PDA

View Full Version : Are we better without JO?



Shade
01-11-2008, 02:08 AM
I've been extremely reluctant to accept this, but the evidence to the contrary is starting to mount.

What do you think? Is it possible to be a better team without your All-Star PF?

Mourning
01-11-2008, 02:15 AM
:lol: @ your avatar, Shade :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

FireTheCoach
01-11-2008, 02:22 AM
ya know Shade, I think it's kinda hard to answer that.

First off, he's a former All-Star.... secondly I'll buy the excuse that he's still injured. But he does look totally mediocre these days. JO seems to me to be a halfcourt player on a full court team most nights....

After listening to Larry talk about JO yesterday, it seems pretty obvious that his playing days in Indy are nearing an end.

But I'll say tonight that I think we have played our better games without him on the floor.... but if he has a big game Sat night I reserve the right to change my answer on this poll. :D

Kraft
01-11-2008, 02:31 AM
Offensively? If that's not obvious to just about everyone at this point, I'm not sure what they're watching. He's just not the player he once was.

Defensively, I think there's a big loss with Jermaine out of the lineup.

Chemsitry? You tell me. Pretty solid tiebreaker there, I'd say.

Hailey12
01-11-2008, 02:34 AM
Yes, the Pacers play better without him on offence. Everything is so predictable when JO plays. First you force it to him (maybe gets stolen because everyone knows its coming). Second if he does manage to get it he backs down for 5 seconds and shoots a fade.

I will admit his D is decent and he protects the basket well taking charges and blocking shots but I just wish he would just stay on the defensive end and and never shot the ball again.

Will Galen
01-11-2008, 02:38 AM
Post defense, post defense, post defense!

Bball
01-11-2008, 03:29 AM
JO never reached the ceiling most (in Pacerland) thought he had. Even force-feeding everything thru him and handing him the team on a silver platter didn't do it. He just never got there and it eventually hurt more than it helped to continue doing that.

He probably has declined some either thru age and/or injury. BUT... I'd also be inclined to say he's also showing that he's been overrated and doesn't have much to offer if you don't put him in the starmaker offense and go out of your way to try and make him look good. And to get his -almost- 20-10 stats, with the amount of offense that had to go thru him to do that, he should've been a 30-10 player.

You just can't keep forcefeeding a 40% shooting PF the ball for him to get his 20 points... It eventually wears on other players and it wears on many fans who actually follow the details of the game (and not just the point totals).

tora tora
01-11-2008, 03:39 AM
After watching last night's game the obvious answer is yes. It only leaves them with one extraordinary shot blocker in Mike Dunleavy, but I'll take it if it kick starts the offense.

Rajah Brown
01-11-2008, 07:54 AM
I doubt they'll be better without him. But they are probably
'better off' without him.

It's time to take the best deal J.O. (coupled w/ others if need be)
will bring and begin making the transition to the next Pacers era.
Putting it off is only prolonging the inevitable.

Unclebuck
01-11-2008, 08:08 AM
No way are the Pacers better without JO.

Think about that for a second. Are the pacers better without Foster, better without Dunleavy, better without Granger, better without Daniels, better without Tinsley. NO of course not, so how can they be better without JO.

Putnam
01-11-2008, 08:14 AM
The offense could be better if he were not the focus. The defense definitely benefits from having Jermaine in there. Jermaine needs to sag to the defensive side and let the team run without him.

Jermaine isn't worth what he's paid, and he isn't the guy who can take us to glory. But the Pacers aren't going to get to glory any time soon anyway.

He'll go off the Pacers roster one way or another within two years. That's the time frame we're dealing with. Until then, he might as well play. I like him.

Will Galen
01-11-2008, 08:17 AM
No way are the Pacers better without JO.

Think about that for a second. Are the pacers better without Foster, better without Dunleavy, better without Granger, better without Daniels, better without Tinsley. NO of course not.

Definitive statement, UncleBuck!

Major Cold
01-11-2008, 08:28 AM
I think because of his contract that yes the Pacers are better off without him.

31andonly
01-11-2008, 10:01 AM
When JO is out the offense is much more fluent and effective than with him on the floor!

He's a strong defensive presence, but that's all! Yes, that's all he offers these days, he slows down the offense and goes one-on-one too often.

I've seen a great team effort against the Suns and would love to see some more of it..
I really hope he's gone by February..
Sorry for the hard words but I've seen enough!
Get a first-round-pick and some-I really don't care-thing else for him!

Unclebuck
01-11-2008, 10:30 AM
I think because of his contract that yes the Pacers are better off without him.

That is not the question.


If the question is are the Pacers better off without JO and without his huge contract on their salary cap, then yes, I think the obvious answer is yes they are better.

Doug
01-11-2008, 10:36 AM
NO! Especially, as noted, on the defensive end.


I keep thinking that JO will return to form on the offensive side when he's healthy, but I'm beginning to think he will NEVER be healthy again.

aero
01-11-2008, 10:44 AM
well so far the results of the poll beg the differ ;)

Unclebuck
01-11-2008, 10:49 AM
NO! Especially, as noted, on the defensive end.


I keep thinking that JO will return to form on the offensive side when he's healthy, but I'm beginning to think he will NEVER be healthy again.

That was why I wanted him traded in the summer of 2006. Not trading him then might go down as a huge blunder by Bird and Walsh. I remember bringing this up at the forum party in the summer of 2006 (not sure if you were there Doug) but I mentioned a few guards as possiblities - several agreed with me, a few didn't.

Really now we are stuck with JO, his trade value is less right now than it was this past summer (2007). He is entering the zero trade value category because of his huge contract and significant injuries. I said this past summer that JO was about through playing because he was so injury prone, he is 29 years old in a 35 year old body`

LoneGranger33
01-11-2008, 11:01 AM
I think we are worse offensively with Jermaine on the floor, but I really don't think it's his fault per se.

Kofi
01-11-2008, 11:10 AM
We may not be better without him, but we're not notably better wit him. That's pretty bad, considering he's our $20M 'franchise player".

aceace
01-11-2008, 11:34 AM
IMHO... JO is still a really good player. He is not a JOB offense player. He needs to be somewhere where they play a half court game more to his skills. We need a 2 guard that can shoot the ball (AKA:Redd) We would need to move Granger to the 4 and Dun at the 3 with Foster, Murphy at the 5. I think we need Tinsley at the point and for him to shoot less. Bringing in a very good 2 might solve the problem as Tinman might be inclined to pass more to a better shooter. Yes, we would miss JO's interior defense but our offense might flourish a little more. Its not necessarily are we better without O'Neal, the question should be "Would we be better with a really good outside shooter in place of O'Neal". I would trade for the best 2 I could if given a choice. This would probably require a 3 way deal of some kind due to JO's contract. Feel free to attack this post!

Kofi
01-11-2008, 11:49 AM
J.O. actually had a great December. I was surprised by how good it was looking at the numbers. He was 19/9/3/3 49%, 87% free throws for the month. I was surprised by that, especially the field goal percentage. He's just been horrible in November and January. Maybe he was just in the Christmas spirit.

maragin
01-11-2008, 11:51 AM
I said no, but I would like to take a shot at being better with what we could get in trade.

QuickRelease
01-11-2008, 12:18 PM
On offense - Probably

On defense - Probably not, although, I've never really thought JO was that great of a defender, so much as he is an excellent shot blocker. Our best post defender by far is Jeff Foster, not JO. Harrison has shown signs of being a good helpside shotblocker, but I would not pin hopes of anchoring the defense on him, since we never know when he'll be in there.

Financially - Definitely (although many fall under this category)

Chemistry - Chemistry is such a fragile thing, and hard to define what makes it up, so can't say for sure

As someone stated earlier, it isn't so much that we're drastically better without him; it's that we're not much better with him. With that being said, it's probably time for this marriage to end.

LoneGranger33
01-11-2008, 12:26 PM
Don't forget, JO takes A LOT of charges too...

The Hero
01-11-2008, 12:50 PM
hecks no

Unclebuck
01-11-2008, 01:25 PM
Don't forget, JO takes A LOT of charges too...

He leads the NBA in taking charges

Naptown_Seth
01-11-2008, 01:43 PM
Don't forget, JO takes A LOT of charges too...
I'd guess that he's close to leading the league. Really. The last 2 years he was near the top, was out a bit more than he has been so far, and it seems like his take rate has gone up this season even. It's gotta be 1.5-2 per game. That's BETTER than a steal, you draw a foul on a guy AND take the ball from him cleanly.

Now on the ball he's not great, but he's good enough to live with. Pair him with other defenders of his caliber and you've got a shut down defense (ahem, see a few years ago).


Offense - different story, though as pointed out he did have a solid month there (think it really spanned mid-DEC to mid-JAN). 49% from him is more than enough to get it done. The offense going through him is great IMO, his assists are climbing to an elite level. He's a good passer, not great, who has shown tons of comfort finding other players.

He has one issue right now - he can't make an open mid-jumper and he's struggling to beat even modest post defenders in close. That's a major problem. But he hasn't forced it, he hasn't had a "I'll take the next 6 attempts" run at any time this year. So he takes 2 of 5 at some point, that's not so bad. He's supposed to be involved after all, just like Jeff must sometimes show that he can hit a jumper. Heck, a lot of his jumpers come on ball rotation to him when he's open, it's part of the flow, he's just blowing it.

So the situation is that they need JO to be great scorer JO and he isn't. The rest of his game is fine right now. It's no different than if Troy or Mike aren't hitting the 3. That's what they need to be doing. You don't fault them taking it, you fault them missing it.

If there is a better option that JO is keeping on the bench then of course he's hurting the offense. The problem is there isn't. Even Troy isn't consistently hitting his jumpers either as a trailer or swing man on ball rotation.

I would like to see Shawne in that swing/top of key role with JO at C when capable.


Salary - this is one reason I say move him. The team is stuck I think, so that means clear things out and start rebuilding. There aren't many serious anchor pieces to keep IMO so just move whatever you can and look to build off your draft pick. I'd love to see JO stay, but how can this team get better without his cap space available to fix OTHER talent issues?

wjs
01-11-2008, 02:12 PM
The Pacers are obviously a better team on offense without JO. For many reasons. That just seems a settled case at this point.

On defense, he would be missed, but he would be missed more if he rebounded better or blocked out more.

If the Coach would direct JO to play a different game offensively -- different from his prevailing and predictable post-up game and 16 foot fades -- that might help. It should happen, but don't hold your breath. (And first that coach must direct JT to play team ball at the end of games.)

The JO contract is obviously a bad deal.

In a sense, the question turns on what we would receive in trade for Jermaine. If we could obtain a top 15 pick, an expiring contract(s), and a talented young player, while recycling the contract into manageable pieces in the process, you've got to do it.

The thing is, there are (hopefully?) other teams who will assign a higher value to JO than JO is worth to the Pacers now. Find such a team and capture that differential in perceived value, and move forward. And do it by the deadline.

JayRedd
01-11-2008, 02:19 PM
Ya'll make me laugh.*
















* Except for, of course, LG33.

Rajah Brown
01-11-2008, 02:49 PM
He does take alot of charges. But somehow I'm thinking we could
find someone a bit cheaper to take care of that stat.

I doubt the folks in San Antone spend much time monitoring
or even giving ***** about the number of charges Duncan takes.

NuffSaid
01-11-2008, 03:56 PM
I've given this one lots of thought. My answer is this:

1) If it's the same beat up JO who's been in and out of the line up, then I'd have to say, yes! The team does play much better without the "85%, gimpy JO" out there.

2) If it's a healthy JO who as JOB said during yesterday's "Jim O'Brien Show", who is the team's only big who can produce on both sides of the ball, then I'd have to say w/o question, "NO!"

I've seen the sluggish JO and I've seen the quick moving JO. When he first returned the last time JOB/team medical sat him out for 10 days, that was the best I'd seen him play all season! So, he can do it when healthy. The thing is, most fans won't give him due credit because we've all equated his productivity to his paycheck - even I've done it - and forget about the injury factor. We figure that if he's being paid tens of millions he should be able to produce even on a bum ankle or knee, but that's not reality. Still, we have that right to perceive that that's what he should be doing - getting out there, running the court, bagging w/the big boys, scoring 18-20 ppg, avg. 10-12 rpg, etc.

I'll admit, I want JO to be that player I know he can be, that player we all expect him to be, but the truth is right now he can't be that player. But I'll take a JO that's 65/85% any day of the week because that JO can still do some things to disrupt an offense and would still demand attention while out on the court. Do I prefer that JO? No.

BlueNGold
01-11-2008, 07:36 PM
I answered 'no' strictly based on a comparison of the team with JO available or not available. No trade scenarios or contract relief.

Disregarding contracts and the like, I would use JO either as a backup or on the first team but he would not be allowed to shoot unless he was dunking or completely open from the middle of the floor. A baseline shot from post-up would put him on the bench the rest of the game...whether he made the shot or not. If he scores 50ppg that way, great. Scoring is not what I want from him anyway...

If another player passed to him in the context that they would not pass to Jeff Foster or another lame offensive player, I would consider benching that player...or he would earn a point toward sitting for awhile.

Also, if he does not get at least 9 boards a game, I would bench him for the next game.

To me, all this means is that JO needs to get his shots within the flow of the offense or pickup garbage shots only.

The guy is pretty good on defense, so that's hardly ever the concern.

Now, if you factor in the sad fact that only 3 players in the entire league are paid more than our part-time "super-star", then things take a very sharp turn...

Hicks
01-11-2008, 09:16 PM
Immediately, as in does he play the next game or not (ignoring the injury)? Absolutely NOT!

Long-term, big picture? Almost certainly YES.

HOOPFANATIC
01-11-2008, 10:57 PM
Hey I finally got a trade to go through on Trade checker!!! Hooray for me. Too bad nobody would do it.:dance:



Indiana New York Trade Breakdown
<TABLE class=breakdowntable width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TH scope=col colSpan=2>Incoming Players</TH></TR><TR><TD class=photo> </TD><TD>David Lee
6-9 PF from Florida
9.9 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 26.6 minutes </TD></TR><TR><TD class=photo> </TD><TD class=even>Quentin Richardson
6-6 SG / SF from DePaul
6.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 29.0 minutes </TD></TR><TR><TD class=photo> </TD><TD>Eddy Curry
6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
14.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.6 apg in 28.1 minutes </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=breakdowntable width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TH scope=col colSpan=2>Outgoing Players</TH></TR><TR><TD class=photo> </TD><TD>Jermaine O'Neal
6-11 PF from Eau Claire (HS)
15.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 31.8 minutes</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

BlueNGold
01-11-2008, 11:00 PM
Hey I finally got a trade to go through on Trade checker!!! Hooray for me. Too bad nobody would do it.:dance:



Indiana New York Trade Breakdown
<TABLE class=breakdowntable width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TH scope=col colSpan=2>Incoming Players</TH></TR><TR><TD class=photo></TD><TD>David Lee
6-9 PF from Florida
9.9 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=photo></TD><TD class=even>Quentin Richardson
6-6 SG / SF from DePaul
6.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 29.0 minutes
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=photo></TD><TD>Eddy Curry
6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
14.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.6 apg in 28.1 minutes
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=breakdowntable width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TH scope=col colSpan=2>Outgoing Players</TH></TR><TR><TD class=photo></TD><TD>Jermaine O'Neal
6-11 PF from Eau Claire (HS)
15.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 31.8 minutes
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Get-r-Done. Throw in David Harrison or one of our 25 small forwards and it might happen.

Kemo
01-11-2008, 11:16 PM
IMHO... JO is still a really good player. He is not a JOB offense player. He needs to be somewhere where they play a half court game more to his skills. We need a 2 guard that can shoot the ball (AKA:Redd) We would need to move Granger to the 4 and Dun at the 3 with Foster, Murphy at the 5. I think we need Tinsley at the point and for him to shoot less. Bringing in a very good 2 might solve the problem as Tinman might be inclined to pass more to a better shooter. Yes, we would miss JO's interior defense but our offense might flourish a little more. Its not necessarily are we better without O'Neal, the question should be "Would we be better with a really good outside shooter in place of O'Neal". I would trade for the best 2 I could if given a choice. This would probably require a 3 way deal of some kind due to JO's contract. Feel free to attack this post!


sounds good and all EXCEPT that Tinsley is still in the equation... Id rather keep oneal than tinsley ANY day.. we will not suceed as long as mell mell is running the offense... PERIOD !!

Kemo
01-11-2008, 11:41 PM
ALSO to add :

Do you REALLY think JO would want to leave his cushy job??

Think about it ... There is no other team in the NBA he could get traded to.. in which they would allow him to get away with not practicing...

SPEAKING OF ....

You wanna know why he is always injured , and is playing like an nba star 10 years older in his twilight years? BECAUSE HE DONT PRACTICE WITH THE TEAM !!
He thinks he can just suit up and play 39+ mpg .

His body is so out of conditioning , from what it should be , that he is always hurt, and is not playing like the same JO we all at one time come to enjoy..

Bottom line is Larry needs to take off the kid gloves...... grow a pube .... and put his foot down.. (sorry for the colorful language) ...

Right now let JO stay on the bench and heal.. till he is at 100% .. THEN make him start participating in every practice... ya know we DO have trainers that can condition him at a slower pace till his body can "handle" it ..
ALSO don't play him so many damn minutes for awhile..
Keep him right around the 28-30 mpg. mark .. till he is capable of being able to play a it more without fear of another injury..

ALSO ... how can JO develop ANY kind of chemistry with the team.. when he doesnt PRACTICE with the team? ya see he is so used to being the "go to guy" that he feels he has to have ALL the offense ran through him.. (it doesnt help JOB buys into this philosophy ) .. and in turn the team as a whole plays awkward when JO is on the floor... ITS A PROVEN FACT.. that they play as a "team" when he is injured (with the exeption of mel mel lol) JT is a whole nother cancer... so ill refrain from talkin bout him in this post.. lol this is about o'neal...
Anyways he is the one who doesnt have the chemistry goin for him right now, and it is hurting the team..... badly...

I dont want to get rid of JO... but something has to give.. Either he buck up and be a professional and do what needs to be done and practice and get himself in condition... or he will end up declining into obscurity to where he becomes a non-factor.... and gets himself traded into a situation in which he wont be "big man in the locker room" anymore..



just my 2 cents worth

OnlyPacersLeft
01-12-2008, 02:28 AM
as much as i love JO...and he's my fav player. Yes we are...we can run without JO...with JO he is just way too slow to keep up. I think he should sit...looks like we are tanking anyway.

BoomBaby33
01-12-2008, 12:34 PM
Not that this is a huge difference, but W/O him we ONLY give up 1.9 more points a game per 100 possessions. At the same time, we score 2.6 more points W/O him. What he gives us on the defensive end, he takes away on the offensive end.

All this being pointed out, and contrary to all the +/- believers, the only +/- stat that counts to me is this stat:

With JO, we are 9-19
W/O JO, we are 5-2

What other stat do you even need?

Offensively, he is a chemistry killer. Defensively, Jeff, Danny, and even Troy at times (surprisingly), do the dirty work on the defensive end in the post, just as well as JO does.

I just hope that Obie claiming we are "going small" means JO's days are done here in Indy.


http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13D.HTM

There are some pretty startling stats below that prove his "D" isn't the "be all end all", as well.

<CENTER>Jermaine O'Neal
Indiana Pacers (http://www.82games.com/0708/0708IND.HTM)
2007-2008 NBA Season
Player Stats (http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13A.HTM) | 5-Man Units (http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13B.HTM) | By Position (http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13C.HTM) | On/Off Court (http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13D.HTM) | Clutch Play (http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13E.HTM) </CENTER>
On Court / Off Court stats
Many stats are shown on a 'per 48 minute' basis
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 width=500 bgColor=#cccccc border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#33cc33><TD><CENTER>Stat</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>ON Court</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>OFF Court</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>Net</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Minutes</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>953 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>837 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>53%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e5e5e5><TD><CENTER>Offense: Pts per 100 Poss.</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>103.3</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>105.9</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-2.6</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e5e5e5><TD><CENTER>Defense: Pts per 100 Poss.</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>105.8</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>107.6</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-1.9</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#99ff99><TD><CENTER>Net Points per 100 Possessions</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-2.5</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-1.7</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-0.8</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Points Scored</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>1977</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>1831</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+146</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Points Allowed</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>2026</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>1847</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+179</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffff99><TD><CENTER>Net Points</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-49</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-16</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-33</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Effective FG%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>49.0%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>48.8%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+0.2%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Effective FG% Allowed</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>50.2%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>46.7%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+3.6%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Assisted Field Goals</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>62%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>55%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+7%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Assisted FG% Allowed</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>62%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>59%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+3%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Own Shots Blocked</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>6%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>6%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+0%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Shots Blocked</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>7%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>6%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+1%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD colSpan=4>Rebounding</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Offensive Rebounding</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>26.5%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>29.9%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-3.4%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Defensive Rebounding</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>73.8%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>72.1%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+1.7%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Total Rebounding</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>50.2%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>51.0%</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-0.8%</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD colSpan=4>Stats</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Free Throws Made</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>15 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>20 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-5</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Free Throws Attempted</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>20 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>27 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-7</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Free Throws Made by Opp.</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>21 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>29 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+8</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Free Throws Attempted by Opp.</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>26 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>37 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+11</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Turnovers, on Offense</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>15 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>16 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+1</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Turnovers, on Defense</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>17 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>15 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+2</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Net Turnovers</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>2 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-1 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-3</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Fouls Committed</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>22 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>27 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>+5</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Fouls, Drawn</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>20 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>22 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-2</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>Net Fouls</CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-2 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-5 </CENTER></TD><TD><CENTER>-3</CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Hicks
01-12-2008, 01:05 PM
Interesting, BB33.

mb221
01-12-2008, 01:09 PM
I just hope that Obie claiming we are "going small" means JO's days are done here in Indy.


Actually, I took it to mean JO would be playing at the 5 with a lineup of Tinsley, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal.

Hicks
01-12-2008, 01:14 PM
Actually, I took it to mean JO would be playing at the 5 with a lineup of Tinsley, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal.

I agree; I don't think it means JO is on the way out (at least not for this reason).

I could see JO WANTING out because there's not even a Jeff Foster or Troy Murphy starting with him to take some of the physical pounding.

Hailey12
01-13-2008, 12:50 AM
Nice to see JO back in tonight against the Kings. I still think they are better without him, but Travis in there made a bigger difference. Although we do force it in to him way to much and they make it so obvious. It was pretty unbelievable that he kicked it out to Dun for a 3 late in the game. But, if he does that more often he could win me back as a fan.

Putnam
01-13-2008, 08:51 AM
The Pacers beat Sacramento by 6, so the Pacers' +/- ratings ought to by tilted mostly toward the plus. In fact, every player on the Pacers has a + for the game except O'Neal, who has -12.

Here are the three big guys and their +/- and minutes

Murphy 13:14 +18
Foster 2:15 +5
O'Neal 34:46 -12

The Pacers won!

Jermaine doesn't have to do too much for the Pacers to win a game. He is an asset to the Pacers even when, ESPECIALLY when, they play as a team and Jermaine is allowed to contribute rather than expected to dominate.

Mourning
01-13-2008, 03:34 PM
Immediately, as in does he play the next game or not (ignoring the injury)? Absolutely NOT!

Long-term, big picture? Almost certainly YES.

That's where I am too.

JayRedd
01-13-2008, 03:49 PM
That's where I am too.

Agreed.

I interpret this question as "do we play better basketball without JO?" instead of "is the Pacers franchise better off without JO?"

They are two completely different questions. And, IMO, have completely different answers.

Mourning
01-13-2008, 04:11 PM
Agreed.

I interpret this question as "do we play better basketball without JO?" instead of "is the Pacers franchise better off without JO?"

They are two completely different questions. And, IMO, have completely different answers.

Yup, same here. Though I have to say that I REALLY would like him to sit down more minutes or completely for sometime at this point, because I just don't think he's 100% and that is hurting him and the team. Just my :twocents:.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Kemo
01-13-2008, 05:33 PM
Yup, same here. Though I have to say that I REALLY would like him to sit down more minutes or completely for sometime at this point, because I just don't think he's 100% and that is hurting him and the team. Just my :twocents:.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:


I agree with you man...
.
.
.
.
Don't get me wrong , I like Jermaine , he is a stand-up guy.. and when he is healthy , an important piece to the Pacer's puzzle...

I would rather see him not play at all , and sit out most of the regular season , at LEAST untill maybe 5 games till the first playoff game...
He really is a liability when he is not 100% .. not only to the offensive chemistry , but to his market value , and his health ..