PDA

View Full Version : Our Roster - Where do guys fit?



OakMoses
04-08-2008, 11:11 AM
The point of this thread is to look at our roster and see where guys would play on a very good team. By very good I mean a team who's basement is the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Here's how I see our guys fitting.

#1 PG -
#2 PG - Diener, Tinsley, Murray
#3 PG - Owens

#1 SG -
#2 SG - Daniels, Rush, Murray
#3 SG -

#1 SF - Granger, Dunleavy
#2 SF - Williams, Daniels
#3 SF - Graham

#1 PF - O'Neal, Murphy
#2 PF - Diogu
#3 PF -

#1 C - Foster
#2 C - Harrison
#3 C -

How guys fit in on any team really depends on the other players, but that's how I felt it broke down. I almost felt like I had to create another category for Troy and Jeff, something like a 1.5 PF/C. I kind of feel like he and Foster are in the same category: if they're the 3rd best big guy on your team, you're doing really well. They could both start for good teams if they're playing next to the right kind of guy. For a good example of this, think about Foster playing next to Duncan in San Antonio. They'd be great. A good pairing for Murph would be someone like Dwight Howard.

Speed
04-08-2008, 11:21 AM
Wow, well put. I agree with this exactly, especially after you put the 1.5 on Murph and Foster.

I think one thing to consider is if we think the missing #1 PG and SG have to be at what level. Does this team have to a middle of the pack starter at those positions or do they have to have a franchise or top 5 guy at one of those positions to be a contender. Thats basically what we are saying if you make it to the second round and are competitive I'd say you are or are close to contending.

My Take you can have a top 25 shooting guard, but you need a top 10 point guard based on how things are structured right now, imo. Especially in this era of the Point guard.

Rajah Brown
04-08-2008, 11:46 AM
Considering that J.O. may well not be here next Fall and almost
certainly won't be 2 yrs from then, I'm not sure we can just
pencil him in at PF. And putting aside wether Foster will be
around 6 months from now or not (other than DG, he's our
most attractive trading asset), given his health issues and
lack of offense, penciling him in at C on a 'very good' (or 50+
win in my book) team is a stretch too.

No matter who LB comes up with at the G positions, the chance
that the team will reach very good or 50 win status while that
frontline is still intact is pretty slim.

Isn't it ?

Kaufman
04-08-2008, 11:48 AM
Well I agree with pretty much everything - I think if Tinsley were healthy he'd be absolutely a #1 PG, but I think you put him in as a 2 bc of his unreliability.

Otherwise, nice job.

Putnam
04-08-2008, 11:53 AM
Good concept.

I agree with you, except I'd shift O'Neal and Murphy down to 2nd place. A Healthy Jermaine is a great asset, but Jermaine doesn't stay healthy. He's not in playoff condition right now.

Your comments on Foster and Murphy are just right. Foster could start on many very good teams, provided the rest of the lineup complemented him.

And I'd move Harrison to 3rd place or out of the league. If he can't drink the Pepsi, I won't drink the kool-aid.

OakMoses
04-08-2008, 11:55 AM
Well I agree with pretty much everything - I think if Tinsley were healthy he'd be absolutely a #1 PG, but I think you put him in as a 2 bc of his unreliability.

Otherwise, nice job.

Tinsley's unreliability has to do with more than just his health. I don't want to turn this into a thread about Tins, but even completely healthy, I don't think he's really the guy I want making decisions at the end of playoff games.

Tom White
04-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Here's how I see our guys fitting.

#1 PG -
#2 PG - Diener, Tinsley, Murray
#3 PG - Owens

#1 SG -
#2 SG - Daniels, Rush, Murray
#3 SG -

#1 SF - Granger, Dunleavy
#2 SF - Williams, Daniels
#3 SF - Graham


Finally, someone who doesn't try to make a doggone guard out of our forwards!! (Dunleavy, Granger, Graham and Williams)

Thank you!

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 01:36 PM
Finally, someone who doesn't try to make a doggone guard out of our forwards!! (Dunleavy, Granger, Graham and Williams)

Thank you!
As I posted in another thread or two, it is definitely NOT a good idea to have Danny or Mike coming off the bench. These guys are doing well at their positions.

Jonathan
04-08-2008, 02:06 PM
I think Shaun Livingston would be a great addition to our team at PG. I know he has sat out all season from that horrible knee injury last year, but if we get him at the right price it would be worth the risk IMO. I am thinking a two year contract right around 1.5 million.

CableKC
04-08-2008, 02:06 PM
The way I look at the roster and who fits in where:

PG - Tinsley ( or new Starting Quality Defensive-minded PG ) 25 mpg / Diener 23 mpg
SG/SF rotation - Granger 34 mpg / Dunleavy 32 mpg ( 6th Man role coming off the bench ) / Shawne 18 mpg / ( ???? Defensive-minded SG ) 12 mpg
PF/C rotation - JONeal 32 mpg / Murphy 28 mpg / Foster 24 mpg / ( ???? Backup PF/C that can play 12 mpg )

I don't see roles for Marquis and Ike in the lineup ( since I'm expecting them to be traded in the offseason ) and don't expect to resign Rush and Flip. Hopefully, Bird can draft whatever "Defensive-minded SG and/or the 4th Big Man in our rotation ( as in Brandon Rush, Kevin Love or Kyle Weaver ) that we need and give them the required minutes that we need.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 02:10 PM
Dunleavy 32 mpg ( 6th Man role coming off the bench )
Not going to happen. How many times do I have to say this!? No one in their right mind is going to bench him.

You guys are nuts!

ajbry
04-08-2008, 02:19 PM
Not going to happen. How many times do I have to say this!? No one in their right mind is going to bench him.

You guys are nuts!

Mike has had a great season and nobody is trying to discredit him for that. However, putting up decent stats for the first time in his career on an Eastern conference lottery team while still being a defensive liability doesn't cement him as a guaranteed starter all of a sudden. I don't see him getting bumped down next year, though. Just not convinced the Pacers will go after another swingman as it's not the most pressing need.

And for the original post, I'd knock down Rush to #3 SG and Murray to #3 on both. Foster and Murphy aren't definite #1 quality either but they're both better than #2 quality for the most part.

LoneGranger33
04-08-2008, 02:26 PM
#1 SG -
#2 SG - Daniels, Murray
#3 SG -

...hopefully on another team

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 02:32 PM
Mike has had a great season and nobody is trying to discredit him for that. However, putting up decent stats for the first time in his career on an Eastern conference lottery team while still being a defensive liability doesn't cement him as a guaranteed starter all of a sudden. I don't see him getting bumped down next year, though. Just not convinced the Pacers will go after another swingman as it's not the most pressing need.

And for the original post, I'd knock down Rush to #3 SG and Murray to #3 on both. Foster and Murphy aren't definite #1 quality either but they're both better than #2 quality for the most part.
Agreed, I among most hope that he can finely tune his defensive skills as how he upped his offense last off-season.
I really don't think we should worry about bringing in another SG or SF. I really think we need to focus on the PG position first. We can get backups, but I really want to see some veterans brought in to compliment our current starting lineup.

CableKC
04-08-2008, 02:42 PM
Not going to happen. How many times do I have to say this!? No one in their right mind is going to bench him.

You guys are nuts!
Then I'm nuts. I just think that he would have a greater impact coming off the bench playing 32 minutes a game. He's only starting now only because we have no choice but to Start him. I would still prefer to have a real SG that can provide some solid defense at the SG spot to play with Granger on a consistent ( but limited ) basis.

Keep in mind....just because you have Dunleavy as a 6th man playing 32 minutes a game doesn't mean that he won't finish or won't be playing with Granger for the majority of the game.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 02:48 PM
Then I'm nuts. I just think that he would have a greater impact coming off the bench playing 32 minutes a game. He's only starting now only because we have no choice but to Start him. I would still prefer to have a real SG that can provide some solid defense at the SG spot to play with Granger on a consistent ( but limited ) basis.

Keep in mind....just because you have Dunleavy as a 6th man playing 32 minutes a game doesn't mean that he won't finish or won't be playing with Granger for the majority of the game.
Yeah, but I don't think he will have a greater impact coming off the bench on the game than he already does starting.

Danny and Mike have adapted well sharing those two positions all season long. I know defense is a problem, but that can be worked on in the off-season.

I'm starting a petition to keep Dun Dun in the starting rotation I guess...

Kaufman
04-08-2008, 03:05 PM
As I posted in another thread or two, it is definitely NOT a good idea to have Danny or Mike coming off the bench. These guys are doing well at their positions.


But they play the same position. I understand the concept of what you are saying though. I think we'll have to trade one of them eventually. They are good on the offensive end but if one of them is playing 2guard they aren't good on the defensive end.

One of them will have to be moved.

Ideally MDJ is a good 6th man on a good team.

Tom White
04-08-2008, 03:11 PM
As I posted in another thread or two, it is definitely NOT a good idea to have Danny or Mike coming off the bench. These guys are doing well at their positions.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, Duke, and I have a good amount of agreement with you. The Pacers are forced to use Mike as a 2-guard due to the make-up of their roster, and him being on the floor is certainly better than him not being on the floor.

I am taking mellifluous' outline as being which position best fits the players, as well as where the would best fit on a good team.

In other words Mike and Danny are both better small forwards than they are 2-guards. In an ideal world, and on a balanced team, they each are better suited to playing the 3, rather than the 2.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 03:22 PM
Yeah, I understand what you are saying, Duke, and I have a good amount of agreement with you. The Pacers are forced to use Mike as a 2-guard due to the make-up of their roster, and him being on the floor is certainly better than him not being on the floor.

I am taking mellifluous' outline as being which position best fits the players, as well as where the would best fit on a good team.

In other words Mike and Danny are both better small forwards than they are 2-guards. In an ideal world, and on a balanced team, they each are better suited to playing the 3, rather than the 2.
Yeah, that and there are no players out there at either of those two positions that can fit our team better than Danny or Mike. No draft pick either.

Speed
04-08-2008, 03:45 PM
Yeah, that and there are no players out there at either of those two positions that can fit our team better than Danny or Mike. No draft pick either.

My only problem is when you play Him and Danny together like that you have to play one out of position and neither can exploit the size advantage or they don't. If you play Dun at small forward for 82 games you have to hide him against teams like the Nets and have him guard Krstic. I am wistful for players who can guard their position in any situation, Danny can across the league, Mike can't.

I still like Mike he makes players around him better, somewhat, thats a rare commodity around here. Its just you have to make adjustments for him in some situations.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 03:52 PM
My only problem is when you play Him and Danny together like that you have to play one out of position and neither can exploit the size advantage or they don't. If you play Dun at small forward for 82 games you have to hide him against teams like the Nets and have him guard Krstic. I am wistful for players who can guard their position in any situation, Danny can across the league, Mike can't.

I still like Mike he makes players around him better, somewhat, thats a rare commodity around here. Its just you have to make adjustments for him in some situations.
And that's what we've been doing. Mike has a good mind for basketball. He and Danny have been adjusting to swapping the roles all season. Danny and Mike have both had career seasons. It seems to be working.

I've been saying this all day, off-season training and conditioning for both Danny and Dun Dun will do them best. I'm sure we will have a better defense next season if they work on it this summer.

mrknowname
04-08-2008, 04:30 PM
dunleavy should take a backseat to granger.

trade foster and williams for a real SG that can play some defense

Will Galen
04-08-2008, 05:16 PM
Keep in mind....just because you have Dunleavy as a 6th man playing 32 minutes a game doesn't mean that he won't finish or won't be playing with Granger for the majority of the game.

So why bench him? Why not have the guy you are starting in front of him come off the bench?

Mike holds up his end, what we really need is a point guard that can stop other point guards from driving the lane at will.

Point guard, point guard, point guard, nothing else with our first pick.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 05:16 PM
dunleavy should take a backseat to granger.

trade foster and williams for a real SG that can play some defense
Good Idea: Keep Dunleavy in the starting rotation.

Bad Idea: Trade off our only real rebounder.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f8PhzrmBgMI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f8PhzrmBgMI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

CableKC
04-08-2008, 05:31 PM
So why bench him? Why not have the guy you are starting in front of him come off the bench?

Mike holds up his end, what we really need is a point guard that can stop other point guards from driving the lane at will.

Point guard, point guard, point guard, nothing else with our first pick.
My main concern is defense at the GF rotation. As far as I am concerned....the more time that we have an actual player that can help Danny guard the perimeter the better......especially when it comes to the Starting quality SGs that either blows by Dunleavy when they drive to the hoop or simply torch him on the perimeter cuz he can't keep up with him.

I'm not saying that Dunleavy isn't a good player and isn't a smart enough player to play with our "team offense"....I just recognize the need to shore up our perimeter defense as muich as we can while not compromising what Dunleavy does on the offensive end. There is no amount of training that Dunleavy can do at this point in his career that will give him the physical abilities to be quicker or have better lateral speed.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 05:51 PM
So why bench him? Why not have the guy you are starting in front of him come off the bench?

Mike holds up his end, what we really need is a point guard that can stop other point guards from driving the lane at will.

Point guard, point guard, point guard, nothing else with our first pick.
Amen.

MyFavMartin
04-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Point guard, point guard, point guard, nothing else with our first pick.

Hey Uncle Will-

If we have TWO 1st round picks, can I get a CDR to go along with your PG? Or maybe supersize it and get one with Mayo?

iPacer

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 06:19 PM
We should totally invest in just a point guard with our first pick. I don't think TPTB will be working on trading any starters or playmakers for another 1st round pick.

I really think we sould get our hands on a decent PF in the second round, I would like to have him as an option to back up Jermaine or Murphy (if JO is gone next season). I.E. D.J. White.

mrknowname
04-08-2008, 06:32 PM
the problem with dunleavy and granger starting together is that they don't compliment each other.

dunleavy is a defensive liability and granger just isn't a consistent defender for whatever reason. neither is a SG so one of them is always playing out of position if they're playing together. neither are great at penetrating and getting to the freethrow line.

basically dunleavy would help this team more if he came off the bench imo

theres no true pg thats worth drafting in the lottery besides Rose and we aren't getting him. the best we could do is westbrook, but he's more of a combo guard (could be perfect compliment to dunleavy off the bench though).

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 06:34 PM
the problem with dunleavy and granger starting together is that they don't compliment each other.

dunleavy is a defensive liability and granger just isn't a consistent defender for whatever reason. neither is a SG so one of them is always playing out of position if they're playing together. neither are great at penetrating and getting to the freethrow line.

basically dunleavy would help this team more if he came off the bench imo
Do you think they could get better in the off-season?

mrknowname
04-08-2008, 06:37 PM
Do you think they could get better in the off-season?

what do u mean??????

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 06:41 PM
what do u mean??????
You basically said they can't compliment each other. Couldn't that be something that gets worked on in the off-season. If so, how should they approach it? Support your statement.

Is that clear enough?:p

mrknowname
04-08-2008, 06:47 PM
You basically said they can't compliment each other. Couldn't that be something that gets worked on in the off-season. If so, how should they approach it? Support your statement.

Is that clear enough?:p

lol yeah

i doubt it. one of them is always playing out of position when they're playing together and thats part of the defensive problem. neither is quick enough to guard the other teams starting SG. neither penetrates and gets to the free throw line. they don't compliment each other at all and they've had a season and a half to do it.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 06:52 PM
Eh, from what I've seen they are capable of driving the ball to the basket. Many times. Danny's problem is that he can't always finish.

Also, for someone who doesn't get to the free-throw line, it would've been hard to break a franchise record of consecutive FT attempts made this season.

Tell me how they play out of position, please.

mrknowname
04-08-2008, 06:58 PM
Eh, from what I've seen they are capable of driving the ball to the basket. Many times. Danny's problem is that he can't always finish.

Also, for someone who doesn't get to the free-throw line, it would've been hard to break a franchise record of consecutive FT attempts made this season.

Tell me how they play out of position, please.

granger doesn't have the ball handling skills to consistently drive to the basket and dunleavy doesn't have the first step/quickness to do that well. i cringe everytime i see them try to drive to teh basket

i think you meant free throws "made" ;)

because one of them is playing SG and neither are a SG.

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 07:11 PM
granger doesn't have the ball handling skills to consistently drive to the basket and dunleavy doesn't have the first step/quickness to do that well. i cringe everytime i see them try to drive to teh basket

i think you meant free throws "made" ;)

because one of them is playing SG and neither are a SG.
Well, benching either is out of the question. Basically your argument consists of switching them spots. That can happen. It's been happening all season.

mrknowname
04-08-2008, 07:37 PM
Well, benching either is out of the question. Basically your argument consists of switching them spots. That can happen. It's been happening all season.

i really don't see what the big deal is if dunleavy comes off the bench as the 6th man. seems to be working fine for Ginobli in SA

duke dynamite
04-08-2008, 07:56 PM
But Ginobli is a sixth-man.

Cherokee
04-08-2008, 10:17 PM
I expect to see the word "Stranger" at a lot more positions than I've seen listed here. OK, OK, I hope to see the word stranger. And someone's going to have to get used to playing behind UB.

Infinite MAN_force
04-08-2008, 11:50 PM
I don't think making dunleavy a 6th man is a slap in the face in any way, He could potentially be a 6th man of the year candidate. Playing a role like Detlef used to play for us or Ginobli in SA would suit him very well. Have him backup both wing spots and would probably play close to starter minutes when all is said and done.

I still dont think its a priority though, I would be looking for a defensive roll player type SG with driving ability. These types can often be found in free agency.

CableKC
04-09-2008, 12:30 AM
I don't think making dunleavy a 6th man is a slap in the face in any way, He could potentially be a 6th man of the year candidate. Playing a role like Detlef used to play for us or Ginobli in SA would suit him very well. Have him backup both wing spots and would probably play close to starter minutes when all is said and done.

I still dont think its a priority though, I would be looking for a defensive roll player type SG with driving ability. These types can often be found in free agency.
My thoughts exactly. If we could get a solid Defensive minded SG that can play most of his minutes ( even if it's just 15 mpg ) with Granger, that would tremendously help our perimeter defense.

TBird mentioned this in one of his earlier threads.....but signing/acquiring/drafting a solid perimeter defender that can help Granger shoulder some of the load on the defensive end could go a long way to plugging up one of the key weaknesses this team has.

Also...Dunleavy doesn't seem to be the type to pout about being relegated to a 6th Man role.

Kofi
04-09-2008, 01:05 AM
Mike has had a great season and nobody is trying to discredit him for that. However, putting up decent stats for the first time in his career on an Eastern conference lottery team while still being a defensive liability doesn't cement him as a guaranteed starter all of a sudden.

His overall skillset and phenomenal offensive efficiency say otherwise, friend.

Robertmto
04-09-2008, 01:12 AM
I don;t get the whole "turning a guard into a forward blah blah blah" argument. To me there are 3 basketball positions.

Point Guard
Wing players
Bigs

You start 1 point guard, 2 wings, and 2 bigs. And if u have hybrid players (ala Kg or Rashard Lewis or Jamison etc) you can manipulate that to your advantage for defensive/offensive purposes.

Infinite MAN_force
04-09-2008, 01:17 AM
My thoughts exactly. If we could get a solid Defensive minded SG that can play most of his minutes ( even if it's just 15 mpg ) with Granger, that would tremendously help our perimeter defense.

TBird mentioned this in one of his earlier threads.....but signing/acquiring/drafting a solid perimeter defender that can help Granger shoulder some of the load on the defensive end could go a long way to plugging up one of the key weaknesses this team has.

Also...Dunleavy doesn't seem to be the type to pout about being relegated to a 6th Man role.

My hairbrained theory is that Stephan Graham could even play this role if he could ever get off the damn bench. Im sort of obessed with him because he has always produced in the brief stints he has gotten... than we never see him again. he would certainly be an affordable option.

Infinite MAN_force
04-09-2008, 01:25 AM
I don;t get the whole "turning a guard into a forward blah blah blah" argument. To me there are 3 basketball positions.

Point Guard
Wing players
Bigs

You start 1 point guard, 2 wings, and 2 bigs. And if u have hybrid players (ala Kg or Rashard Lewis or Jamison etc) you can manipulate that to your advantage for defensive/offensive purposes.

I kind of agree with this. I do see the benifits of not starting Dun and Granger together due to redundent skillsets, but I am not exactly sure what the difference is between a 2 and a 3 or why it really matters. You might ideally want a scorer and a defender be your two wings, or a shooter and a slasher, but does it really matter which is which?

Robertmto
04-09-2008, 01:35 AM
You might ideally want a scorer and a defender be your two wings, or a shooter and a slasher, but does it really matter which is which?

No it doesn't. The 2 and 3 are the exact same positions. You can mix and match them to whatever skill set best benefits your team.

Just like the 4 and 5 are the same postions.

duke dynamite
04-09-2008, 01:42 AM
You guys have fun, I'm done pushing my case on this. No one listens to me anyway. I'm apparently wrong...