PDA

View Full Version : Hibbert needs to start, and Rush needs lots of PT...



Jim R
10-14-2008, 06:54 PM
Getting to the meat of this is Nesterovic is in the last year of his contract, and while he is a serviceable center, I doubt very much the Pacers are going to commit to him for the long term. Foster, on the other hand, is here for awhile, and it's likely slated eventually for a very solid bench role once Hibbert gets more seasoning. The key to this is where the Pacers will fall in the standings.

I'm tired of mediocrity as a fan. As someone who coaches, I've always believed if the best you can do is mediocrity, go young. It's not a reflection on Foster or Nesterovic. If this Pacers team was going to compete for a championship, I would want Foster in the starting line up right from the start, as I have since the day they let Brad Miller go.

This team isn't going to get to that level.

Hibbert may never be a marquee center, but with his skill set at 7'2", he could be another Rik Smits, just enough of a presence as he becomes a veteran, that you must game plan against him. He will eventually need a body next to him who is at least another defensive presence and at the very least complimentary to his offensive skill set.

Reports are that Hibbert's low post is going to be NBA caliber, and anyone who saw him in college knows he is an excellent passer with a good mid range jump shot. Without a strong low post game, he would be great with an active PF type, such as what Antonio Davis was in his prime, or even an undersized player such as David West.

Moving to Brandon Rush, it would be nice to see him start too, but I would be happy with him being the first wing off the bench. I'd like to see Granger and Dunleavy at the SF and PF positions. Troy Murphy is a horrible defender, and offensively he is merely a spot shooter. Given the defensive deficiency, I'd much rather have Granger guarding bigger players because at least he would create match-up problems on the other end. That would allow Rush to move into the starting SG spot.

While I could see the Pacers going with a more traditional starting line-up, keeping Murphy in there, I would hope the Pacers would throw mediocrity to the wind and make sure Rush plays. The Pacers finally have an heir apparent to Reggie Miller at SG, someone who is young, and someone who can play defense. I hope he doesn't dwindle on the bench for the sake of moving from 35 to 42 wins.

If the Pacers do worse because of it, so be it. They get good experience, and the Pacers get a better shot at a good draft pick. The season won't be wasted because of the experience factor, and players like Ford, Granger, and Dunleavy are young enough that they could still be part of the winning in a couple of years.

If the Pacers come out even, then it's a complete success.

duke dynamite
10-14-2008, 07:02 PM
Nice read there, Jim.

I will tell you that I will have to disagree with you on that Hibbert may never be a marquee center, I think he has all the skills and determination in the world to make himself a top player in his postition in the NBA.

Roy displays the raw talent and discipline needed to grow as a player, and that could easily rub off on Brandon and a few of the other players. They will start to mimic him on the court, and in the community.

I feel that the best is yet to come, yes, but this year is going to be a proving year.

Good luck to our young players.

McKeyFan
10-14-2008, 07:05 PM
I think if they both get 15 minutes off the bench this year, everybody will get most of what they want.

Anthem
10-14-2008, 07:32 PM
Do you think Hibbert's ready for an 82-game season? Most rookies aren't.

I think if you start him and give him 25+ mpg right now, the dude crashes by the ASB.

jeffg-body
10-14-2008, 07:52 PM
I have to agree that both rooks need some quality playing time this year, but let's not rush them into the starting line-up because like Anthem said, they will hit that Rookie wall by the ASB.

CableKC
10-14-2008, 07:59 PM
Although I love the way he has handled himself in his 1st 3 games....I will hold judgement on him until we have a few more games under his belt before I annoint him a Starter.

I loved his performance from yesterdays game....but keep in mind....this was against Darko ( who is Foul prone ) and Gasol along with a solid performance against a Bulls roster that had no real Big Man that could defend him. I'm trying not to diminish his performance by any means...cuz they were outstanding....but he hasn't really played against any real solid NBA caliber Big Men other then Chandler.

If he continues to play this way....I think that we have found our 8th Man off the bench....ahead of both Marquis and Rush.....which could warrant about 15 minutes a game behind Murphy, Rasho and Foster.

As for BRush, I think that he still has a ways to go. I am pretty sure that if Marquis was available yesterday, that he would have been getting more minutes over BRush against the likes of Gay and Mayo.

Smoothdave1
10-14-2008, 08:22 PM
Roy has shown a lot of promise the first few games. The Pacers are going to allow Roy to see some PT this year, but you cannot expect him to come in and play 30 min a night consistently. He'll hit the rookie wall by January or February if he is playing extensively as he is not mentally and physically ready.

The Pacers have the luxury of bringing Roy along slowly this year. I think there's a good chance he starts next year as I don't expect Rasho to resign (unless it's for cheap). But Roy has shown a lot of promise and I look for good things for him.

YoSoyIndy
10-14-2008, 08:34 PM
Do you think Hibbert's ready for an 82-game season? Most rookies aren't.

I think if you start him and give him 25+ mpg right now, the dude crashes by the ASB.

Agreed. It will be a long season for Hibbert.

CableKC
10-14-2008, 08:38 PM
Roy has shown a lot of promise the first few games. The Pacers are going to allow Roy to see some PT this year, but you cannot expect him to come in and play 30 min a night consistently. He'll hit the rookie wall by January or February if he is playing extensively as he is not mentally and physically ready.

The Pacers have the luxury of bringing Roy along slowly this year. I think there's a good chance he starts next year as I don't expect Rasho to resign (unless it's for cheap). But Roy has shown a lot of promise and I look for good things for him.

That's what I'm thinking. I don't want to burn Roy out.....and given the depth that we have.....I don't feel the need to have him start over the likes of Rasho nor Foster. I would much rather give him the chance to make play so that he can make and learn from his mistakes.....but also want to make sure that we win games. Not to say that we can't win games while Roy plays....but unless he is absolutely dominating the opposing Frontcourt.....we don't have the luxury of letting Roy make a lot of mistakes that may cost us games.

Jim R
10-14-2008, 08:40 PM
Duke, I get your notion about him being a marquee center, but I'm aiming low and thinking he still has a chance to be strong. I always thought Smits underachieved, but if Hibbert is his equal, he will be a factor on both ends. I would hope Hibbert would rebound better than Smits, and if he does, he'll be a marquee center.

To the others who have responded, I get the rookie wall issue, but I just don't see the down side to it. Again, going on the notion this team is at best mediocre, getting to and through that wall is necessary growth. It will eliminate some of that doubt next year when they will be counted on, in what would be expected to be a better year.

The short term to me doesn't matter for this team. I'm not saying tank the season or not care about wins, but I want those wins to come with Hibbert and Rush on the floor. If they do, that means between Granger or Dunleavy, one of them can be used to secure a good caliber PF in the offseason because the Pacers are going to have cap room.

I'd actually like to see them deal their #1 pick, protected to a point, with a Dunleavy or Granger AND Tinsley (get his butt off the books) for a stud PF, even if that trade doesn't happen until next summer. By then Tinsley's contract can be bait. If it has to be Granger, I'm OK with it.

CableKC
10-14-2008, 08:48 PM
Duke, I get your notion about him being a marquee center, but I'm aiming low and thinking he still has a chance to be strong. I always thought Smits underachieved, but if Hibbert is his equal, he will be a factor on both ends. I would hope Hibbert would rebound better than Smits, and if he does, he'll be a marquee center.

To the others who have responded, I get the rookie wall issue, but I just don't see the down side to it. Again, going on the notion this team is at best mediocre, getting to and through that wall is necessary growth. It will eliminate some of that doubt next year when they will be counted on, in what would be expected to be a better year.

The short term to me doesn't matter for this team. I'm not saying tank the season or not care about wins, but I want those wins to come with Hibbert and Rush on the floor. If they do, that means between Granger or Dunleavy, one of them can be used to secure a good caliber PF in the offseason because the Pacers are going to have cap room.

I'd actually like to see them deal their #1 pick, protected to a point, with a Dunleavy or Granger AND Tinsley (get his butt off the books) for a stud PF, even if that trade doesn't happen until next summer. By then Tinsley's contract can be bait. If it has to be Granger, I'm OK with it.
I don't mean to ask....but did you decide to essentially trade Granger for the type of PF that you are looking for based off of the 3 Preseason Games that Rush and Hibbert had?

Don't get me wrong....I like what Rush did in that one game against the Bulls......and what Hibbert has done in the last 3 games...but I'm not ready to trade Granger given their performance.

Major Cold
10-14-2008, 10:39 PM
With Rasho there may be an oppurtunity to move him for youth prospect. Maybe Yao goes down for a month and Houston offers a Landry for Yao.

Rush and Hibbert will be part of the rotation but they are not ready to start. The preseason oasis maybe mirage. So I think that if we ease them into this it would benefit the future more than throwing them to the wolves.

croz24
10-14-2008, 10:49 PM
it'll take awhile before hibbert is ready for nba minutes. his conditioning isn't quite there yet. if he can maintain the determination, intensity, and work ethic he's shown thus far, i see no reason he can't become one of the better centers in the league capable of 35mpg. but he is still a rookie. 15-20mpg for the 1st half of the season is what i look for.

Quis
10-14-2008, 10:50 PM
From what I've seen, Hibbert has a Duncan-esque feel to him. Now before the annoying posters go crazy, l'm not comparing their skill levels just their styles. Hibbert has that intelligent poise to him and the same fundamentals you see out of a Tim Duncan, which is why I think he'll still be a damn good center despite his sub-par athleticism. Hard to believe that after all of the brain-dead athletic freaks that have flopped that skill and intelligence would become so underrated.

BlueNGold
10-14-2008, 10:53 PM
Rasho is definitely an interim solution at best and my best guess is that Hibbert is the future C of this team. But one year of coming off the bench is not going to hurt him. I say we ride Rasho as the starter for one year, than Roy can be the man going forward. As long as Roy gets a minimum of 15mpg, he will develop fine. The Pacers are not going to sit him if he keeps playing remotely at this level and with his maturity...so I'm not too worried about that. If he deserves to play, I'm sure he'll get some time out there.

BlueNGold
10-14-2008, 10:57 PM
From what I've seen, Hibbert has a Duncan-esque feel to him. Now before the annoying posters go crazy, l'm not comparing their skill levels just their styles. Hibbert has that intelligent poise to him and the same fundamentals you see out of a Tim Duncan, which is why I think he'll still be a damn good center despite his sub-par athleticism. Hard to believe that after all of the brain-dead athletic freaks that have flopped that skill and intelligence would become so underrated.

Yes, he has that...I don't know what to call it...deliberateness...calm yet aggressive intelligence...good head out thereness...big fundamentalness...

Ok, I will say it: Duncan-esque. Now, let the thread go wild...:dance:

Shade
10-14-2008, 11:24 PM
Do you think Hibbert's ready for an 82-game season? Most rookies aren't.

I think if you start him and give him 25+ mpg right now, the dude crashes by the ASB.

This.

GO!!!!!
10-14-2008, 11:34 PM
I like what i see from the Big Man, but as said before, i'd prefer to see him comming of the bench and learning his trade against other teams second unit..

Better for his confidence and his body...

the dude has ten years (hopefully) to Start for Us... just get them double doubles Franchise

Jim R
10-15-2008, 12:16 AM
I don't mean to ask....but did you decide to essentially trade Granger for the type of PF that you are looking for based off of the 3 Preseason Games that Rush and Hibbert had?

Don't get me wrong....I like what Rush did in that one game against the Bulls......and what Hibbert has done in the last 3 games...but I'm not ready to trade Granger given their performance.

No, none of this is based on the preseason games. What it's based on is giving these two rookies plenty of time this year, throwing them into the fire in what will be an otherwise mediocre year, and see where it leads them. I'm saying after a full season you can get an inkling of what direction they can help take the franchise. Trading Granger or even Dunleavy wasn't an idea to do right now, only after getting a strong does of Hibbert and Rush throughout this year.

CableKC
10-15-2008, 01:27 AM
No, none of this is based on the preseason games. What it's based on is giving these two rookies plenty of time this year, throwing them into the fire in what will be an otherwise mediocre year, and see where it leads them. I'm saying after a full season you can get an inkling of what direction they can help take the franchise. Trading Granger or even Dunleavy wasn't an idea to do right now, only after getting a strong does of Hibbert and Rush throughout this year.
Regardless of how they do.....I would think that it would make more sense to build around the likes of Granger, Rush and Hibbert. Also, given the way that JO'Bs offense works.....IMHO one that is better suited with our primary scoring coming from the PG/SG/SF positions.....I don't think that there is a requirement to have a Low-Post threat at the PF/C positions.

Although it's nice to have a very solid Low Post scoring threat at the PF spot....I would think this is more of a "want" as opposed to a "need". On top of that....hopefully Hibbert's progression will eventually make him the Low Post threat that we need at the PF/C rotation.

clownskull
10-15-2008, 02:35 AM
like most have already said, i disagree with starting hibbert. he has shown some promising stuff but, bringing him along at about 15-20 min would be much better for him (imo). hitting the wall by mid season isn't what we need. rasho is a quality big with more experience and stamina at this point. we got him for this year, it would be silly to waste it. let him get the bulk of the minutes and have roy take up the slack. throwing a guy into the fire can have negative ramifications like hitting the wall, losing confidence etc. i think roy will be a fine player but i still think he needs more time to develop (especially in conditioning) before he is truly ready for the responsibility to be the main guy down low at this point.
let him earn his time as he should. i never believe guys should ever be given a job until they have earned it.

Jim R
10-15-2008, 08:48 AM
like most have already said, i disagree with starting hibbert. he has shown some promising stuff but, bringing him along at about 15-20 min would be much better for him (imo). hitting the wall by mid season isn't what we need. rasho is a quality big with more experience and stamina at this point. we got him for this year, it would be silly to waste it. let him get the bulk of the minutes and have roy take up the slack. throwing a guy into the fire can have negative ramifications like hitting the wall, losing confidence etc. i think roy will be a fine player but i still think he needs more time to develop (especially in conditioning) before he is truly ready for the responsibility to be the main guy down low at this point.
let him earn his time as he should. i never believe guys should ever be given a job until they have earned it.


Who says because Hibbert starts it means he has to play 30-35 minutes a game?

Who says him hitting the rookie wall wastes him? To me this year is already a wash, as a mediocre year means a first round exit or a bad lottery pick.

Hibbert played a Georgetown. He knows what big time basketball competition is like. If he loses confidence in the heat of the fire, he won't be good enough for the Pacers to get over the hump.

Rookies which lose confidence are the ones who rarely play. You know, the ones in Larry Brown's systems. Rookies which confidence are the ones without a veteran presence. He can start, play 20-25 minutes per game, and be groomed all at once. I want him up against a team's starters every game he plays in. That's the best way to develop him. It's not to say he spends every minute doing it or plays as long as normal starters do.





Regardless of how they do.....I would think that it would make more sense to build around the likes of Granger, Rush and Hibbert. Also, given the way that JO'Bs offense works.....IMHO one that is better suited with our primary scoring coming from the PG/SG/SF positions.....I don't think that there is a requirement to have a Low-Post threat at the PF/C positions.

Although it's nice to have a very solid Low Post scoring threat at the PF spot....I would think this is more of a "want" as opposed to a "need". On top of that....hopefully Hibbert's progression will eventually make him the Low Post threat that we need at the PF/C rotation.


Show me a team which won a championship without a true low post presence in the last 50 years, and I'll show you a team which played great defense. Not to say those teams with a low post presence didn't also play great defense, but Pistons teams and Bulls teams were great defensive teams. In the case of the Bulls, they had Jordan.

I'm not sure the Pacers have any of those ingredients right now. I would mold this team after the Pacers' teams which made the finals or even the conference finals. A low post threat is pretty appealing, and as exciting as JOB's offense is, the last I checked the Phoenix just scrapped the entire system with much talent than the Pacers have had in the last four years.

Unclebuck
10-15-2008, 09:15 AM
The preseason isn't the regular season. It happens every year - severla players look really good in October and then struggle during the regular season when teams prepare for players, when veterans play harder.

I hope Hibbert is great - but it is way to early to know what he will become

naptownmenace
10-15-2008, 09:35 AM
I want him up against a team's starters every game he plays in. That's the best way to develop him. It's not to say he spends every minute doing it or plays as long as normal starters do.

I agree with this. The quickest way for him to develop would be for him to face the best talent out there. Considering that a lot of teams don't even have a decent C themselves, I think he'll do fine - especially against most teams in the east.

I also think that he should start but only play about 16-20 minutes a game. Start with Roy and if the game is close and you need that experience in the fourth quarter go with Rasho or Foster. Basically, play Roy at the beginning of the 1st and 3rd quarters of each game and depending on how he plays during those quarters, adjust his minutes accordingly.

Hicks
10-15-2008, 09:50 AM
The preseason isn't the regular season. It happens every year - severla players look really good in October and then struggle during the regular season when teams prepare for players, when veterans play harder.

I hope Hibbert is great - but it is way to early to know what he will become

That's true, but I have some hope for Roy because the reason he's doing well is because he's smart and skilled. When you're 7'2" 275lbs+ with a brain and skills, I'm not sure how much you can shut that down when one of those skills is passing the ball well and part of his intelligence is knowing what is happening on the floor (in terms of what the other players are doing).

Sure, there will be plenty of rough games along the way, but to watch him, you sense Roy is not just a pre-season wonder who will disappear.

Jim R
10-15-2008, 10:19 AM
The preseason isn't the regular season. It happens every year - severla players look really good in October and then struggle during the regular season when teams prepare for players, when veterans play harder.

I hope Hibbert is great - but it is way to early to know what he will become

To my knowledge, no one has based any of this on preseason results. To me it's not even an issue of this year. I have a much longer view. It's an issue of risk/reward.

There is little risk to giving the rookies a good dose of PT, and since neither Foster or Nesterovic have their best days ahead of them, there aren't many reasons to give Hibbert as much time. The only reason I would put Nesterovic in a position to get major minutes is to feature him for a contending team in need of a back-up center. Otherwise, let his contract expire and reap the cap space.

Major Cold
10-15-2008, 10:56 AM
I think the pace of the regular season will be too much for Hibbert if he starts. I think having Rasho playing and having Foster and Hibbert coming off of the bench together would be beneficial. Hibbert still struggles to command the boards. Murphy struggles to command them at times. Granger is drifting farther away from the lane to help cause he has to guard the top perimeter player.

I think the best person for Roy to be next to is Foster. But that does not work in JOB's system.

Listen the preseason is a mirage. If Roy continues to progress throughout the season and his conditioning continues to improve then he may be ready to come in and get more minutes. But that still does not guarantee he will start.

Centers in this league are faster than the Aaron Grays Hibbert has faced in the preseason.

Jim R
10-15-2008, 12:44 PM
Here is what worries me about Rosho, what in the number of times he's been tabbed as a starter has he done which makes him a starter over Foster who has done much more on a per minute basis?

Centers in this league are faster than Nesterovic. Again, none of this has anything to do with the preseason performances.

Eindar
10-15-2008, 01:08 PM
Here is what worries me about Rosho, what in the number of times he's been tabbed as a starter has he done which makes him a starter over Foster who has done much more on a per minute basis?

Centers in this league are faster than Nesterovic. Again, none of this has anything to do with the preseason performances.

One thing you don't have to question is Rasho's value to a team. His contributions often don't show up in the box score, but he's a very solid player. In comparing him to Foster, I'd say Rasho's post defense is slightly better, and while he may not shoot much or demand the ball much, he has some slight post game, and he's a threat to hit a 15 foot jumper consistently, which Foster isn't. Having Rasho in there opens driving lanes and makes it harder to double, which makes the game much easier for the scorers in this offense. If he's good enough to start for Popovich, he's good enough for me.

As for the rookies, I'm really encouraged by their play, but I'd rather see them get backup rotation minutes this year. There's so much that they're adjusting to right now, from the actual level of competition and NBA officiating to being on the road for months at a time and getting home from a place like Portland at 3am and having to play a game the next night. Money, groupies, etc., the NBA rookie has a lot to contend with, so I think it's a good thing to let take it slow at first.

For reference, neither Reggie Miller nor Danny Granger started their rookie year, and they turned out ok. Also, neither of them is a Center, which is the slowest position to develop a player at.

Anthem
10-15-2008, 01:09 PM
Here is what worries me about Rosho, what in the number of times he's been tabbed as a starter has he done which makes him a starter over Foster who has done much more on a per minute basis?

Centers in this league are faster than Nesterovic. Again, none of this has anything to do with the preseason performances.
Rasho's a real center, which we haven't had since Brad left.

I'm fine with Jeff in the starting lineup, I just want him at PF.

Hicks
10-15-2008, 02:22 PM
Rasho's also a better passer than Jeff.

CableKC
10-15-2008, 02:48 PM
Show me a team which won a championship without a true low post presence in the last 50 years, and I'll show you a team which played great defense. Not to say those teams with a low post presence didn't also play great defense, but Pistons teams and Bulls teams were great defensive teams. In the case of the Bulls, they had Jordan.
Why can't Hibbert eventually be that Low-Post scoring threat?


I'm not sure the Pacers have any of those ingredients right now. I would mold this team after the Pacers' teams which made the finals or even the conference finals. A low post threat is pretty appealing, and as exciting as JOB's offense is, the last I checked the Phoenix just scrapped the entire system with much talent than the Pacers have had in the last four years.
Well......I agree with you on the notion that the way this offense is run that I feel that it could get us back to the Playoffs but won't really sustain us for a deep Playoff run....but that's something that you would have to take up with Bird and JO'B. Given the likelihood of having JO'B around for another season or two....my guess is that we won't be seeing a change of offense/defense to the half-court offense that I'm guessing that you are suggesting.

BillS
10-15-2008, 02:55 PM
While I don't like the Larry Brown rookies-ride-the-pine method, I'm not so sure you build a rookie's confidence by throwing them into the deep end against starters and letting them get taken apart. I mean, we're not talking Shaq/LeBron/Wade level guys here.

Seems to me that getting the bulk of the bench minutes at their positions will do plenty to develop their contributions and confidence.

This may be a year destined for mediocrity, but we need to win some games in order to rebuild the confidence of the fan base. That probably means at least winning more games than last year, probably a first-round-and-out, but it is a visible improvement to the community.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 03:11 PM
Jim R,

Execellent points. I agree 100% with your original comments and your arguments in support of this.

What happens this season can have a huge impact on the 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons. Getting Hibbert and Rush into the starting lineup - letting them learn to play the NBA game during actual games against first-string competition is vital. This is not a win-now team and the team is unlikely to make the playoffs, no matter who plays the most minutes. Therefore, the viewpoint MUST be long-term, even if Roy and Brandon hit a few bumps in the road this season they need a coach committed to keeping them on the court, learning, and developing.

If these are not the two young men to add to Granger to build around, then we need to determine that immediately and try again next summer.

It seems to me that both young men are mature enough to handle whatever adversity might be coming thier way. I wouldn't want to take this strategy with an early-entry guy that only played one season of college ball and is supremely immature.

This season in isolation (like it or not) is a throw-away. But it can be the foundation of bigger things to come and I believe the fan base will recognize the small steps of improvement and gradually get on board.

EDIT - by the way, if you shelter a rookie from the 'rookie wall' by limiting thier minutes, then you just postpone that situation until the following year. We call it the "sophomore slump". The 'rookie wall' isn't something you back away from, it is a necessary part of a young player's learning curve.

beast23
10-15-2008, 04:07 PM
If this season is inded a "throw-away" season, then I would state that the primary goal is to be as good as we are capable of being at the end of the season.

If that is the case, then I would agree that an important part of the Pacer future would be in evaluating and developing our youngsters as much as possible.

However, I think that we are forced to also look at our season from a different perspective. Bird has made significant strides in ridding the roster of players that have been percieved as "driving fans away". One more trade, and in my book he will have achieved perfection in that department.

This has been primarily to put fans back into the seats. But bringing back fans, as we know, goes further than that. We must be consistently competitive, and of course winning more games would also be nice.

The foremost thing to remember is that the Pacers are a business. Their profit is determined in large part by player salaries and by the number of fans that are the seats.

So, there is a pretty delicate balance between preparing young players for the future and possibly sacrificing a few wins, and doing whatever is necessary to maximize the number of wins this season.

From my perspective, I believe that the Pacers present situation with their fans is such that maximizing competitiveness and number of wins is of primary important now that the roster has been overhauled.

For that reason, barring injuries, I don't see any of our youngsters getting significant minutes in the first couple of months of the season.

Through Christmas, I believe Hibbert might average 12-15 minutes and Rush maybe as much as 15-18 minutes per game.

Starting in January, it might then be possible to find more minutes for them.

count55
10-15-2008, 04:10 PM
While I don't like the Larry Brown rookies-ride-the-pine method, I'm not so sure you build a rookie's confidence by throwing them into the deep end against starters and letting them get taken apart. I mean, we're not talking Shaq/LeBron/Wade level guys here.

Seems to me that getting the bulk of the bench minutes at their positions will do plenty to develop their contributions and confidence.

This may be a year destined for mediocrity, but we need to win some games in order to rebuild the confidence of the fan base. That probably means at least winning more games than last year, probably a first-round-and-out, but it is a visible improvement to the community.

This is an excellent point. Not every player develops best in the same way. It does seem likely that Rush and Hibbert have the temperament to deal with the certain failures associated with the experiment proposed, but this is definitely not a wise approach in all cases. Some players should be brought along slowly. I would wonder if Jamaal Tinsley had been spoon fed early in his career, made to apprentice for a year or two, if he wouldn't have been a different player.

While I ardently hope that Rush and Hibbert see regular, sustained playing time, and would be thrilled if one of the two ended up in the starting lineup by year's end, I would prefer that they earn it. The problem I have with the OP's thrust is that I consider it to be a different vein of the same "confusing activity with accomplishment" type strategies that had been employed up until this offseason.

Since the brawl, the Pacers have kept doing things in hopes that it would make things better: trade Artest for Peja, let Peja walk, but snare a TE, use the TE & a first for Al, Trade Al & Jax for Murphleavy & Ike, Fire Carlisle, Hire O'Brien, all peppered with small AJ/Austin type deals. There was no coherence to the approach, and the team lurched around like a drunk who couldn't remember where he put his keys.

While this proposal does at least have an eye towards the future, and therefore, some sense of direction, I still think that it may be shortcutting things too much for my taste. I do believe that Bird does view Brandon Rush as the future starting 2, and Roy as the future starting 5. However, I would prefer that we figure out the best way to get there from where we are now rather than just plugging them in and letting them sink or swim.

The other thing that I find troublesome in this thread is the idea of using assets to get a "stud PF". While I agree that there are holes in the structure of this team, and I recognize that we will probably have to part with some valued assets to fill them, I get heartburn when I see this idea thrown around so cavalierly. It's kind of the "then a miracle occurs" strategy. We talk about what we need in broad terms, but we never identify who can fill that role, or how practical it is to get them.

I consider this summer to be a good start because of the following:

- We significantly improved our financial flexibility and position.
- We added four young players (Ford, Rush, Hibbert, and Jack) that can reasonably be considered to likely pieces of the future foundation.
- We are in the process of severing the ties (at least symbolically) to the past few years with the trades of JO and Shawne, and whatever upcoming Tinsley deal occurs.

This is going to be an evolution, not a revolution. I would certainly consider a year where Rush and Hibbert ride the pine in favor of short rotations including Rasho, Croshere, Foster, & Daniels a disappointment and alarming failure. However, I cannot say definitively that throwing Rush & Hibbert out there would be the right thing to do.

I would consider it to be an unqualified success if Hibbert could play the same kind of role Reggie did as a rookie: 20+min per game as THE backup, clearly being groomed to replace the veteran starter. Rush is more difficult to judge because of the presence of Granger, Dunleavy, and Jack, but I am hopeful he can average 15-20 minutes a night, occasionally playing down the stretch as the guy with the hot hand.

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 05:19 PM
This may be a year destined for mediocrity, but we need to win some games in order to rebuild the confidence of the fan base. That probably means at least winning more games than last year, probably a first-round-and-out, but it is a visible improvement to the community.
Mediocrity is better than sucking.

Anthem
10-15-2008, 05:20 PM
While I ardently hope that Rush and Hibbert see regular, sustained playing time, and would be thrilled if one of the two ended up in the starting lineup by year's end, I would prefer that they earn it.
Absolutely. We complain about an entitlement mentality, but that's what you get if you start an inferior player over a superior one.

If Hibby wants to start over Rasho he needs to be a better player than Rasho.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 05:41 PM
Mediocrity is better than sucking.


Absolutely. We complain about an entitlement mentality, but that's what you get if you start an inferior player over a superior one.

If Hibby wants to start over Rasho he needs to be a better player than Rasho.

Never let a vision for the future get in the way of the almighty "play 0.500 and hope for a #8 spot" approach.

- - - - - - - - - -

You guys realize that Donnie Walsh is running the Knicks now, right? All of Donnie's strategy can be thrown out the window.

Bird may or may not be smart enough to do the job, but he doesn't strike me as being interested in having a 0.500 team barely make the playoffs unless it is a team on the rise.

CableKC
10-15-2008, 05:52 PM
Never let a vision for the future get in the way of the almight "play 0.500 and hope for a #8 spot" approach.
I think that is what we should expect. To expand on what beast23 alluded to.....Bird is on a mission to bring the fans back to Conseco Fieldhouse by focusing on winning now and returning to the Playoffs. My wish is that we can win games by playing Hibbert and Rush as much as possible.....but realistically, my guess is that more often then not.....winning games will mean that they won't be getting as many minutes as we hope.

Right now, Bird thinks that winning games....despite the liklihood that we would still end up in 8th place in the East....is far more important then trying to develop Hibbert and Rush. Although this mentality is only looking down the road for 1-2 seasons.......if we can't bring in the fans by winning now....there won't be a reason to look to the future.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 06:00 PM
I think Bird the salesman is trying to get fans back in any way possible. I think Bird the Team President cares far less about this seasons' W/L record and more about making progress with his new players.

He clearly can't come out and say, "we're gonna suck this year, but buy tickets anyway."

I think some people are putting too much stock in Bird-in-the-role-of-season-ticket-saleman's words. I think he hates mediocrity far more than he hates losing-with-a-plan.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 06:06 PM
Because Pacer Nation has a severe case of myopia, the best thing that could happen to this franchise is for the anticipated lineup of Ford-Dun-Granger-Murphy/Foster-Rasho to lay a rotten egg during November so that the fans get restless to see Rush and Hibbert. I believe that by April the lineup of PG-Rush-Granger-Murphy-Hibbert will be best lineup we can put on the court and the best chance of winning 30+ games this season.

Suaveness
10-15-2008, 06:06 PM
Jim R,

Execellent points. I agree 100% with your original comments and your arguments in support of this.

What happens this season can have a huge impact on the 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons. Getting Hibbert and Rush into the starting lineup - letting them learn to play the NBA game during actual games against first-string competition is vital. This is not a win-now team and the team is unlikely to make the playoffs, no matter who plays the most minutes. Therefore, the viewpoint MUST be long-term, even if Roy and Brandon hit a few bumps in the road this season they need a coach committed to keeping them on the court, learning, and developing.

If these are not the two young men to add to Granger to build around, then we need to determine that immediately and try again next summer.

It seems to me that both young men are mature enough to handle whatever adversity might be coming thier way. I wouldn't want to take this strategy with an early-entry guy that only played one season of college ball and is supremely immature.

This season in isolation (like it or not) is a throw-away. But it can be the foundation of bigger things to come and I believe the fan base will recognize the small steps of improvement and gradually get on board.

EDIT - by the way, if you shelter a rookie from the 'rookie wall' by limiting thier minutes, then you just postpone that situation until the following year. We call it the "sophomore slump". The 'rookie wall' isn't something you back away from, it is a necessary part of a young player's learning curve.

Amazingly I mostly agree with you. I'm trying to figure when the last time that happened was. As far as Hibbert starting, I don't think it necessarily makes a difference if he starts, but rather the playing time he gets. And certinaly, he needs playing time against the starters of the opposing team.

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 06:17 PM
Because Pacer Nation has a severe case of myopia, the best thing that could happen to this franchise is for the anticipated lineup of Ford-Dun-Granger-Murphy/Foster-Rasho to lay a rotten egg during November so that the fans get restless to see Rush and Hibbert. I believe that by April the lineup of PG-Rush-Granger-Murphy-Hibbert will be best lineup we can put on the court and the best chance of winning 30+ games this season.
I still disagree. I think it would be best for both of our rookies to come off the bench. Someone stated before that they aren't ready to take on other starters. I feel that maybe that for the remaining preseason games we try that approach, and see where it gets us. Obviously, without our core we cannot get far, but I really feel that we need to re-think this whole starting the rookies thing for now.

count55
10-15-2008, 06:27 PM
Absolutely. We complain about an entitlement mentality, but that's what you get if you start an inferior player over a superior one.

If Hibby wants to start over Rasho he needs to be a better player than Rasho.


Never let a vision for the future get in the way of the almighty "play 0.500 and hope for a #8 spot" approach.

- - - - - - - - - -

You guys realize that Donnie Walsh is running the Knicks now, right? All of Donnie's strategy can be thrown out the window.

Bird may or may not be smart enough to do the job, but he doesn't strike me as being interested in having a 0.500 team barely make the playoffs unless it is a team on the rise.

That's not what either of us are saying. We are not talking about wins or losses, but a player actually proving that he belongs on the floor. The question is "does this player deserve playing time?", not "Can this player help me win today?" The first question should always be asked. The second question should only be asked when the team is at a sufficiently high level of competitiveness/competition.

Taking it further, I also have concerns about putting the player on the floor with at least the opportunity to succeed. Yes, the player can learn from failure, but failure without the chance of success will be costly, and I'm talking about the player, not the team.

I cannot speak for Anthem, but I would tend to factor a player's development into whether I consider him to be inferior/superior. As an example, I might consider Marquis a better NBA player than Brandon today. However, if I look at the two, and I can see how Brandon is currently closing the gap and will eventually overtake him, then I would consider Brandon the "superior" player, despite fact that it might not be true today.

This came up in the conversation I had with rexnom...we should start and maintain a meritocracy, but, as you note, it should involve the "vision" of what the players will be. It is not a strict interpretation of the narrow world of "today".

My objection to the "throw 'em in" plan is two-fold: 1st - the negatives of entitlement, and 2nd - the question as to whether that approach is the best way to maximize the development of that particular player. Overall, I'm less concerned with what this would do to our Win/Loss record, and more concerned with what this could do to both the player and the culture of the team.


I think Bird the salesman is trying to get fans back in any way possible. I think Bird the Team President cares far less about this seasons' W/L record and more about making progress with his new players.

He clearly can't come out and say, "we're gonna suck this year, but buy tickets anyway."

I think some people are putting too much stock in Bird-in-the-role-of-season-ticket-saleman's words. I think he hates mediocrity far more than he hates losing-with-a-plan.

I think this is a fair and accurate assessment.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 06:28 PM
You guys act like no rookie has ever started an NBA game before. Hell, Chuck Person took a team with more holes than a block of swiss cheese to the playoffs as a rookie, playing 36 mpg.

I see no reason these guys aren't ready. We're not talking about 20 y/o's with immaturity and incomplete games (like Shawne Williams, for example.)

Will it be bumpy? Yes. So what? The alternatives don't exactly scream PLAYOFF CONTENDER!, do they?

Stipo played 30 mpg as a rookie and Smits played 25 mpg as rookie. Both were staters. Smits struggled with foul difficulty or he would have played more mpg.

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 06:29 PM
Well said, Count.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 06:32 PM
Count,

That's fair. In my imaginary I've-never-actually-had-a-conversation-with-any-of-these-guys world, I'm convinced that Rush and Hibbert are mentally tough enough to handle playing time and responsibility right now.

To me, they both are oozing maturity.

BlueNGold
10-15-2008, 06:32 PM
Hibbert and Rush are challenging for my most favorite Pacers...but IMO whoever earns the spot should get to start. What a novel idea.

All Hibbert and Rush need is enough time during the regular season to prove themselves. I do not favor a rookie starting until he has proven he's equal or better. Yes, that means I favor a rook over a 8 year vet of course.

Hibbert, who I am sky high on, has yet to play a regular season game against good competition. He has looked good against a couple of the weakest front lines in the NBA. No telling what happens when he is consistently up against the likes of Yao, Howard...and of course the great JO....lol.

Rush, who I am also sky high on, has played one good game out of three in the preseason. The other two I don't consider real impressive. In fact, I think supplanting Dunleavy will be harder for Rush than supplanting Rasho will be for Hibbert.

Let those guys grow hungry. Let them earn it the old fashioned way...

Bball
10-15-2008, 06:39 PM
Since money has been mentioned I will ask:
Is it better (financially) to throw the kitchen sink at each individual game hoping for a few more wins and a spot in the playoffs in order to maximize butts in the seats in any one season... or is it better to allow some losses in the short term to (hopefully) build a better team for the long run?

count55
10-15-2008, 06:42 PM
Count,

That's fair. In my imaginary I've-never-actually-had-a-conversation-with-any-of-these-guys world, I'm convinced that Rush and Hibbert are mentally tough enough to handle playing time and responsibility right now.

To me, they both are oozing maturity.

At my old job, we called what we are doing "violently agreeing".

I do love both of these guys. I also agree with what you're saying here. In fact, in my earlier post, I put it this way:


Not every player develops best in the same way. It does seem likely that Rush and Hibbert have the temperament to deal with the certain failures associated with the experiment proposed, but this is definitely not a wise approach in all cases.

I'm just not quite in the "this-has-to-happen-now-Nikita-Kruschev-pounding-my-shoe-on-the-table" camp...at the moment.

(I also must admit that I probably am reacting from a little residual weariness from the incessant "Play Ike! Play Ike!" drumbeat I heard from some quarters on RGM last year. It's not the same situation, but it has a faintly similar aroma.)

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 06:42 PM
Since money has been mentioned I will ask:
Is it better (financially) to throw the kitchen sink at each individual game hoping for a few more wins and a spot in the playoffs in order to maximize butts in the seats in any one season... or is it better to allow some losses in the short term to (hopefully) build a better team for the long run?
In a perfect world I would settle for both.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 06:46 PM
(I also must admit that I probably am reacting from a little residual weariness from the incessant "Play Ike! Play Ike!" drumbeat I heard from some quarters on RGM last year. It's not the same situation, but it has a faintly similar aroma.)

I spent last season on PD's injured reserve/ inactive list, so I can't take the blame for that.

count55
10-15-2008, 06:49 PM
Since money has been mentioned I will ask:
Is it better (financially) to throw the kitchen sink at each individual game hoping for a few more wins and a spot in the playoffs in order to maximize butts in the seats in any one season... or is it better to allow some losses in the short term to (hopefully) build a better team for the long run?

The short answer is long run is better.

The long answer is that the long run is better, but there are many, many competing considerations, including the job security of the coaches, the players, and the management.

The pivot point is whether there is a coherent, clearly articulated long-term plan or not. If not, then, really, there is nothing more important than today's game (because you don't have anything else)...at least until the next leadership team comes along.

count55
10-15-2008, 06:52 PM
I spent last season on PD's injured reserve/ inactive list, so I can't take the blame for that.

Yeah, I was on RealGM (RGM), not here, as well. That's what I was saying (though I'm sure they got a little rhythm of the night over here as well.)

BillS
10-16-2008, 09:49 AM
:banghead:

I don't know why I keep getting into this discussion, it's like trying to dig a well in a sandpit.

Yes, we need to have a plan for the future.

Yes, we need to make sure the players most likely to develop get plenty of time to do so.

No, we can't simply make sure we suck for 5 years and then jump straight to a championship.

No, this city (or any city other than perhaps New York or Chicago) won't put up with 3 or 4 more years of struggling on the floor while the PR machine grinds out "but we are preparing for the future by stinking!" ads.

You have to win 40 games before you can win 41, or 42, or 43...

You can't just give the "young guys" playing time, you have to give them experience at winning as well. It's called "an atmosphere of success".

Winning each individual game is just as important as developing players, particularly in these economic times and with the current state of the franchise.

Winning a few extra games and getting into the playoffs after a 2-year drought is not going to destroy the future of the Pacers. It may, however, spur more positive interest in the team and make for a better fan base which is capable of supporting longer-term plans.

As I've said before, I don't want to sacrifice to losing for the supposed good of the future if it becomes a legacy leading to the first championship of the Las Vegas Pacers.

ChicagoJ
10-16-2008, 09:58 AM
Our best chance at a winning environment THIS season is letting Rush and Hibbert grow up over the next six months.

I'm telling you, the veterans on this team (Ford, Dunleavy, Daniels, Foster/ Murphy/ Rasho) can't make the playoffs in the EC and they have no upside. I'm not including Danny in that list, he's in my "future core" list.

You can't act like Sam Nassi still owns the team when the Simons are still involved and have given no indication of selling.

The Colts will be in Los Angeles long before the Pacers move anywhere.

Hicks
10-16-2008, 10:11 AM
For what it's worth: The attendance last night looked worse than it did the first preseason game at Conseco last year.

skyfire
10-16-2008, 10:16 AM
Our best chance at a winning environment THIS season is letting Rush and Hibbert grow up over the next six months.

I'm telling you, the veterans on this team (Ford, Dunleavy, Daniels, Foster/ Murphy/ Rasho) can't make the playoffs in the EC and they have no upside. I'm not including Danny in that list, he's in my "future core" list.

You can't act like Sam Nassi still owns the team when the Simons are still involved and have given no indication of selling.

The Colts will be in Los Angeles long before the Pacers move anywhere.

Despite having a disaster at PG and JO missing most of the season, those veterens minus Ford and Rasho missed the playoffs by 1 game last season. They might not make the playoffs this season but to say unquestionably that they cant make the playoffs and have no upside is a bit over the top.

Rush and Hibbert should earn their minutes like anyone else. Developing team chemistry and a winning mentality is just as important as the rookies developing their game.

Unclebuck
10-16-2008, 10:20 AM
Many of you that are advocating just throwing Rush and Hibbert out there were the same people who said the same thing about David Harrison. Seemingly all I heard for several seasons is all he needs is time, let him play through his foul trouble - all he needs is a big man coach - just play him so we build towards the future.

My point is - before we throw anyone out there, lets make sure they are sane first, NBA players second and worth playing in the first place. As it turns out every second Harrison played was a total waste of time.

Besides that it isn't fair to the other players who are busting their butts to play a rookie just because someday he might be better - a coach will lose all respect with his players very quickly doing that

Hicks
10-16-2008, 10:29 AM
I agree. Let them earn their spots. The only time it's bad that they don't play is if they deserve it and the coach refuses to do it because he has a crush on vets and thinks rookies can't handle it.

McKeyFan
10-16-2008, 10:46 AM
I'm telling you, the veterans on this team (Ford, Dunleavy, Daniels, Foster/ Murphy/ Rasho) can't make the playoffs in the EC and they have no upside.

Jay, I don't think you can't just slide Ford in there like he's one of the guys.

First of all, he wasn't here last year. Second of all, he's very good. He may be our best player now.

As SkyFire pointed out, we only missed the playoffs by one game last year. And then we added Ford.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 10:52 AM
Ford has never missed the playoffs in his career. And the bucks haven't made it since he left, if im not mistaken.

J, I don't know if you have been watching Ford's numbers, but he is a very good player. I know you are convinced otherwise for some reason, but come on... get real.

ChicagoJ
10-16-2008, 11:18 AM
-snip- a coach will lose all respect with his players very quickly doing that

Doesn't matter. You'll change coaches when these guys are much closer to contending for an ECF berth. Right now, you need a "willling to develop the young guys" coach. I think Jim O'Brien, who is starting Rush in preseason games and chastised Rush and Hibbert during their introductory press conferences to come to camp ready to compete for starting spots, is the type of coach that you want to be dedicated to player development.

Secondly, if the veterans are upset about it, trade them. They aren't part of the rebuilding movement anyway, they are just taking a roster spot and taking minutes away from the future of the team.

Somebody else will get them over the top.

The coach is always the easiest guy to replace on an NBA team. When it isn't working out any more, when the relationship breaks down, move on.

rexnom
10-16-2008, 11:20 AM
I agree. Let them earn their spots. The only time it's bad that they don't play is if they deserve it and the coach refuses to do it because he has a crush on vets and thinks rookies can't handle it.
And we know that Obie is not like that.

ChicagoJ
10-16-2008, 11:27 AM
As SkyFire pointed out, we only missed the playoffs by one game last year. And then we added Ford.

And thank goodness we also added Jack, so that when Ford's history of losing his starting spot repeats itself, we have still upgraded over Deiner, who is a a fine third-stringer, of course.

CableKC
10-16-2008, 11:56 AM
Doesn't matter. You'll change coaches when these guys are much closer to contending for an ECF berth. Right now, you need a "willling to develop the young guys" coach. [B]I think Jim O'Brien, who is starting Rush in preseason games and chastised Rush and Hibbert during their introductory press conferences to come to camp ready to compete for starting spots, is the type of coach that you want to be dedicated to player development.
IMHO.....I think that if Marquis or Dunleavy wasn't injured over the last 2 games that they would have been starting or playing ahead of BRush in the SG/SF rotation. That doesn't mean that I think that BRush wouldn't be getting minutes....he'll just be getting whatever minutes that Graham is currently getting.

However, between Hibbert and BRush though, I suspect that Hibbert will be the one getting more overall minutes in his rookie season than BRush ( probably between 15-20 mpg ). Part of it is simply because he possesses a different skillset then Murphy and Foster ( maybe even closer to what Rasho provides...which appears to be a good fit in JO'Bs offense ) but also because I suspect that Foster will be limited in the number of minutes he plays due to whatever recurring back injuries that he gets.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 12:18 PM
And thank goodness we also added Jack, so that when Ford's history of losing his starting spot repeats itself, we have still upgraded over Deiner, who is a a fine third-stringer, of course.

Ford is clearly better than jack, and its not close.

count55
10-17-2008, 12:33 PM
Back to the initial topic, I still think it is wrong to give Hibbert the starting job just because you want to play for the future.

However...

I also think that his performance thus far has improved his chances of getting the starting role, and sustaining will only make that achievement happen sooner. I now think that it is a realistic possibility that he will win the start job on his merits at some point this season.

BillS
10-17-2008, 04:12 PM
Why, yes, I suppose getting a new coach would suddenly cause all the disgruntled vets who play rings around the young guys but spend the year on the bench staring at their toes to love the game again. After all, these guys spent years developing their game and floor instincts for nothing because they aren't top 10 players and are therefore worthless.

ChicagoJ
10-17-2008, 04:17 PM
But our vets are not going to be playing rings around Hibbert and Rush even when those two are rookies.

All the more reason to move Daniels, Foster, and perhaps Murphy this February (if not sooner.)

Rasho's already an expiring contract and a one-year rental/ mentor, so he doesn't even matter to this discussion.

With Dunleavy, I'm saying to make him the sixth-man now, instead of waiting a year to do so. If he's going to pout or go into a funk when Rush takes over, then figure it out now and decide to either move Mike to SF and Danny to the bench or decide to trade one of them. That's a next-summer move, though.

BillS
10-17-2008, 05:33 PM
But our vets are not going to be playing rings around Hibbert and Rush even when those two are rookies.

Then in that case they've earned the starting positions and the minutes, so where is the argument? Not a single person in this thread has said to sit the rooks no matter how good they are.

I don't want to see them pushed beyond their conditioning (a situation in Tinsley's first year that I suspect has contributed to his fragility both physically and mentally since). I want to see them get their time, but I want them to have to earn it like anyone else AND I don't want a vet to be benched just because he's not got 5-7 more years in the league.

I want to see the ones on the floor who are playing the best. If that's the rookies, great.

Kemo
10-17-2008, 07:12 PM
I think , that so far .. Hibbert has shown he can contribute right away , and help this team WIN... I say , let's keep giving him the same 15 to 20 mpg over the first half of the season and see how consistant he is , and how his conditioning responds to it...

I also say that if a player is playing excellently , to keep them on the floor.. Don't pull the time limit bullcrap , just to appease veterans who may or may not be playing as well at the time..

I have always stood by the adage , that if a player is on fire in a particular game.. you DO NOT bench him and chance he loses his rhythm he has going ..

That is one of my BIGGEST complaints when Carlisle was coach.
For example Stephen Graham , Ike or Sarunas come in and are on the floor and one of them have a HOT hand....
scoring 6 points in a minute and a half's time .. coming back from an 8 point deficit.. and within 2 points of tying the game with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter.....

To my UTTER DISMAY , Carlisle would immediately take the hot handed player(s) OUT of the game, and insert his starters back in , (regardless of how bad their fg% was that game) , and we would end up LOSING the damn game by something like 4 to 8 points ...

I can't tell you how many times I wanted to throw something through my tv screen when that would happen... and it happened quite abit during the Carlisle and Thomas era of the Pacers.. (both clearly had favortism in appeasing their starting 5 , in my opinion)

I just hope JOB is a good enough coach , and is smart enough to keep the players in the game , whom are on fire , and not take them out , unless it is truly needed
(for example..player fatigue)


If Hibbert is on fire , and really helping on the court , offensively OR defensively .. he should be kept on the floor if it means the difference beteen winning or losing the game...

Young
10-17-2008, 10:48 PM
Many of you that are advocating just throwing Rush and Hibbert out there were the same people who said the same thing about David Harrison. Seemingly all I heard for several seasons is all he needs is time, let him play through his foul trouble - all he needs is a big man coach - just play him so we build towards the future.

My point is - before we throw anyone out there, lets make sure they are sane first, NBA players second and worth playing in the first place. As it turns out every second Harrison played was a total waste of time.

Besides that it isn't fair to the other players who are busting their butts to play a rookie just because someday he might be better - a coach will lose all respect with his players very quickly doing that

I agree 100% with this.

In general I don't really like the idea of relying on rookies. High risk low rewards move, IMO.

Hopefully Hibbert and Rush can get on the court on a nightly basis. And if Roy ends up earning a starting spot during the season than great. But as I see things right now we have three big men ahead of Roy in the rotation. I don't get excited over preseason or single regular season games. I wanna see what they can do night in and night out.