PDA

View Full Version : Would we have won those close games with Dunleavy?



GrangerRanger
01-06-2009, 05:03 PM
I know it would be impossible to actually say, considering we don't know how this current team would click with a healthy Dunleavy, but.. the new article on the Pacers website got me to thinking. Most of our games have been awfully close, and every time I watch a game, I look at our team and think to myself that this team is missing something (other then a coach and defense). Playoffs are a long shot, I know this.

But does anyone think that that missing piece could be sitting behind the bench on the Injury list?

count55
01-06-2009, 05:08 PM
I, personally, believe that we would have been more successful in those close, fourth quarter games with Dunleavy because he is another facilitator and scorer, and spreads the floor more.

However, Marquis has played well, so what you can't tell is if those games would've been as close down the stretch or not.

Theoretically, adding talent should help the team, but it's impossible to say for sure one way or the other...for games already completed.

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2009, 05:13 PM
Its hard to say. As bad as our defense has been, it would have been worse with Dunleavy. At the same time our offense would have been more fluent. Depends what you think wins games. I think defense wins games, so personally I don't think we would have even been in some of those. Just my opinion though.

pwee31
01-06-2009, 05:57 PM
I think so. No Dunleavy isn't the best defender, but I think we would've kept some leads in some of those games, and he also would've helping out greatly on the wings in the games where granger and quis were out, as well as in the games where Rush struggled, and Graham played.

CableKC
01-06-2009, 06:07 PM
I don't think that we could have won ALL of those close games, but I do think that we would have one some of them if Dunleavy was in the lineup. Which ones? I don't know....but his impact on the offensive end of the court is pretty significant.

jhondog28
01-06-2009, 06:15 PM
Its hard to say. As bad as our defense has been, it would have been worse with Dunleavy. At the same time our offense would have been more fluent. Depends what you think wins games. I think defense wins games, so personally I don't think we would have even been in some of those. Just my opinion though.

My personal opinion is that our defense would actually be better...yes I said it....while watching these games I think the defensive problem is team defense not one on one defense and Dunleavy has always been an above average team defender. If someone could check and see how many charges our team has taken this year vs at this time last year I would be much appreciated. My guess is that we have not nearly taken as many and I would contribute a lot of that to having Dun on the floor.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2009, 06:26 PM
I think things would have been better. I'd like to pretend that instead of 2 PGs on the court late JOB would have had one PG, Quis, Dun and Granger out there instead. I think Dun would have been the bump in some of the scoring droughts and would have helped keep the offense from sputtering like it does. Dun is a good facilitator, especially in a read-react situation.

My concern now is that with the injury his 3Pt shot might be gone, and that will be a problem. Dun wouldn't (won't) have made the team better if he's not 90-100%.

Lord Helmet
01-06-2009, 06:48 PM
I think we'd have won a few more of the close games had we had him in the lineup.

BlueNGold
01-06-2009, 06:59 PM
Dunleavy was deadly from 3 last year. I have no doubt some of our losses would have been wins. I suspect we would have won at least 5 more games.

NashvilleKat
01-06-2009, 07:56 PM
I know it would be impossible to actually say, considering we don't know how this current team would click with a healthy Dunleavy, but.. the new article on the Pacers website got me to thinking. Most of our games have been awfully close, and every time I watch a game, I look at our team and think to myself that this team is missing something (other then a coach and defense). Playoffs are a long shot, I know this.

But does anyone think that that missing piece could be sitting behind the bench on the Injury list?

Dunleavy playing at 100% would be scoring at a 20-pts per game avg...while Daniels is barely at a 15-pts per game average. That five point difference is huge in close games...plus Granger might score even more points if some of the defensive pressure is diverted to covering Dunleavy.

Oneal07
01-06-2009, 08:08 PM
We would have blown out teams with Dunleavy. lol

Unclebuck
01-06-2009, 08:52 PM
I think the Pacers would have won a few more games, - 3 or maybe 4 more

Let me head of a comment someone is bound to make. Yes daniels is a better defender than Dun, but right now Daniels is injured and his defense the past 5 or 6 games has dropped way off

pristinecollector
01-06-2009, 09:30 PM
We would have won 50% of those close games, which this year is a ton of games.

Anthem
01-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Yes daniels is a better defender than Dun
I'm not sure how much worse our defense can get.

I mean, I've been down on Dun for his defense (yay alliteration) but would we have given up more than 135 last night if he'd been on the floor?

Peck
01-06-2009, 09:58 PM
I'll say this, we might have won a couple of the close ones. However I also believe that we may very well have not been in some of the close one's we were in.

I have read nothing but defense defense defense from everyone on this board for over a month now and I am just baffled as to how Mike Dunleavy cures that?

At best you could argue that by not turning the ball over more you are limiting the times the opposition has the ball. Other than that though we have the same problem that we have with Murphy now, another player who we have to adjust our defense for to make up for thier weakness.

Also factor this into the mix. With O'Brien here you will have a very large dose of Dunleavy and Daniels, Brandon Rush will not see the floor other than at garbage time. That is NOT in the long term best interest of the team, IMO.

BlueNGold
01-06-2009, 10:09 PM
[quote=Anthem;829847]I'm not sure how much worse our defense can get.quote]

Statement of the century. We cannot stop anybody and I have finally given up the idea we can even slow anyone down. Why fight it? It's futile. Nobody else cares about defense. Do what you can within the system, which is to simply outscore the opposition and hope they miss more than you.

Dunleavy fits this system to a T. Most of our players fit it pretty well. This system is based on putting up points and with lockdown defenders like TJ, Rasho, Murphy, Dunleavy and Granger. Think about it. A good outing by a couple off the bench we could probably win some close games where both teams score around 150.

It feels like the 70's again. :dance:

jeffg-body
01-06-2009, 10:18 PM
I think that maybe we would have won some of those games, but who knows how many games we may have lost?

Infinite MAN_force
01-06-2009, 11:53 PM
I tend to agree with the sentiment that dunleavy's negative impact on the defensive end has been somewhat exaggerated, and having him on the floor instead of Jarret TO Jack might have made a big difference in the close ones. Especially since he could draw some of the defensive pressure off Danny in crunchtime.

I do think having someone else gaurd the oppositions best perimeter player has helped danny's scoring though, still think dunleavy will be best suited in a 6th man who finishes games role.