641181)
Call me a fool . . .
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


You're a fool.


Who didn't see that one coming?



Anyway, UncleBuck, please explain why Ike doesn't fit on your plan. I know his numbers aren't good, but that is because the team doesn't fit well together and needs to be retooled. One could argue for building around him (and others). How come he doesn't fit in your retooling plan?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

pacerfreak
01-10-2008, 12:17 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by granger33 http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/images/buttons/PDbuttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=641181#post641181)
Call me a fool . . .

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




Who didn't see that one coming?



Anyway, UncleBuck, please explain why Ike doesn't fit on your plan. I know his numbers aren't good, but that is because the team doesn't fit well together and needs to be retooled. One could argue for building around him (and others). How come he doesn't fit in your retooling plan?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I know I'm not UB so excuse me for answering. Ike just doesn't seem that good or that talented (as far as what he has shown us).

Major Cold
01-10-2008, 12:22 PM
I really think that Ike is limited here as long as JO is here. Even if we trade JO we should get a solid defender that would still eat Ike's minutes.

I say that Williams develops his interior game and we go with him being our future starting 4.

Looking out there in NBA land only a few scenarios would work with a JO trade.

I am posting my scenarios in the trade forum

Putnam
01-10-2008, 12:23 PM
I know I'm not UB so excuse me for answering. Ike just doesn't seem that good or that talented (as far as what he has shown us).


Ok, I see that point of view.


UncleBuck is making a different argument. He says that Ike has talent, but doesn't fit with the system. Granted that is evident. My question is, if the system has to change, why jettison a "talented" player rather than retool to make him fit better?

BoomBaby33
01-10-2008, 12:57 PM
2) Say goodbye to Ike and David for quite some time. We are going small folks. Shawne is back in the rotation and he will get the minutes that Ike or David would have gotten. Expect to see Granger and Shawne play a lot of power forward. Trying to play a "big" running lineup hasn't worked.

3) What do we do with JO. (I don't want that question to dominate this thread) But we need his defense for sure. Other than that I don't see that we need much else from him. He doesn't fit into this offense, right now I'm at a loss to know what to do with him. I almost want to say, "tell him to play like Jeff Foster on the offensive end" "Don't try to do too much"

2) Hoo-ray. Thats what I heard Obie say in the post game interview, and I think with this team you have to resign yourself to it. I hope its true. Slog JO ball doesn't work anymore. Not to mention, i hate it. Its boring and easy to defend, unless your Dwight Howard, Shaq (old school), or now Bynum (new school). The key is to play all out for 48 minutes on both ends, and not have any lapses. Not to mention that Shawne is our best athletic wing and best pure shooter, along with Rush surprisingly - you gotta play them and let them grow as players. I wonder if this ("going small") is a small "hint" that JO is going to be traded. Between Shawne and Danny, one of them can play PF in this offense. Ike im not sure about either.

3) Somone mentioned in an thread a couple weeks ago to tell JO (if he stays with the Pacers that is) to play like Camby in Denver - forget about him in the offense, and just tell him to play defense and rebound the damn ball. No more dumpdowns - tell him to set high post picks like Jeff does and roll.

Otherwise, face it, "REBUILD" time is upon us. The RETOOL'ing thing ain't happening. If your the Simons, you better realize this real soon, and get JO outta here ASAP (before the trade deadline).

Shade
01-10-2008, 01:07 PM
1. Stop living in denial and wondering how to "fix" this team and just accept reality - that this team doesn't have the talent level to ever be anything more than a 35 win team.

2. Get rid of the crap and build towards the future with Danny, Shawne, high draft picks, and maybe some cap space.

Pretty simple really.

Yup.

We need to rebuild, folks. Keep Shawne and probably Danny and dump pretty much everyone else over the next couple years for draft picks, expiring contracts, and players with potential that are languishing on the bench elsewhere.

In other words, follow the Portland model of rebuilding. If they could unload that entire roster of miscreants with big contracts, then so can we.

Shade
01-10-2008, 01:09 PM
Slog JO ball doesn't work anymore. Not to mention, i hate it. Its boring and easy to defend, unless your Dwight Howard, Shaq (old school), or now Bynum (new school).

Bynum doesn't play in a slog ball offense at all.

It probably doesn't hurt that he has players like Kobe surrounding him, either.

OakMoses
01-10-2008, 01:10 PM
Ok, I see that point of view.


UncleBuck is making a different argument. He says that Ike has talent, but doesn't fit with the system. Granted that is evident. My question is, if the system has to change, why jettison a "talented" player rather than retool to make him fit better?

I'll take a stab at it. I agree that Ike is talented, but here's why I think he should be traded.

1.) Granger and Williams are the future at the 3/4 postions.
2.) Ike cannot play the 5 spot regularly for quite a few reasons.
3.) J.O'B cleary prefers to play Murphy, Foster, and JO over Ike.
4.) Ike is young, talented, and has a cheap contract. This means his trade value is much higher than the players in front of him in the rotation.

Personally, I think that Ike could play the 4 in this system reasonably well, but if it comes down to a choice between Ike and Shawne (which I think it does) it's not a hard decision.

Unclebuck
01-10-2008, 01:16 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by granger33 http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/images/buttons/PDbuttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=641181#post641181)
Call me a fool . . .
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




Who didn't see that one coming?



Anyway, UncleBuck, please explain why Ike doesn't fit on your plan. I know his numbers aren't good, but that is because the team doesn't fit well together and needs to be retooled. One could argue for building around him (and others). How come he doesn't fit in your retooling plan?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


Ike likes to hold the ball, he likes to pound it and try to get his shot. This system requires quick ball movement and big guys that are willing to screen and pass the ball.

Ike is having a lot of trouble picking up the defensive system, he really looks lost out there. This system demands a lot on the big guys, they are asked to do the majority of the work.

But really what convinced me more than anything was a couple of games ago, when O'Brien decided to play David instead of Ike. If that doesn't convince us than nothing will.

Unclebuck
01-10-2008, 01:19 PM
Ok, I see that point of view.


UncleBuck is making a different argument. He says that Ike has talent, but doesn't fit with the system. Granted that is evident. My question is, if the system has to change, why jettison a "talented" player rather than retool to make him fit better?

He has some talent - he can score, although he isn't great in the post, more on short spot up jumpers. (He also doesn't run the court well).

Ike isn't talented enough to retool the system to fit his abilities. He just isn't worth it.

Major Cold
01-10-2008, 01:21 PM
I'll take a stab at it. I agree that Ike is talented, but here's why I think he should be traded.

1.) Granger and Williams are the future at the 3/4 postions.
2.) Ike cannot play the 5 spot regularly for quite a few reasons.
3.) J.O'B cleary prefers to play Murphy, Foster, and JO over Ike.
4.) Ike is young, talented, and has a cheap contract. This means his trade value is much higher than the players in front of him in the rotation.

Personally, I think that Ike could play the 4 in this system reasonably well, but if it comes down to a choice between Ike and Shawne (which I think it does) it's not a hard decision.
:iagree:

Unclebuck
01-10-2008, 01:26 PM
Yup.

We need to rebuild, folks. Keep Shawne and probably Danny and dump pretty much everyone else over the next couple years for draft picks, expiring contracts, and players with potential that are languishing on the bench elsewhere.

In other words, follow the Portland model of rebuilding. If they could unload that entire roster of miscreants with big contracts, then so can we.

Shade I know you didn't suggest I was living in denial. Others did, but I don't think I am living in denial. I have no problem rebuilding, but it isn't going to happen right away or during this season. I suggested that JO doesn't fit into this offense - that is obvious to everyone. I wanted the pacers trade trade JO this past summer or really the summer prior to that. Tinsley fits this offense rather well - or at least his talents do. Dunleavy fits, I think granger does, Williams does. Murphy doesn't really fit anywhere, but he'll be too hard to trade, so he'll be here quite awhile. Foster fits. Ike doesn't. Daniels is fine.

If they want to rebuild that is fine by me, but I also think if the pacers trade JO and a few other players like Ike and if a really smart trade or two are made, I don't think we have to rebuild.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-10-2008, 02:21 PM
That's what I'm talking 'bout UB. What's up with me coming around a gushing all over Buck today? Jermaine may not be able to demand the same kind of player he could a couple of season's ago but he should be able to net a couple of players that do really fit into this system ( maybe even the coveted young ones) and Ike's youth and contract make him attractive to teams that fit his style better. Where we don't agree is with Daniels. I think Daniels is an good player but a better trading piece.

Putnam
01-10-2008, 02:22 PM
Thanks, everybody, for the clarifications. I understand the argument clearly now.


I guess all I can add is:

They'll have to make the best of things,
It's an uphill climb.

QuickRelease
01-10-2008, 02:27 PM
You're a fool.

Why do you say that? He wouldn't be more than a role player, but you can never have enough pure shooters. At the least, he'd be someone on the floor that a defender couldn't help off of, so I'd love to have him, especially since we seem to love jacking up scores of 3's.

OakMoses
01-10-2008, 02:31 PM
Where we don't agree is with Daniels. I think Daniels is an good player but a better trading piece.

I'm with you on this one. I'd probably put Daniels on the list right behind Ike and JO as far as trade assets. If UB's right and Daniels is not our backup PG, then it really comes down to either he or Rush for the backup 2. Rush fits the system better and seems to be showing up a little bit more every game. If Daniels were to be moved, I'd not be too upset.

LoneGranger33
01-10-2008, 02:37 PM
People I'd like to see traded for picks and relief
1 - Troy Murphy, the albatross
2 - Marquis Daniels, the half-wit
3 - Ike Diogu, the midget

QuickRelease
01-10-2008, 02:37 PM
People I'd like to see traded for picks and relief
1 - Troy Murphy, the albatross
2 - Marquis Daniels, the half-wit
3 - Ike Diogu, the midget

Why is Marquis a half-wit?

LoneGranger33
01-10-2008, 02:39 PM
Why is Marquis a half-wit?

He forces the action more than Kobe in a Colorado hotel room.
And he makes worse decisions than a drunk Donald Rumsfeld.

avoidingtheclowns
01-10-2008, 03:51 PM
I know I'm not UB so excuse me for answering. Ike just doesn't seem that good or that talented (as far as what he has shown us).

people seem to forget how well ike was playing before the injury. he carried us during stretches in the first three games (wins against WAS, MIA and MEM). those stretches we see now where no one can hit a thing, ike was putting us on his back and carrying us. suddenly he's a no-talent hack? i don't buy it. he played three solid games, then got injured and since coming back hasn't looked as good. injury could still be lingering or it could be more of a timing issue, who knows.

i'm not saying he shouldn't be traded as some have suggested -- given the state of this team i'd consider everyone available for the right deal. but i think saying ike isn't good or talented is having a short memory.

OakMoses
01-10-2008, 04:50 PM
people seem to forget how well ike was playing before the injury. he carried us during stretches in the first three games (wins against WAS, MIA and MEM). those stretches we see now where no one can hit a thing, ike was putting us on his back and carrying us.

-12
-12
-11

Those are Ike's +/- numbers for the first three games. I like Ike and think he's quite talented, but if he was carrying us at any point during those games, he obviously wasn't doing that great of a job of it.

NuffSaid
01-10-2008, 05:03 PM
As disappointed as I was that my boyz lose, I agree with UB that there were some positives that should be taken away from the game.

Small ball should be the way this team plays. I've felt for some time that Deiner should have remained the BU-PG, but agreed with most that he needed to sit back and work on his defense alittle bit. So, as much as it pained me to watch Quis at the Point, sitting Deiner out may have turned out to be a good thing. His shooting touch has returned and like Rush, he's starting to use other parts of his game to be more effective instead of being just a long-ball jump shooter, and his defense has actually improved!

I've long wanted to see Shawne Williams on the floor backing up Granger and/or Dunleavy, whomever started at SF. Anyone who watched him perform after returning from his 3-game "team imposed" suspension knows he was very aggressive and showed alot of confidence on the floor no matter who he was up against. Moreover, he was scoring the ball very well, reading the defense and was multi-faceted out there using jump shots, baseline drives and even showing some athleticism under the rim.

I became convinced that Rush should become the team's 6th Man at the very least ever since that Bulls game where he laid down 20+ pts. He's been a reliable scorer coming off the bench since then avg. 14 ppg in under 20 minutes. Let him start again and let's see if his production increases! His defense has improved alot since the start of the season. He has quickness and very good lateral movement AND he knows when to rotate defensively and when NOT to foul although he has been called for some very questional ticky-tack fouls of late IMO.

I love the energy, hustle and dedication to the fundamentals Jeff Foster brings. I just wish he'd learn how to put the ball on the floor and either drive to the basket more or just take the open shot! He's usually left alone out there because most defenders don't believe he'll shot the ball. He doesn't have very good handles, but I still think he'd be far more useful as an X-Factor mid-range/interior player if he'd just find some confidence in his shot and start taking more of them rather than passing the ball off so much. When he goes strong to the basket, he's been very effective!

I thought last night's lineup of Granger (PF), Dunleavy (SF), Foster, Tinsley and Rush (SG) w/Williams as 6th Man and Deiner as BU/PG represents this team's best players, 1-7, who fits JOB's uptempo system extremely well! I'd like to see this lineup more often even if it means bringing JO off the bench which IMO might not be such a bad idea considering he's not 100% anyway.

The team effort was there last night, and it didn't look like players were performing from a sense of despiration, like a team who needed a win badly! They looked like they "belonged" out there together. Like I've said in other threads concerning last night's loss, this team performed very well until around the 3:45 minute of the 4th quarter. Sad to say, that's when the bottom fell out.

CableKC
01-10-2008, 05:24 PM
people seem to forget how well ike was playing before the injury. he carried us during stretches in the first three games (wins against WAS, MIA and MEM). those stretches we see now where no one can hit a thing, ike was putting us on his back and carrying us. suddenly he's a no-talent hack? i don't buy it. he played three solid games, then got injured and since coming back hasn't looked as good. injury could still be lingering or it could be more of a timing issue, who knows.

i'm not saying he shouldn't be traded as some have suggested -- given the state of this team i'd consider everyone available for the right deal. but i think saying ike isn't good or talented is having a short memory.
I don't mind saying that I am probably one of the few here that agree with you. I don't think that Ike is Starter material....simply cuz there are some important limitations in his game....but I think that he would better fit the Backup Big Man role ( probably as a 4th/5th Big Man ) that would be used on a situational basis.

I don't expect him to carry us on his back.....but the one key thing that he does best is try to score in or near the paint....something that I think is needed at times when we begin to bet too comfortable with taking our jumpshots.

I know that in JO'Bs offense that it requires a lot of ball movement....but it also requires efficient scoring from all positions. I think that there are times when it would be better to slow things down ( like when we have a lead ) and get the ball to a player that has a good chance of scoring the ball. Depending on the situation....I think that Ike would be good at doing that.

For example, I suggested it twice in the Suns Post-Game thread....but I honestly think that Ike would have helped during that huge stretch in the 4th QTR when no one was able to score the ball. I agree that he could be as bad as JONeal when it come to pounding the ball, passing out and even worse on defense.....but what many people forget is that Ike ( much like Marquis ) is very good getting his body inside the paint and drawing fouls. To me...this is something that we really needed yesterday...scoring in the paint, trying to draw fouls and subsequently getting Marion or Stoudamire in foul trouble.

I agree that if the right deal came along, I would probably consider moving him. However, I would like to see him used more in the offense in a backup role where he gets consistent minutes before passing any final judgements on him. At least for this season..... I would give up on JONeal ( which I have pretty much done ) before I give up on Ike. With Ike, I think that there is a chance that he can grow into the role that I think that he is better suited for.

Evan_The_Dude
01-10-2008, 05:28 PM
Why don't we trade Ike and a filler to Sacramento for Mike Bibby (I'm aware he hasn't played all season but I'm not sure if he's due back or not.). I don't think that's a trade that would exactly hurt us right now, actually it would help us a great deal. Bibby's value isn't all that high right now either which makes it a good time to make that deal.

BoomBaby33
01-10-2008, 05:55 PM
Bynum doesn't play in a slog ball offense at all.

It probably doesn't hurt that he has players like Kobe surrounding him, either.

I wasn't necessarily saying he is a traditional slog ball player while everybody else stands around and lets him go to work - ala JO, as much as I was trying to point out that Andrew is one of the few centers in the league that can use his size and power to dominate inside. Look at his domination against us in the first half, and he is only 20. Just wait till he learns how to play.

I can agree with you that playing with Kobe makes him better, even though I still cant stand Kobe.

Kemo
01-10-2008, 06:14 PM
1) Diener needs to be the back up point guard. He needs to play 10-15 minutes per night. (Sure there might be the occassional game against bigger point guards where he won't be able to play too much) but he runs our offense very well - he can shoot, he is really a good passer - I mean really good, he has a feel for how to run an offense. Sure his defense isn't good, but what else is new on this team. We need Diener to be the backup point guard. Play Diener - I just hope his ankle is OK. He runs the offense so much better than Daniels or Owens and in fact he provides an offensive spark




I am glad someone else feels like I do regarding Diener..


But to be honest this is what I believe should be done with this Indiana Pacers team ...

start playing him as backup ..
start giving him 15 to 19 minutes per game..
gradually increasing his minutes per game... and make him a starter... with Owens as his backup off the bench..

Eventually try packaging up and trading Tinsley and J.O for an all star caliber Center or Power Forward before the deadline this year.. even if we have to get rid of Harrison in some kinda deal... it needs to be done.. Harrison is about worthless.. He has all the talent in the world.. but all he is good for is fouling out .. or getting hurt.. lol .. I would really love for him to breakout and have a good season , but I have all but given up on waiting for him to come around...

as far as the other players on the team ..
I absolutely want us to keep Dunleavy .. I believe he was BORN to be , and retire as an Indiana Pacer... and he will only get better and better as he is with us.. I love this guy...

without JO , I believe Granger will get more consistant.. and I really do like the guy..

I believe we STOLE Kareem Rush .. as the season wears on , and Rush plays more.. I believe it will get to the point where we will have to offer him alot better contract to keep him here.. I see him developing into an all star if he dedicates himself to the game.. as his shooting stroke gets consistant.. and gets to play more minutes ..

Most of ya'll already know my feelings on Diener.. ... He should be developed to be our starting Pg... bar-none..


Foster... what can I say.. He is a Pacer.. through and through.. and is our foundation... great rebounder , and always there to tip in a miss.. we need Jeff... no ifs ands or buts.. He always gives 110% .. he may not be a scorer.. but he is always good for 10 to 12 points , 10 to 12+ rebs per game , and he has saved our *** many a times with his defense at the rim..


Ike.. I like the guy.. he has shown flashes of brilliance.. and is a good player.. he just needs more time... I think he will develop nicely .. the more he gets to play... and the more he gets to know this pacers team..

Kemo
01-10-2008, 06:22 PM
I heard last night he didn't play much cause he was a "liability" on defence.


Whoever thinks that Diener is a liability on defense.. and Tinsley is not .. is smoking CRACK...!!!

While TD may not be a good defensive player... Tinsley is horrid at defense.. just horrid.... the only thing JT does well .. (when he actually does it ) is steal the ball....

otherwise JT's defense is a liability... moreso than ANYONE on the team...

seriously take any random games and look at the stats of Tinsley and whoever he was matched up against....

he allows his opponent to pretty much get anything off they want... ..

If JOB actually said that or thinks that about TD being a liability on defense.. and thats his reasoning.. maybe JOB needs to lay off the pipe .. as well..

Mourning
01-10-2008, 06:23 PM
people seem to forget how well ike was playing before the injury. he carried us during stretches in the first three games (wins against WAS, MIA and MEM). those stretches we see now where no one can hit a thing, ike was putting us on his back and carrying us. suddenly he's a no-talent hack? i don't buy it. he played three solid games, then got injured and since coming back hasn't looked as good. injury could still be lingering or it could be more of a timing issue, who knows.

i'm not saying he shouldn't be traded as some have suggested -- given the state of this team i'd consider everyone available for the right deal. but i think saying ike isn't good or talented is having a short memory.

That's exactly my position on Ike aswell.

And the thing with the +/- statistics is that you have to use it on every player, not just Ike. Besides, I don't think it's that meaningfull of a statistic to just throw out there without some added info like who was on the floor when he was, etc.? Anyway, I think Ike has still not fully recovered from his injury since coming back :twocents:.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

d_c
01-10-2008, 08:20 PM
People I'd like to see traded for picks and relief
1 - Troy Murphy, the albatross
2 - Marquis Daniels, the half-wit
3 - Ike Diogu, the midget

I realize a lot of people want to wave a magic wand in front of Murphy and turn him into a 1st round pick, but it's not happening.

It's not as if teams around the league are lining up to get a piece of Troy Murphy and are offering all these picks and short contracts in return.

If you value picks and cap relief, well guess what? The same goes for about 27 or 28 other teams in the league. Everyone wants draft picks. Everyone wants cap relief. Get in line. Those are the commodities everyone wants. Name me a GM who doesn't want those things.

It's not as if other teams around the league not named the Pacers are saying that they want to trade away their picks in return for guys with bloated contracts.

LoneGranger33
01-10-2008, 08:30 PM
I realize a lot of people want to wave a magic wand in front of Murphy and turn him into a 1st round pick, but it's not happening.

It's not as if teams around the league are lining up to get a piece of Troy Murphy and are offering all these picks and short contracts in return.

If you value picks and cap relief, well guess what? The same goes for about 27 or 28 other teams in the league. Everyone wants draft picks. Everyone wants cap relief. Get in line. Those are the commodities everyone wants. Name me a GM who doesn't want those things.

It's not as if other teams around the league not named the Pacers are saying that they want to trade away their picks in return for guys with bloated contracts.

I would take on a convicted serial killer if I was told he wouldn't shoot so much. Add a late second round pick and that trade is a steal.

CableKC
01-10-2008, 09:12 PM
I would take on a convicted serial killer if I was told he wouldn't shoot so much. Add a late second round pick and that trade is a steal.
Wow......:hmm:

LoneGranger33
01-10-2008, 10:22 PM
Wow......:hmm:

Yeah, looking back, I guess that was a bit extreme. I should have said suspected serial killer.

jeffg-body
01-10-2008, 10:24 PM
I have to agree with a lot that Ike has talent, but we need him to be the future 5 spot and he just needs to be 4 or 5 inches taller to play the 5 spot. I agree he could be a nice trading piece, maybe add as a sweetener to get rid of a bad contract.

SycamoreKen
01-11-2008, 08:06 AM
Can Diener be Beno Udrih?

Unclebuck
01-11-2008, 08:29 AM
I think O'Brien says it very well here, on what Diener brings to the Pacers.

"We like his tempo and spacing, and he gets guys moving and he distributes the basketball," O'Brien said about Diener

Naptown_Seth
01-11-2008, 02:05 PM
he is really a good passer - I mean really good,I disagree on this, I just haven't seen it from him. He lacks one arm strength to make a lot of passes where 2 hand passes are too slow or awkward (crossing your body for example). He also doesn't have the handles to position the ball for trickier passes. You aren't going to see the behind the back type of moves, or even a killer cross-over to pull your defender out of your passing lane.

He is the epitome of simplistic fundamentals paired with hustle that finds it's way into a modest bench role and the hearts of millions of fans.

I think O'Brien says it very well here, on what Diener brings to the Pacers.

"We like his tempo and spacing, and he gets guys moving and he distributes the basketball," O'Brien said about Diener
I think what JOB likes is the pace Diener plays at. He tries to move with the ball at a high rate and is pretty good about staying aware of his off-the-ball movement.


I think Ike is about as flawed as Harrison. Yes he has some things that when you see them you think "stud post guy", but like Hulk he also has massive gaps in his game that are easily (and often) exploited by other teams.

He can't pass, doesn't have the height to see over traps/doubles, doesn't have height to deny a lot of post scoring, and isn't fast like some smaller post men.

He gets great position, he has a decent mid-game and he has a fair set of post scoring moves. It's not enough to be a 25 mpg guy IMO, not for most teams at least.


I love Danny and Shawne but it really feels like they will have to give them up in order to fix other problems.

Naptown_Seth
01-11-2008, 02:18 PM
-12
-12
-11

Those are Ike's +/- numbers for the first three games. I like Ike and think he's quite talented, but if he was carrying us at any point during those games, he obviously wasn't doing that great of a job of it.
I agree, and before people slam the stat keep in mind what it means and how that matches what you saw him doing.

While he was on the floor the Pacers were losing leads or falling behind. No matter what he was doing in that time, how was that resulting in "carrying the team" if they were losing with him out there?

I don't care if he went 12-12 with 15 rebounds in 2 freaking minutes, if you somehow lost that 2 minute stretch by 10 then he wasn't saving the day.


Just do me this one favor with the +/- stat, ask yourself how it is possible for the team to fall behind/lose a period of game by so much when that player is kicking butt? That's what the +/- shows, it shows that while SOME stats on a guy look good there might be other aspects that are hidden from normal stats but are affecting the game just as much.

Guy goes 1-2 but the other team goes 2-2 the other way and lead by 2. Why did that happen? It wasn't his 50% shooting. By that stat he's great.

Hey, maybe it's the other 4 guys, or some guy he's not guarding on the other team that's going off, or even a guy he is guarding that's just having one of those nights. Regardless none of that sums up to "carrying the team". At best you get something more like "it would have been even worse without him". That does happen, just like some guys get a +/- bump thanks to guys they are playing with.

LoneGranger33
01-11-2008, 03:55 PM
Here's a plan: Hire a shooting coach, or get JJ Redick, because he's apparently the best shooter in NBA history, and have him focus on Jamaal Tinsley, Troy Murphy and Marquis Daniels - you know, the guys who can't make jump shots.

And, while we're at it, a better trainer.

JayRedd
01-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Here's a plan: Hire a shooting coach, or get JJ Redick, because he's apparently the best shooter in NBA history, and have him focus on Jamaal Tinsley, Troy Murphy and Marquis Daniels - you know, the guys who can't make jump shots.

Or just pony up $29.95 for the video:

http://www.hoopskills.com/images/betterbasketball/bettershooting2_med.jpg

imawhat
01-12-2008, 04:51 PM
What about fewer minutes for Murphy? It would seem to me going small (and quick) would mean more Ike (now that he's back) and Williams, and less Murphy and (as you say) Harrison.


That would be my solution once Ike is 100%. Ike will be a contributor on this team.

I also think the Pacers should look at having Dunleavy initiate the offense when Tinsley isn't on the floor. Everything seems to run smoothly when he's in control.

CableKC
01-12-2008, 05:52 PM
That would be my solution once Ike is 100%. Ike will be a contributor on this team.

I also think the Pacers should look at having Dunleavy initiate the offense when Tinsley isn't on the floor. Everything seems to run smoothly when he's in control.
I am under the impression that Dunleavy maybe an okay option to do this...but it seems that he's way more effective playing off-the-ball and scoring.

As UB suggested in another thread....it seems that we need to have playmakers that get the open shots for the other players. Whose the best players that can do that?

Young
01-12-2008, 09:59 PM
I am under the impression that Dunleavy maybe an okay option to do this...but it seems that he's way more effective playing off-the-ball and scoring.

As UB suggested in another thread....it seems that we need to have playmakers that get the open shots for the other players. Whose the best players that can do that?

I don't think we have players that can get open shots for others except maybe Jamaal.

As you said Mike is better playing off the ball. I think that Marquis can create for himself but not others.

NPFII
01-13-2008, 05:45 AM
UB's suggestions may be good ones, but they're all short-term. The problem with short term solutions is that they tend to neglect the long term aspects.

The long term aspects of this team are not that bad actually. The bloated contracts that will expire 2-3 years from now actually force mid-high draft choices for the next 2-3 years. Trading JO for picks, and maybe a decent piece can be a positive as well.

IMO there's only 1 real NBA starter on the Pacers and that's Danny Granger. He's the only guy I'd give a contract extension. All the others have ample replacement.

Long term, this team needs an all-star caliber guard (point, combo, shooting, whatever). Then it will need a dominant big man. Sorry JO, that's maybe what you were, but surely not any more.

An all-star guard, with a dominant big, surrounded by good shooters and some physical bangers, with veteran leadership off the bench. That's the recipe, and the only semi-piece in place is Danny Granger as the complement shooter role.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 12:11 AM
I disagree on this, I just haven't seen it from him. He lacks one arm strength to make a lot of passes where 2 hand passes are too slow or awkward (crossing your body for example). He also doesn't have the handles to position the ball for trickier passes. You aren't going to see the behind the back type of moves, or even a killer cross-over to pull your defender out of your passing lane.

He is the epitome of simplistic fundamentals paired with hustle that finds it's way into a modest bench role and the hearts of millions of fans.

I think what JOB likes is the pace Diener plays at. He tries to move with the ball at a high rate and is pretty good about staying aware of his off-the-ball movement.
I would like to say that Diener showed better passing and better moves in the last 2 games than I credited him for here. He is still a backup caliber player that can be good for 10-20 minutes depending on the flow, but then I wasn't really denying that anyway.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 12:24 AM
The long term aspects of this team are not that bad actually. The bloated contracts that will expire 2-3 years from now actually force mid-high draft choices for the next 2-3 years. Trading JO for picks, and maybe a decent piece can be a positive as well.
So that's losing this year, losing the next 2 as well, then JO expires. Unfortunately you have to resign Danny, Ike and maybe Quis. Oh, and either resign JO for much less or find another PF. All for about 25-30m, not counting any high ranking draft pick deals that come before then (usually around 2-3m I think), or Foster for that matter.

Then after yet another year of probable losing with a team trying to find it's way and clear space you finally lose the Dun, Troy and Tins deals. Now you can actually do something with that money and maybe get into the FA market. Of course don't forget that Shawne might need resigned and then the year after this a guy perhaps like Eric Gordon, if the Pacers get lucky/unlucky (however you view all that losing). And you might still want Dun at that point.


5 years of losing just to get good picks, some of which might be Bender, and none of which are promised to gel. I give you Kidd, Mashburn and Jim Jackson as example "A".

I mean this seriously, what team in the NBA doesn't have an outlook just as positive as that? Even the Knicks will lose their contracts by then.

Peck
01-14-2008, 02:29 AM
So that's losing this year, losing the next 2 as well, then JO expires. Unfortunately you have to resign Danny, Ike and maybe Quis. Oh, and either resign JO for much less or find another PF. All for about 25-30m, not counting any high ranking draft pick deals that come before then (usually around 2-3m I think), or Foster for that matter.

Then after yet another year of probable losing with a team trying to find it's way and clear space you finally lose the Dun, Troy and Tins deals. Now you can actually do something with that money and maybe get into the FA market. Of course don't forget that Shawne might need resigned and then the year after this a guy perhaps like Eric Gordon, if the Pacers get lucky/unlucky (however you view all that losing). And you might still want Dun at that point.


5 years of losing just to get good picks, some of which might be Bender, and none of which are promised to gel. I give you Kidd, Mashburn and Jim Jackson as example "A".

I mean this seriously, what team in the NBA doesn't have an outlook just as positive as that? Even the Knicks will lose their contracts by then.


I don't know if I've ever agreed with you more than what you are saying right here and right now.

BTW, great great great examples of Kidd, Mashburn and Jackson. Perfect.

I'm with you on this, there is no one sure fire way to be a contender. If there was then everybody would do it.

Hicks
01-14-2008, 10:26 AM
The closest thing to a sure fire method is make moves based on making the chemistry (on two fronts: Basketball and Personnel) good or keeping it there while molding the team around talented building blocks.

I think we're starting to get 1/3 of it right, but 2/3 are still ahead. We're getting the Personnel chemistry back, but now we need talented building blocks and we need a team that works better as a team. Actually fixing the talent might fix both at the same time if it's the right guy or guys.

Now, how do you do it? Well when you're low in talent you have to add some through the draft first, then you start to trade second IMO.

Evan_The_Dude
01-14-2008, 06:33 PM
At this point we have two options.

1. We can continue on as we are and go into rebuilding mode.

2. We can go after a true impact go-to player and do what it takes to get that player.

I'm hoping Bird is looking at option 2. Because having a bunch of role players hasn't won us any championships in our entire history. There's no reason to think it's going to happen now. Has this franchise lost sight of it's goal?

The goal isn't to cruise along and pick up garbage contracts, deal with off court incidents, and miss the post season. The goal isn't to come up with team slogans [because this aint High School].

Championships is what it's about. Not getting to the playoffs. Not just being competitive. Not just doing what the fans want. Championship is the goal. I think over the last couple of years this team has really been selling itself short. Being too conservative with the moves it makes. Larry Bird has Jermaine O'Neal declining but still tradable, has an experienced front office veteran in Donnie Walsh to go to for advice, yet in the off-season all he could come up with is Travis Diener and Kareem Rush?

I want to see some bold moves, but bold moves that make sense. Let's go ahead and do what we have to do with Tinsley, and maybe even Jermaine, and lets get players here that are going to get us to our goal.

If I'm Larry Bird, nobody is untouchable. Everybody has a price, and I'd be willing to pay a price to get a player that's going to fit better than what we've got now. If I'm Larry, I'm looking at what needs to be done right this second. We need a true aggressive leader type of player in here that can get his own shot, can make his own shot, can defend some, can get to the line, and can stay out of trouble. We have enough guys that somebody would want in exchange for this type of player, so Larry needs get on it.

d_c
01-14-2008, 07:12 PM
We need a true aggressive leader type of player in here that can get his own shot, can make his own shot, can defend some, can get to the line, and can stay out of trouble. We have enough guys that somebody would want in exchange for this type of player, so Larry needs get on it.

So in other words, you want an all-star or superstar. That's the type of thing every team in the league is looking to add, often times even ones that already have a player like that.

That's like saying you want to trade all your bad contracts for cap relief and draft picks. Again, what team ISN'T looking for that?

jmoney2584
01-14-2008, 07:26 PM
If I'm Larry Bird, nobody is untouchable. Everybody has a price, and I'd be willing to pay a price to get a player that's going to fit better than what we've got now. If I'm Larry, I'm looking at what needs to be done right this second. We need a true aggressive leader type of player in here that can get his own shot, can make his own shot, can defend some, can get to the line, and can stay out of trouble. We have enough guys that somebody would want in exchange for this type of player, so Larry needs get on it.

Hmm where would we find such a player....(see my crudely strung together avatar)

Evan_The_Dude
01-14-2008, 07:42 PM
So in other words, you want an all-star or superstar. That's the type of thing every team in the league is looking to add, often times even ones that already have a player like that.

That's like saying you want to trade all your bad contracts for cap relief and draft picks. Again, what team ISN'T looking for that?

To answer both questions, the Spurs.

Anyway, yes I'm aware that most teams are looking for what we're looking for. But unlike most teams, we continuously fail at landing those players. We're always mentioned in rumors, but most of the time a rumor is all that is. I'm tired of seeing us be conservative and picky. We don't want this guy because he stole a computer when he was 18. We don't want that guy because he was injured once. We don't want that guy because he threw a chair once. We don't want that guy because he yelled at his coach once...

A lot of us talk about what the hell we don't want as if we have a team full of saints. As if we have a team full of guys that sleep with the bible and knit during the nights instead of hitting the clubs. Reality is that every one of our players go out. Every one of our player put themselves in positions that could be considered questionable. Hell, my buddy 2 nights ago called me from the Triangle Lounge in San Francisco telling me he saw Troy Murphy leaving there at 2:15am dressed like some punk guy.

I just want us to take a damn chance. I want some players with some edge to them. I want the toughness back. I want players here with some testicular fortitude. I'm tired of having a bunch of guys that are looking for somebody else to make the next move. It would be different if we were like the Warriors (my 2nd favorite team and I'm a former season ticket holder of theirs during their worst years), where everybody was agressive. We have a coach that wants everybody to be aggressive, but that isn't the strength of most of our guys. Then we have the aggressive ones that shouldn't be so aggressive [cough cough Tinsley].

So if what I'm asking for is basically saying that we need an All-Star or Superstar, then hell yes that's what we need because what we have aint workin. We have enough pieces to get one, we need to make it happen.

Evan_The_Dude
01-14-2008, 07:43 PM
Hmm where would we find such a player....(see my crudely strung together avatar)

I hope so, but when's the last time we've been lucky like that?

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 09:53 PM
The closest thing to a sure fire method is make moves based on making the chemistry (on two fronts: Basketball and Personnel) good or keeping it there while molding the team around talented building blocks.

I think we're starting to get 1/3 of it right, but 2/3 are still ahead. We're getting the Personnel chemistry back, but now we need talented building blocks and we need a team that works better as a team. Actually fixing the talent might fix both at the same time if it's the right guy or guys.

Now, how do you do it? Well when you're low in talent you have to add some through the draft first, then you start to trade second IMO.
I agree on the idea, but I'm not sure the personnel is as fixed as you think. Some of it has to do with newness and being away from the losing. Honestly to me it seems like the sniping on court between players is growing and perhaps worse than last year.

Again, I hated the GS trade because it moved Jackson for the wrong reason, and in the case of both Al and Jack it didn't address the on-court chemistry issues one bit, let alone the financial situation. And even the off-court stuff, despite all the talk, isn't a sure-fire thing as I just mentioned. They addressed the FAN-player chemistry, the one thing that really doesn't matter.

It's a trick, you think "move the guy they don't like and they'll return", but then the fans don't make good on that. So why make a deal to appease them? The answer is you don't.

If they wanted to deal Jack, if they needed to deal Al, then they needed to consider the current or future coach, as well as the current and future chances of winning. There is no way TPTB could really think the GS deal would take them from 42 wins to 52 wins or something, so why take on the extra cash to stay about the same?


Back to the chemistry thing, it's not just nice guys get along. There are passive and aggressive types that feed each other, guys a player can complain to, guys that can get a teammate to man up, all sorts of stuff. It could be that Dun starts taking offense to "street ball" Tins getting on him for his choices since Dun "knows the game" as a coach's kid. It could be that JO intimidates Danny, or that Danny and Shawne resent each other for filling the same role.

Who the F knows. All I know is that so far I'm not sold that the current version of TPTB know any better than we do. That worries me.

My thing with Rick was this: he was a PROVEN winner. He'd done it with so many different flavors of rosters that you know it's legit. Stackhouse, sure. Rip and Billups, okay. Kenny Anderson, yes. Tins, yes. Ron and JO and Al, yes. Without Reggie, yes. Post brawl without Ron or Jack, yes.

So when things go south maybe you question other aspects, maybe you wonder why this coach has suddenly, shockingly lost touch rather than dumping him and taking this odd direction of non-change.

Look, I said they HAD to stand pat, not that I wanted them too. They have painted themselves in a corner. I wouldn't dump another coach to solve the problem, I'd start putting down paint remover instead and realize you aren't getting out of this quickly. You'll have to free up some salary to make the losing more tolerable and you'll have to pick a player or two to build around.

I like JO quite a bit, but he's not that. I'm not even saying he has to go, maybe there just isn't anything that improves the situation with him moving. But you don't acquire players to compliment him at this point. Same with Tins. You either buy into Dun, Danny and/or Shawne or you buy into this year's draft pick.

Then both TPTB and JOB develop a plan that gives this the best odds of working, rather than trying to force something to happen (ahem, running, being defense first, being a post-up team, going for rebounds, anything). Let the talent determine the team's identity because you just don't get unlimited choices. Not every team gets to have Nash.

And BTW, being so deep into the season it's time to perhaps own up to their weak playoff chances and start adjusting for what they think they can do in this draft now.

It's true that the best laid plans go afoul, but the worst laid plans go EVEN MORE afoul. ;) Go ahead and plan on getting that SG, PG, heck Love for PF, I don't care. Then deal guys you have now to get bench pieces that will be primed to compliment that next year or open up cap or trade options for next year to do that.

It doesn't have to be picks or expiring even. Just don't trade for 2 SGs if you really think you might see one you like near your draft position. Right now it doesn't feel like any plan near this level of vision is in place. It feels like they are busy working on bailing out this boat instead.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-15-2008, 12:03 AM
Every one of our player put themselves in positions that could be considered questionable. Hell, my buddy 2 nights ago called me from the Triangle Lounge in San Francisco telling me he saw Troy Murphy leaving there at 2:15am dressed like some punk guy.



1st part I agree with...second part I doubt.........Triangle Lounge (http://www.trianglelounge.com/)

Dr. Goldfoot
01-15-2008, 12:19 AM
*They should stand pat.
*Quit trading for the sake of trading.
*Retain all draft picks for the near future.
*Draft upperclassmen with experience and an inkling of character.
*Do not hand out any more extensions until absolutely sure about the player.
*Allow the fans to get acclimated to the freakin' roster for a change.
*Return to a grassroots PR approach and get as many former Pacers as possible on board. Get Slick Leonard, Mel Daniels, Quinn Buckner & Darnell Hillman out and about. Have current players host things, do autograph sessions etc more often and actually let people know they're happening.
*Televise the games.

jmoney2584
01-15-2008, 12:52 AM
I hope so, but when's the last time we've been lucky like that?

Well if Tinsley keeps acting up and JOs knee does its thing...and the uncanny ability of us to lose talent to injury kicks up again this year I would say to you "whats luck got to do, got to do with it?" Indeed, "whats luck, with tanking set in motion?"

BruceLeeroy
01-16-2008, 05:24 AM
Well if Tinsley keeps acting up and JOs knee does its thing...and the uncanny ability of us to lose talent to injury kicks up again this year I would say to you "whats luck got to do, got to do with it?" Indeed, "whats luck, with tanking set in motion?"

:laugh:........good ****

Putnam
01-16-2008, 08:03 AM
Look out, here he comes...

:boxer:



1st part I agree with...second part I doubt.........Triangle Lounge (http://www.trianglelounge.com/)



:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:


How did you know, Dr. G.?