PDA

View Full Version : Pacers best defensive lineup



Unclebuck
10-22-2008, 08:39 AM
Having not seen the game last night I was interested to read what O'Brien thought was his best defensive lineup in last nights game.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081022/SPORTS04/810220358/1088/SPORTS04

As was the case last season, O'Brien has no intention of playing favorites. He had Jack, Murphy, Granger, Hibbert and Rush on the court in the first part of the final quarter and the Pacers trailing by nine points.

O'Brien's decision paid off, as the Pacers took the lead 87-84 when Murphy passed the ball to Rush for an open 3-pointer.

"They were by far our best defensive team," O'Brien said. "That's why they got us back into it. Play defense and I'll keep them on the court. We came from minus 10; don't mess with a good thing." ..................


"It doesn't necessarily matter who starts the game. It's who is in there at the end," O'Brien said "I thought the defense with Jarrett, Brandon, Danny, Roy -- until he went down -- and Troy was strong. I wanted them to finish the game."


Interesting that two rookies were in that group. I think Brandon is going to be a terrific defender and although Troy's one-on-one defense is not good, his team defense is good. I wonder how often Jack will finish games instead of TJ

OakMoses
10-22-2008, 10:30 AM
The Jack-Rush-Granger part of that lineup is fairly predictable. Roy makes sense because he's our best shot-blocker/alterer by far. I would say that Jeff and Rasho are better individual defenders than Troy and Roy. I would guess that Troy's inclusion has more to do with offense than defense, even though I agree that his team defense is good. With Foster in the game instead of Troy you'd essentially be playing 4 on 5 with Jack, Rush, Granger, and Hibbert, none of whom are great at creating for others.

On another note, I hope that when he refers to Roy going down, he's talking about fouls and not an injury.

Also, I noticed that we seem to have shortened the rotation and played guys for more minutes. Was last night a preview of the early season games?

OakMoses
10-22-2008, 10:33 AM
I wonder how often Jack will finish games instead of TJ

I think this will depend mainly on the other teams PG. If we're playing a team like Detroit, Utah, New Orleans, etc. that has a big, talented PG that is the driving force in their offense, you'll probably see Jack. If we're playing a team like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Atlanta, New Jersey, etc. that has a PG who TJ matches up better with defensively, TJ will likely play.

Hicks
10-22-2008, 10:38 AM
Roy did get injured. I've never heard anyone refer to someone "going down" when that reason was foul trouble? He sprained his ankle.

As for the defensive lineup, it makes sense except for Murphy, but maybe when you flank a guy like Murphy with those 4, it raises his defensive game.

ChicagoJ
10-22-2008, 10:45 AM
I wonder how often Jack will finish games instead of TJ

Hell, I wonder how often Jack will start games instead of TJ...

I like the idea of a Jack/ Rush/ Granger/ Murphy/ Hibbert lineup as the 'closer'. Of course, that would probably also be my starting lineup if I got to choose.

One thing you can say about that lineup - all of those guys can shoot thier FTs.

And I like the way that lineup can pressure the perimeter, protect the paint, and as said above, Murphy is a capable "team" defender because he moves his feet. He can't move them quick enough to play great one-on-one defense, but with Jim O'Brien, the team defense concept is more important than any single player's ability to play lockdown D.

Here's what I continue to struggle with regarding Murphy. Prior to his joining the Pacers, I thought he was more rugged. Maybe I'm still jaded from that first visual of Murphy vs. Rasheed, but even now I'm still struggling with whether he's soft or tough?

That's why I'm saying I'd rather be in a position to draft a Buck Williams type PF (or for Peck's sake, a Dale Davis + competent at the FT line type PF). I think we need a bit more ruggedness to go with Jack, Rush, Granger and Hibbert.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 10:51 AM
Jack
Daniels
Granger
Foster
Rasho or Hibbert

Im surprised to hear about all this Murphy talk with respect to defense. Hes normally not know for his defensive skills

OakMoses
10-22-2008, 10:55 AM
One thing you can say about that lineup - all of those guys can shoot thier FTs.

Here's what I continue to struggle with regarding Murphy. Prior to his joining the Pacers, I thought he was more rugged. Maybe I'm still jaded from that first visual of Murphy vs. Rasheed, but even now I'm still struggling with whether he's soft or tough?



I've actually been dissapointed with Roy's free throw shooting so far this preseason. That's the only aspect of his game that's displeased me, though, so I haven't really complained. I think it's definitely something he needs to work on. He seems to have decent form and touch, though, so I see no reason for him to not become a 70+% shooter.

I think Troy is tough, but not strong enough to hold his own. He's got some fire in his gut and is not afraid of contact, but he's can't push guys around. I'd love to have a Dale Davis type PF, but those seem to be few and far between these days. I'm racking my brain right now trying to think of PF's that are both starter quality and play like Dale or Buck Williams. I'm not really coming up with anyone.

Peck
10-22-2008, 12:33 PM
U.B. did you get a chance to see the Pacers vs. Grizz on t.v.? I didn't see you at the game so I don't know if you saw it or not.

But if you didn't see it, I can tell you that your mouth would have been watering from the defense that Rush and Jack were playing.

They tore the griz perimeter players up.

So it does not suprise me at all to read this. Murphy has always been overlooked on here. No, he is not a lockdown defender but he tries. If Foster could consistantly hit any kind of shot, even a layup, he would be in there but you have to be able to go both ways in O'Briens system or the entire system bogs down.

I'm still not worried about wins/losses yet. But I am very glad to read that we made a comeback when it mattered.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 12:54 PM
Lets suppose, we're up by 7 with one min left. Would you guys rather have Daniels or Rush playing defense at SG? I sense the overall consensus is Rush, but I havent seen Rush play at all this preseason, but Daniels has normally been a decent defender

Unclebuck
10-22-2008, 01:17 PM
U.B. did you get a chance to see the Pacers vs. Grizz on t.v.? I didn't see you at the game so I don't know if you saw it or not.

But if you didn't see it, I can tell you that your mouth would have been watering from the defense that Rush and Jack were playing.

They tore the griz perimeter players up.

So it does not suprise me at all to read this. Murphy has always been overlooked on here. No, he is not a lockdown defender but he tries. If Foster could consistantly hit any kind of shot, even a layup, he would be in there but you have to be able to go both ways in O'Briens system or the entire system bogs down.

I'm still not worried about wins/losses yet. But I am very glad to read that we made a comeback when it mattered.


No, I didn't see it on TV and I couldn't make it to the game, but I read your odd thoughts thread and it sounded really good.

The Hornets are a really good team that has yet to lose in the preseason and from reading the N.O. paper it sounded like they played a regular season rotation. So I was encouraged about the game last night.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 01:21 PM
No, I didn't see it on TV and I couldn't make it to the game, but I read your odd thoughts thread and it sounded really good.

The Hornets are a really good team that has yet to lose in the preseason and from reading the N.O. paper it sounded like they played a regular season rotation. So I was encouraged about the game last night.

and you should consider we didnt play our normal starting lineup because Dunleavy was sidelined

OakMoses
10-22-2008, 01:42 PM
Lets suppose, we're up by 7 with one min left. Would you guys rather have Daniels or Rush playing defense at SG? I sense the overall consensus is Rush, but I havent seen Rush play at all this preseason, but Daniels has normally been a decent defender

It really depends on who the other team's shooting guard is. If it's someone they're going to give the ball to and let create, then I want Rush guarding them. If the SG is just going to stand around and wait for a kick out, I'll take Daniels. Rush is a better on ball defender while 'Quis is better at disrupting passing lanes and such.

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 01:45 PM
and you should consider we didnt play our normal starting lineup because Dunleavy was sidelined

Yeah, I wonder if the lineup JOB was using at the end might change to:

Jack
Rush
Dun
Granger
Hibbert

Dun brings slightly more on offense and is slightly less of a defensive liability.

Anthem
10-22-2008, 01:47 PM
Well color me impressed. In the past I've been less than please with Murph's defense, but I didn't see the game so if Obie's happy I'm happy.

I was actually under the impression that West had a pretty good night against Murphy, but like I said I didn't see the game.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 01:52 PM
Yeah, I wonder if the lineup JOB was using at the end might change to:

Jack
Rush
Dun
Granger
Hibbert

Dun brings slightly more on offense and is slightly less of a defensive liability.

Not if we want a defensive line up, as this tread talks about. Theres no way Dunleavy would be in the lineup if we are in the need for defensive stops. Theres better players on teh roster than Dunleavy (at SF) that can bring the defensive intensity we'll need.

As for Granger at PF, he is a good defender, but he is definately not the best PF defender we have. We'll probably have to go with Foster there

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 05:56 PM
Not if we want a defensive line up, as this tread talks about. Theres no way Dunleavy would be in the lineup if we are in the need for defensive stops. Theres better players on teh roster than Dunleavy (at SF) that can bring the defensive intensity we'll need.

As for Granger at PF, he is a good defender, but he is definately not the best PF defender we have. We'll probably have to go with Foster there

I understand your point, but if JOB plans to use a PURELY defensive lineup at the end, he would have had Foster in last night, not Murph.

That's why I wonder if the closing five might actually end up with Dun at three and Danny at the four.

count55
10-22-2008, 05:58 PM
The best defensive lineup has less to do with how good the players are individually, than it does with how well the players complement each other in the team defense.

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 06:01 PM
The best defensive lineup has less to do with how good the players are individually, than it does with how well the players complement each other in the team defense.

You didn't say this but I'm asking: do you think, then, that Murph makes our team better defensively, teamwise, than Foster?

count55
10-22-2008, 06:27 PM
You didn't say this but I'm asking: do you think, then, that Murph makes our team better defensively, teamwise, than Foster?

Initial instinct would be, "No", but I didn't see them play...them being the unit mentioned specifically.

My only point was that it was conceivable that inserting Foster (the better individual defender) for Murphy did not necessarily mean that the defense would get better as a whole.

It's difficult to prove one way or the other, but you could make an argument that if you were to put Artest on those late '90's teams, replacing either Rose or Mullin, the team defense could get worse. Artest was a spectacular individual player, but he tended to go on his own hook. While this may be effective against his player, it could expose the weakness of the other players on the floor, making the defense less effective.

If Foster would weaken the team concept, the exposure of the other players could outweigh his own personal advantage. I'm in no way saying that this is definitely true, and I'm not implying that Foster (in this instance) would be selfish or a bad teammate. I'm simply saying that some players' styles fit better with others.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 07:18 PM
I understand your point, but if JOB plans to use a PURELY defensive lineup at the end, he would have had Foster in last night, not Murph.

That's why I wonder if the closing five might actually end up with Dun at three and Danny at the four.

werent we actually losing last night near the end of the game? I think you would want your best defensive lineup when youre not concerned about putting points up, but rather making sure that the opponent doesnt score anymore points.

BlueNGold
10-22-2008, 07:37 PM
The best defensive lineup has less to do with how good the players are individually, than it does with how well the players complement each other in the team defense.

Nice theory. Maybe this group is just the right mix:

Sarunas - PG
Flip - SG
Dun - SF
Murph - PF
John Edwards - C

I know, I know. They are not very good individual defenders, but as Bird would say "you just never know...maybe they will be lockdown as a team". :D

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 07:41 PM
werent we actually losing last night near the end of the game? I think you would want your best defensive lineup when youre not concerned about putting points up, but rather making sure that the opponent doesnt score anymore points.

Your switching up on me.

Let's try it this way:

At the end of games, are we better with Dun and Granger at the 3 and 4 or with Granger and Murph?

I'm saying Dun and Granger would be better.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Your switching up on me.

Let's try it this way:

At the end of games, are we better with Dun and Granger at the 3 and 4 or with Granger and Murph?

I'm saying Dun and Granger would be better.

What Im trying to get at here is, if we need points on the board (if we're trailing) then we might want to have Dunleavy on. If we're winning the game by a few points and need key defensive stops, Dunleavy should not be on becaues theres guys on the roster that can play better defense than him

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 07:50 PM
What Im trying to get at here is, if we need points on the board (if we're trailing) then we might want to have Dunleavy on. If we're winning the game by a few points and need key defensive stops, Dunleavy should not be on becaues theres guys on the roster that can play better defense than him

Like Murphy?

Or not?

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 07:52 PM
Like Murphy?

Or not?

I'd perfer Foster over Murphy at PF, if we didnt need any more points and just needed defensive stops to close out a game

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 08:04 PM
I'd perfer Foster over Murphy at PF, if we didnt need any more points and just needed defensive stops to close out a game

Let me try it this way. Do you prefer this lineup at the end of games:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Murphy
Hibbert

Or this one?

Jack
Rush
Dun
Granger
Hibbert

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 10:21 PM
Let me try it this way. Do you prefer this lineup at the end of games:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Murphy
Hibbert

Or this one?

Jack
Rush
Dun
Granger
Hibbert

If those were my only 2 options, then I wold pick:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Murphy
Hibbert

McKeyFan
10-22-2008, 10:30 PM
I would choose the Dun lineup, and I think we may see that roster a good bit this year. Will be interesting to see.

MillerTime
10-22-2008, 11:07 PM
I would choose the Dun lineup, and I think we may see that roster a good bit this year. Will be interesting to see.

The resaon why I didnt pick the Dunleavy lineup is because we have better defenders than Dunleavy at SF. Particularly Granger! We shouldnt have him at PF if we need to defend. He should be moved to SF, Dunleavy to the bench and Foster at PF

croz24
10-23-2008, 12:03 AM
in critical situations, jack should never be in the game over ford...unless you are substituting after each possession.

OTD
10-23-2008, 01:44 AM
If anyone listened to the game in NO, that was on the espn web they were NO anouncers, and they kept saying that IN was going to surpraise a lot of teams this year. They were really good.

MillerTime
10-23-2008, 02:06 AM
If anyone listened to the game in NO, that was on the espn web they were NO anouncers, and they kept saying that IN was going to surpraise a lot of teams this year. They were really good.

the NO anouncers were really impressed with Indy's new team, especially with Roy Hibbert

skyfire
10-23-2008, 04:36 AM
Most NBA teams have 1 or 2 average defenders in their best 5. I think its more important that you have atleast 2 excellent defenders and all 5 players work well together to defend as a team.

ChicagoJ
10-23-2008, 10:42 AM
Let me try it this way. Do you prefer this lineup at the end of games:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Murphy
Hibbert

Or this one?

Jack
Rush
Dun
Granger
Hibbert

Can we switch it around to this:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Dunn
Hibbert

???

That way, the only guy out of posistion in Dunleavy. Since I don't think any of Foster, Murphy, Croshere or Baston are particuarly good defenders at PF, I wouldn't cringe about putting Dunleavy there.

But I don't see any point in having Dunleavy chase somebody along the perimeter while allowing the opponents to exploit Danny's (lack of) size in the paint.

McKeyFan
10-23-2008, 10:52 AM
Can we switch it around to this:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Dunn
Hibbert

???

That way, the only guy out of posistion in Dunleavy. Since I don't think any of Foster, Murphy, Croshere or Baston are particuarly good defenders at PF, I wouldn't cringe about putting Dunleavy there.

But I don't see any point in having Dunleavy chase somebody along the perimeter while allowing the opponents to exploit Danny's (lack of) size in the paint.

Yeah, good thought. I thought about that, too. Perhaps the only disadvantage is that Troy is a better rebounder. But maybe Dun would grab 'em well too if he was down in the paint more.

MillerTime
10-24-2008, 12:10 AM
Can we switch it around to this:

Jack
Rush
Granger
Dunn
Hibbert

???

That way, the only guy out of posistion in Dunleavy. Since I don't think any of Foster, Murphy, Croshere or Baston are particuarly good defenders at PF, I wouldn't cringe about putting Dunleavy there.

But I don't see any point in having Dunleavy chase somebody along the perimeter while allowing the opponents to exploit Danny's (lack of) size in the paint.

Why do you say that? Foster is probably the best defender we have at PF. He has the size, power and strength

ChicagoJ
10-24-2008, 05:01 PM
Foster (except for last year) fronts the post, relies on quickness, and gets pushed all of the paint if he plays "legit" post defense. All of the Foster fans are bored with my ranting and raving over the years of how weak he plays. Like other gimmicks, fronting the post works for a short period of time, and then gets exposed.

The Foster fans will tell you that Foster bothers Tim Duncan, but will conveniently ignore the fact that once Duncan figures out Foster's get-in-front rhythm, he tears him apart for a few possession. Foster may win a possession or two, but it is temporary folly.

He may be the best defender we have at PF, but that's because we don't have any good defenders at PF.