PDA

View Full Version : Small lineup for Quickness Article - Indystar



MyFavMartin
01-15-2008, 11:46 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/SPORTS04/801150403/1247/SPORTS

JOB indicates that the small lineup is for quickness at the 2 spot as Dun and Danny apparently aren't quick enough.

So why doesn't he just insert Rush into the 2 spot, slide Dun over to the 3, and bring Granger and Williams off the bench at the backup 3 and 4?

Think that the current lineup is too small for most games and that we will get killed on the boards.

Also, move Foster into the starting center spot and move Murphy to the bench...

But, hey, what the heck do I know...

Unclebuck
01-15-2008, 11:50 AM
I think small ball is the way to go for this team. My only problem is that Murph is playing instead of Foster

Ragnar
01-15-2008, 12:05 PM
I think small ball is the way to go for this team. My only problem is that Murph is playing instead of Foster
Amen

MyFavMartin
01-15-2008, 12:17 PM
I think small ball is the way to go for this team. My only problem is that Murph is playing instead of Foster

I guess with small ball neither will be playing that much.

NuffSaid
01-15-2008, 12:33 PM
I think Murphy is playing instead of Foster because of his ability to draw his defender out along the perimeter. In other words, he's a shooter! I understand most fan's mentality with wanting to stay w/Foster, and I can't say I disagree. Maybe the right thing to do is to play Murphy and Foster together, but you'd be taking a huge risk in having little to no interior defense. Still, w/this team going w/the long-ball so often, they could use Foster's rebounding ability to get them some 2nd-shot opportunities.

DisapointedPacerFan
01-15-2008, 12:38 PM
A lineup of Tinsley, Rush, Dun, Grange, and O'Nizzy is good for the fast lineup...anything to get us out of the slump.

idioteque
01-15-2008, 12:44 PM
I guess with small ball neither will be playing that much.

Foster has the ability to run the floor in the small ball system. Murphy bulked up way too much in the offseason on the other hand and is too slow.

CableKC
01-15-2008, 01:11 PM
I really think that expanding the Small-Ball rotation from 9 to 10 ( by including Foster ) will not only help alleviate the amount of minutes that JONeal play but allow us to spread the minutes around for the rest of the "Smaller" lineup.

I think that one of the problems that we encountered in the last 2 games was that key players in the Small Ball rotation ( like Granger, Rush, Marquis and JONeal ) were tired towards the end of the game...which can affect their ability to implement the "up/down" system that JO'B plays.

Small Ball may work IF JO'B is able to effectively manage when key players should be playing and when they should be resting. Adding "Fresh legs" at key moments of the game ( like during the 3rd or 4th QTR ) is going to be something that is critical.

One thing to keep in mind and what some of us forget is that Foster was a key player that was used in the Suns/Pacers game. Just like when Nelson put in Barnes and Biedrins towards the end of the Warriors/Pacers game, I think that adding his energy to the lineup will make a huge difference.

NuffSaid
01-15-2008, 01:23 PM
I would love to see Foster do more than focus on rebounding and putbacks while he's on the floor. If he would just put the ball on the floor and go strong to the basket under control he'd be one helluva asset! But as it stands, I'd be afraid to use him in this small-ball lineup because he doesn't posse a threat on the offensive end. If teams start seeing him score the ball more, maybe he'd garner more attention and would move way ahead of Ike for playing time.

Of course, there's aways the X-Factor when considering Foster. Maybe having teams forget about him and letting him score more from the field while his defender is out double-teaming somebody else could work to our advantage. :) Still, I don't understand why Foster won't take advantage of the "green light" JOB gave him at the beginning of the season. It's really up to him to take that open shot if it's there, and so far, he's failed to truly take advantage of those opportunities instead preferring to defer to others to do the scoring.

QuickRelease
01-15-2008, 01:24 PM
With the volume of jumpshots we put up on a nightly basis, it makes sense to me to have Foster in there. The other 4 guys could jack up shots to their heart's content, and Jeff could rebound his a:censored: off.

Unclebuck
01-15-2008, 01:30 PM
I think Murphy is playing instead of Foster because of his ability to draw his defender out along the perimeter. In other words, he's a shooter! I understand most fan's mentality with wanting to stay w/Foster, and I can't say I disagree. Maybe the right thing to do is to play Murphy and Foster together, but you'd be taking a huge risk in having little to no interior defense. Still, w/this team going w/the long-ball so often, they could use Foster's rebounding ability to get them some 2nd-shot opportunities.

I think Jeff will get some minutes with Murph when we need Jeff to guard a big guy. But I want jeff to get any miunutes that Murph would get.

Plus we know JO will miss several more games this season,

CableKC
01-15-2008, 02:39 PM
With the volume of jumpshots we put up on a nightly basis, it makes sense to me to have Foster in there. The other 4 guys could jack up shots to their heart's content, and Jeff could rebound his a:censored: off.
That's what I am thinking......is it good to have a lineup where everyone shoots the ball? Sure it is, but now when we have a Big Man that can't stop a wet paper towel.

I would much rather give the few shots that Murphy takes ( and periodically misses ) to Rush/Granger/Shawne/Marquis and have Foster pull down a "2nd chance rebound" and adequately defend the opposing Big Man then have the opposing team continually drive to the hoop when Murphy is on the floor doing his best impression of a lamp-post.

The other option is to make Murphy one of the "4 that shoot" then the "1 that rebounds/defend the paint". I still don't understand why we can't run a 2nd unit where Murphy and Foster are in the same lineup.

Bball
01-15-2008, 02:42 PM
To start the season Foster had an 6-10' shot he was hitting. Then I missed some games, especially during Dec, and now I've yet to see anything but scores at the basket for Foster.

Soooooo did that shot go south for Foster or did he just quit looking for it?? ...Or did defenses actually scout that and put a stop to it?

-Bball

bnd45
01-15-2008, 02:58 PM
I'm so anti-Murphy, that I would rather Shawne get minutes at the 5 if Foster isn't going to play at all. No argument could make me change my mind on this. Shawne's a better shooter, better finisher, better rebounder, and the main concern is his D, but remember we're comparing it to Murph's D which is a joke.

Tinsley, Daniels, Dunleavy, Granger, and Williams could really spread the court and do some damage.

Since it's the 2nd unit it would look something like: Diener, Daniels, Rush/Dunleavy/Granger (2/3), Williams

Ownagedood
01-15-2008, 03:00 PM
Personally I think it should go something like this:

Normal lineup:
Diogu
O'Neal
Granger
Dunleavy
Tinsley

Small Ball:
O'Neal
Granger
Dunleavy
Rush
Tinsley

MyFavMartin
01-15-2008, 03:26 PM
Soooooo did that shot go south for Foster or did he just quit looking for it??

-Bball

Tinsley took them. ;)

NuffSaid
01-15-2008, 04:28 PM
Personally I think it should go something like this:

Normal lineup:
Diogu
O'Neal
Granger
Dunleavy
Tinsley

Small Ball:
O'Neal
Granger
Dunleavy
Rush
Tinsley
I'm with you on the "Normal" lineup, but the only way that works is IF Ike can finally come around and begin to be a force underneath the basket, as well as, a decent interior defender. He just comes across to me as being too indecisive and timid underneath. I'd rather see JO/Foster than JO/Ike at this point.

Maybe all this practise time will help him get back to where he left off before his injury. :o

As to the absence of Foster's 6-10' shot, yeah...Tinsley took 'em! :p

Seriously, I think he just stopped taking them and went back to doing what he does best. Personally, I'd like to see him impose his will out there and try to score more from the field rather than just settle from gimme-putbacks. He has a nice shot and he's got a strong, quick first step to basket. If he'd only use it more he'd be pretty darn good!

Oneal07
01-15-2008, 04:39 PM
We've started off games better with this line up. Foster needs to be the back up centre, not Murphy, Murphy has been playing like crap lately. Rebounding won't be a problem if we'd take it to the hole a few times per game

jmoney2584
01-15-2008, 04:52 PM
Doesn't matter how fast or slow/big or small our line up is if we don't take care of the rock and play defense.

BruceLeeroy
01-15-2008, 05:03 PM
To start the season Foster had an 6-10' shot he was hitting. Then I missed some games, especially during Dec, and now I've yet to see anything but scores at the basket for Foster.

Soooooo did that shot go south for Foster or did he just quit looking for it?? ...Or did defenses actually scout that and put a stop to it?

-Bball

He's hit it consistently throughout the year. He's also been finishing better at the rim. I've been really impressed with his offensive game this year.:eek:

McKeyFan
01-15-2008, 10:11 PM
The Pacers need to go large.

Put Shawne, Dunleavy or Troy at point. It's the point guard that needs to be changed on our team.

Peck
01-15-2008, 10:22 PM
The Pacers need to go large.

Put Shawne, Dunleavy or Troy at point. It's the point guard that needs to be changed on our team.

You laugh but I would have zero problem with using Dunleavy as the ball handler and initiator of offense.

BoomBaby31
01-15-2008, 10:29 PM
We don't have the shooters to run "small ball", you rebounds a dramitically decreased with this type of basketball. You need great shooters to run this type of basketball. At this point though, why not?

Peck
01-15-2008, 10:34 PM
I don't know why I am choosing this thread to put this in or for that matter why I am even saying this at all.

But I am beginning to feel like Naptown Seth here:-o:-o.

You know how he is always claiming that he is not a Stephen Jackson fan but feels the need to defend Jax from the unfairness of the Pacers fold?

Well I now sympathize with him because I feel the same way about Troy Murphy.

I am not realy a fan of Troy's, in fact I am very dissapointed in his play here as I always thought he was more of a physical player than he ended up being.

But frankly the absolute hate that he gets on this board is just amazing to me.

Guy goes out about a week ago and grabs 15 rebounds, most of which were actual rebounds not just picking a loose ball up off of the floor and yet everyone longs for Jeff "The Stilt" Foster.

Guy has single handidly offensively taken over a game for us and was more responsible for a win against a very good team this season than any other player that night (Dallas) and yet we long for Foster. Can the words Jeff Foster and took over the game offensively even be uttered in the same sentance without some part of the cosmos dying? I've probably killed countless molicules just in typing that.

Look, I have nothing against Foster. He is a good basketball player, but nothing more.

Troy Murphy is a good basketball player but nothing more.

Both are equal as rebounders in my eye and Troy and Jeff are polar opposites of each other on the offensive and defensive ends.

Yes, Jeff is a hustler who does a lot of little things that don't show up on stats. Guess what? If you can take off your "I hate Troy Murphy" glasses for a min. you will see Troy does a lot of little things as well.

He is the best pick setter on the team. Someone asked me in another thread if that wasn't setting the bar to low? My answer is hell no!!!! Setting Picks and good screens is a huge huge huge part of an overall offensive scheme. It's like the offensive lineman in football. He doesn't get the glory of the QB or RB but without his blocking very littel will get done.

Jeff after 8 years in the league still cannot set a screen on the wings without moving and getting a foul called on him.

I like both player equally.

That is why I disagree with the small ball lineup per say.

What I would like to have O'Brien do is use the entire bench. I'm not kidding I mean go 10-12 deep every single game. Nobody should play more than 35 min. a game and the two people who should be at 35 are of the last name Dunleavy and Granger.

We supposedly have depth, well if you are going to have a running game you should use it.

Don't be predictable. Use Foster every night, not just on nights when we have to guard Shaq.

Anyway that is getting away from my Murphy talk.

Look Troy has problem, no doubt. But the fact that some of you think that Troy Murphy is the biggest problem on this team is just mind boggling to me.

CableKC
01-15-2008, 10:48 PM
^^^^Why can't we just pair Foster with Murphy in the 2nd unit and have a Tinsley/Rush/Dunleavy/Granger/JONeal Starting lineup?

I know that it's not small-ball.....but Murphy can do the same thing that Shawne, Granger or Dunleavy are basically doing.....shoot the mid-range or perimeter jumper and just have Foster man the paint.

d_c
01-15-2008, 10:52 PM
Look Troy has problem, no doubt. But the fact that some of you think that Troy Murphy is the biggest problem on this team is just mind boggling to me.

Maybe not the biggest, but he's definitely up there.

NuffSaid
01-15-2008, 11:26 PM
^^^^Why can't we just pair Foster with Murphy in the 2nd unit and have a Tinsley/Rush/Dunleavy/Granger/JONeal Starting lineup?

I know that it's not small-ball.....but Murphy can do the same thing that Shawne, Granger or Dunleavy are basically doing.....shoot the mid-range or perimeter jumper and just have Foster man the paint.
Many posters have advocated this, and I think it's a good idea. Foster may not give the Pacers much offense, but you won't easily get inside and score on him. He'll certainly put the brakes on most dribble penetration. Still, I think JOB tried to counter w/Murphy as the other Big just to provide minutes for Williams and keep shooters on the floor. The more I think about this pairing, the more I actually like it because when you think about it you've still got lots of speed on the floor:

Starters
C-JO
PF-Dunleavy
PG-Tinsley
SF-Granger
SG-Rush

2nd Unit
C-Foster
PF-Murphy
PG-Deiner
SF-Williams
SG-Quis

Bball
01-15-2008, 11:42 PM
Look Troy has problem, no doubt. But the fact that some of you think that Troy Murphy is the biggest problem on this team is just mind boggling to me.

How 'bout we compromise and start Foster and Murphy and sit JO?

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
01-16-2008, 12:14 AM
With the volume of jumpshots we put up on a nightly basis, it makes sense to me to have Foster in there. The other 4 guys could jack up shots to their heart's content, and Jeff could rebound his a:censored: off.
It's certainly why the Bulls put Rodman with MJ and Pippen and let them jack 3's to their hearts content. Mike was never a very good deep shooter but it never stopped him from taking them. The Worm made this a non-issue.


My problem with small ball isn't the concept, it's the fact that even small ball hasn't ended the penetration issues they have on defense. Keep this all you want, but at some point the defense at PG, SG and SF just has to be improved.


Peck, Troy's biggest issue is his defense. If you iso on him a bit you quickly see him getting beat or falling behind plays like crazy which ends up leaning on other players to pick up the slack. When JO picks up that 4th foul you can bet that he got there partially from players like Troy lagging behind. Add to this the enormous foul problem the team has and it amplifies the impact that a guy can have at that end.

Everyone loves to look at offense or DIRECT defense, but when you watch rotations and spacing there are lots of problems there too, very big problems. That leaves opponents with all these easy looks and forces the Pacers to work much harder all game. I think this is a factor in their losing leads issue.

Evan_The_Dude
01-16-2008, 12:21 AM
I might be alone, but I don't like any of the lineups that have been mentioned. I like small ball if we're the Suns or Warriors, but we're not. You can't run a mule in the Kentucky Derby. We need some horses.

BruceLeeroy
01-16-2008, 12:24 AM
You laugh but I would have zero problem with using Dunleavy as the ball handler and initiator of offense.

Not a bad idea. Actually Rush has impressed me with his ball handling and passing abilities. As long as he can get over the carrying issue I think he could handle that responsibility as well. Mike can do it but he's a bit tall to handle a smaller quicker player defending him full court IMO.

BruceLeeroy
01-16-2008, 12:31 AM
Many posters have advocated this, and I think it's a good idea. Foster may not give the Pacers much offense, but you won't easily get inside and score on him. He'll certainly put the brakes on most dribble penetration. Still, I think JOB tried to counter w/Murphy as the other Big just to provide minutes for Williams and keep shooters on the floor. The more I think about this pairing, the more I actually like it because when you think about it you've still got lots of speed on the floor:

Starters
C-JO
PF-Dunleavy
PG-Tinsley
SF-Granger
SG-Rush

2nd Unit
C-Foster
PF-Murphy
PG-Deiner
SF-Williams
SG-Quis

I like it. Granger would have to play PF in that starting lineup. Of course he'd get abused by the elite PFs of the league.

Peck
01-16-2008, 12:38 AM
It's certainly why the Bulls put Rodman with MJ and Pippen and let them jack 3's to their hearts content. Mike was never a very good deep shooter but it never stopped him from taking them. The Worm made this a non-issue.


My problem with small ball isn't the concept, it's the fact that even small ball hasn't ended the penetration issues they have on defense. Keep this all you want, but at some point the defense at PG, SG and SF just has to be improved.


Peck, Troy's biggest issue is his defense. If you iso on him a bit you quickly see him getting beat or falling behind plays like crazy which ends up leaning on other players to pick up the slack. When JO picks up that 4th foul you can bet that he got there partially from players like Troy lagging behind. Add to this the enormous foul problem the team has and it amplifies the impact that a guy can have at that end.

Everyone loves to look at offense or DIRECT defense, but when you watch rotations and spacing there are lots of problems there too, very big problems. That leaves opponents with all these easy looks and forces the Pacers to work much harder all game. I think this is a factor in their losing leads issue.

You misunderstand me, or perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough here.

Yes, Troy pretty much has stunk up the floor on the defensive end. He has gotten better as time has gone but not by nearly enough.

Jeff is worlds and away better than Troy defensively. I won't even pretend to argue that.

I'm just saying that Troy is worlds and away better on the other side of the ball than Jeff.

But that isn't even my point. I'm just trying to say that the dispraportionate amount of blame laid at Troy's feet is just unreal to me.

Look at what DC said up above, not picking on you DC because you only said what most of the reader where thinking. But they honestly believe the Troy is one of the major problems on this team.

Look for the lack of defense and how it affect J.O.'s game I won't even deny that. However I will say the exact opposite is true on the other end of the floor. Jeff does not have to be guarded on most possesions so see how many times they will rotate off of Jeff and put a man on J.O. Or the fact that they often put the weakest defender on the floor on Jeff. Or when Jeff backs out of the lane he is left open and does not draw any player away for Jermaine.

I'm just saying that the entire arugment cuts both ways.

I am not saying Troy Murphy is a good basketball player or shouldn't be traded.

I'm just saying that you can't go a day on here without someone moaning about how we can rid ourself of this albatross Murphy.

Is he worth his money? Hell no. Now is Jermain worth his? Don't give me the injury excuse either because since he signed that mega deal he has been injured.

I'd move Troy tonight if I thought we could improve the team.

Peck
01-16-2008, 12:41 AM
Maybe not the biggest, but he's definitely up there.

Hello,

I'm not trying to be difficult or even be a smartalec here. I just honestly want to know what it is the guy does that is so evil.

So if you don't mind, can you elaborate on why you feel he is definitely up there as one of the major problems on the team.

mcampbellarch
01-16-2008, 01:09 AM
I support the Foster/Murphy combination.

CableKC
01-16-2008, 01:58 AM
I might be alone, but I don't like any of the lineups that have been mentioned. I like small ball if we're the Suns or Warriors, but we're not. You can't run a mule in the Kentucky Derby. We need some horses.
I too don't think Small Ball is a good idea.....but if we are forced to....then I would much rather go with the lineup that NuffSaid suggested.

d_c
01-16-2008, 03:23 AM
Hello,

I'm not trying to be difficult or even be a smartalec here. I just honestly want to know what it is the guy does that is so evil.

So if you don't mind, can you elaborate on why you feel he is definitely up there as one of the major problems on the team.

The biggest problem on the team first of all is that Jermaine O'neal is simply physically not the player that he used to be when he was an all-star and a top 3 bigman in the east. To add to that problem, he's still highly paid. That combination reduces the equity that the Pacers had invested in this guy. That means they 1) can't rely on him to carry them like he used to and 2) they won't be getting anywhere near in return in a trade for him as they would have even just 2 years ago. Two years ago, they could have gotten a great package in return for him. That's no longer the case.

The Jermaine problem is both a long term and short term problem. His situation makes it difficult for them to either win with him now or to rebuild by trading him.

The Pacers also lack a guy who can really create a shot for himself and others. Tinsley is the closest thing they have to this. Management has failed to find a solution to this.

Troy Murphy's play along with his contract are probably right behind this. He is the 2nd highest paid player on the team, yet he's nowhere close to being the team's 2nd best player. In fact, he's not even a lock on the team to be a regular starter. He has one major strength (shooting the ball), yet even this strength is inconsistent and streaky. He is one of the worst defending bigmen in the league. I'm not the biggest believer in +/- stats myself, but it's hard to ignore an individual's +/- stats when someone's is as bad as Murphy's.

Troy Murphy is a good guy. He is a hard worker. He won't cause any locker room problems or get in trouble of the court. But anytime a team isn't winning or is in rebuilding mode, a guy who is as highly paid as Troy Murphy who performs at the level he has performed at is much more of a problem than a solution to the team's situation.

kept
01-16-2008, 04:37 AM
PG Jamaal Tinsley / Travis Diener
SG Mike Dunleavy / Marquis Daniels
SF Danny Granger / Shawne Williams
PF Troy Murphy / Ike Diogu
C Jermaine O'Neal / Jeff Foster

Need a quality playmaker at point guard.

Jose Slaughter
01-16-2008, 04:57 AM
DC

Bottom line is you don't like his contract.

Just like most of the Murphy bashers on here.

d_c
01-16-2008, 05:11 AM
DC

Bottom line is you don't like his contract.

Just like most of the Murphy bashers on here.

Murphy is a role/bit player who makes a lot of money, is OK at two things (shooting/rebounding) and is abysmal at almost every other aspect of the game.

If the Pacers' are like the Knicks and don't care about the team's total salary or the luxury tax, then Murphy's contract isn't as big a problem, but the fact is, the Pacers are a payroll conscious team (as with almost every team in the league).

With that being the case, yeah, his contract in relation to his production and effectiveness are definitely a problem. I don't see how that wouldn't be the case.

Peck
01-16-2008, 05:26 AM
Murphy is a role/bit player who makes a lot of money, is OK at two things (shooting/rebounding) and is abysmal at almost every other aspect of the game.
If the Pacers' are like the Knicks and don't care about the team's total salary or the luxury tax, then Murphy's contract isn't as big a problem, but the fact is, the Pacers are a payroll conscious team (as with almost every team in the league).

With that being the case, yeah, his contract in relation to his production and effectiveness are definitely a problem. I don't see how that wouldn't be the case.

I want to strongly disagree with that statement.

He is a below average defender, that can be granted.

But what other aspects of the game of basketball do you find him abysmal at?

Passing? Actually Troy is either an average or above average passer.

Setting Picks/screens? Sorry he is the best on our team.

Ball Handling? For a big man he is above average.

Hands? He has great hands and rarely drops a ball that is tossed to him.

I understand you hate his contract and that is fine but beyond that I just can't see where you find him to truely be one of the three top reasons our team is what it is.

You really think him playing is worse than haveing zero options at the backup point guard spot?

I look at Troy Murphy the way I look at Austin Croshere, he got paid more than he ever should have. Now once you get past that and look at the player I just don't see where he is so bad.

He's not good, and if that is the justification for hating him I guess, but he is not bad either. Bad at defense? Probably, I've seen him play good defense lately. In fact if you look at the game against Pheonix you will see he played outstanding defense on Amare Staudemire. Yes I said outstanding.

andreialta
01-16-2008, 10:52 AM
I Really dont mind TROY as long as JO was healthy, TROY gets beat but then JO is back there anchoring the D.

Murph is overpaid, but he is not a player that is not useful. Some guys out there are just plain overpaid, but atleast TROY when on can shoot it.

When TRoy has a good game tho, we suceed as a team. have more options..

i jsut wanna see him back to his double double form and he should be fine.

NuffSaid
01-16-2008, 11:30 AM
DC

Bottom line is you don't like his contract.

Just like most of the Murphy bashers on here.
No! I don't like his performance. PERIOD!!

Any time you have a big man who would rather play along the perimeter than underneath the basket there's something wrong with that. Now, I'll accept it IF Murphy was scoring as consistently from the field/perimeter as Rasheed Wallace because they're being used in much the same way, but he's not. To me, that makes you somewhat of a liability.

Troy has the tools to be a very good PF if he just used other facets of his game to become a more rounded out player. He's not a post-up guy, but he has shown he can get to the basket if he wanted to. He's a good rebounder who could do wonders on this team if he used the "box-N-go" method of rebounding Foster uses. :laugh: He has decent dribble penetration - not good, just decent. So, he can drive the lanes or step inside the perimeter for the 2 vice the 3PA, but for some reason he settles for the 3 alot more, and I doubt it's just because JOB gives his shooters the green light to do so. Murphy's always been like that.

So, for me it's not just his paycheck. It's his skill-set that he's not fully utilizing that kills it for me. It's really simple: If your 3-ball's not falling, use other parts of your game to help yourself and your team. But for goodness sakes, don't continue to jack up the long-ball if you're 0-20 out there!!!

(Sidenote: And that doesn't just apply to Murphy; it applies to the entire team!)

mb221
01-16-2008, 02:44 PM
No! I don't like his performance. PERIOD!!

Any time you have a big man who would rather play along the perimeter than underneath the basket there's something wrong with that. Now, I'll accept it IF Murphy was scoring as consistently from the field/perimeter as Rasheed Wallace because they're being used in much the same way, but he's not. To me, that makes you somewhat of a liability.


So you'd prefer Murph to be a 35.9% 3PT shooter instead of the 37.3% 3PT shooter he is?

MyFavMartin
01-16-2008, 04:12 PM
If Granger and Dun are not quick enough to guard the perimeter players they are matched with, can they work on developing a move or two in the low block to post up their man?

d_c
01-16-2008, 04:35 PM
I understand you hate his contract and that is fine but beyond that I just can't see where you find him to truely be one of the three top reasons our team is what it is.

You really think him playing is worse than haveing zero options at the backup point guard spot?

I look at Troy Murphy the way I look at Austin Croshere, he got paid more than he ever should have. Now once you get past that and look at the player I just don't see where he is so bad.


Murphy being a paid as much he's being paid (4 years and $43M including this year) while being as productive and effective as he's shown is definitely a problem.

That's not hate. That's just an evaluation. I think someone who's being paid that much (and he got paid more than Croshere) to be a fringe starter is a problem more than a solution.

I listed two problems that are greater than Murphy's pay-performance ratio. He's the 2nd highest paid player on the team. His impact isn't anywhere near the 2nd greatest on the team. He's inconsistent. He doesn't do enough things you want from a bigman.

You say that he's not so bad if you look past the contract. That's not possible. If the Pacers didn't care about the cap or the luxury tax, then you could look past his contract, but that's not the case. And that's not the case for most NBA teams, and that's why it'd be difficult to move him. Call up another GM and offer him up in a trade. Try telling that GM that Murphy's not so bad if you look past his contract. That's not realistic. Most GMs can't simply look past a player's contract unless the ownership gives them a blank check for a payroll.

Hicks
01-16-2008, 04:38 PM
So you'd prefer Murph to be a 35.9% 3PT shooter instead of the 37.3% 3PT shooter he is?

:whistle:

Hicks
01-16-2008, 04:39 PM
d_c, did you think it was smart when Indiana traded Brad Miller for Scot Pollard?

d_c
01-16-2008, 05:20 PM
d_c, did you think it was smart when Indiana traded Brad Miller for Scot Pollard?

I don't know how the Pacers' cap situation looked back then or how close they were to the luxury tax. If I had to guess, I'd say the decision to send off Miller was money/lux tax motivated.

Miller was a good player and a good complement to Jermaine. He obviously had his shortcomings, but he was a fine player who probably got the most out of his abilities (he was undrafted after all). His biggest problem is that, like Jermaine, he's physically declined. He also really needs to play next to a good defensive player like Jermaine, which he no longer is and that's really exposed his defense badly.

If the Pacers had stuck with Miller, they'd be in more of a cap bind right now. They probably wouldn't have taken Murphy back under any circumstances because it would have been financially infeasible, so that would have put the entire Murphleavy/Jacksington trade into jeopardy. I'd say overall, the Pacers would have won more games with him instead of Pollard in the previous years. I don't know the ultimate consequences of that in the playoffs because of the brawl.

As far as right now and in the near future, people would be complaining about him as much as they complain about Jermaine because he makes a lot of money and he's just not physically what he used to be.

MyFavMartin
01-16-2008, 05:26 PM
d_c, did you think it was smart when Indiana traded Brad Miller for Scot Pollard?

Technically, it was a sign and trade with Brad being a FA and Sacto offering the most. We coulduv and shoulduv let him go for nothing, but instead agreed to the S&T for Pollard, who know one knew would have turned into a multicolored turd. (It's interesting to look at, but still a piece of s____). Hindsight is 20/20 and I guess Pollard, when healthy, did help against the Shaqster and other big big guys. Maybe we should have ended up with Turkoglu?