PDA

View Full Version : Wells: 'The best locker room I've had the opportunity to cover since I've been in Indiana'



Hicks
01-08-2009, 11:56 AM
I felt this was significant considering how many years we've spent previously discussing the chemistry of the team. I'm thrilled that this is where it currently stands.

Speaking with the past half-decade or more in my mind, IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME! :happydanc


Mike Wells
IndyStar
http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/01/hes_back.html



I got another text message from the same person that sent me a message the other night in Denver.

"You can tell the chemistry on the Pacers is so much better this season," he wrote in part of the message.

I've told a number of people this, including Pacers PR man David Benner as we sat next to each other Wednesday, this is the best locker room I've had the opportunity to cover since I've been in Indiana and second overall (2003-04 Timberwolves were great).

There's no jealousy or any cliques on the team. There's no finger pointing. I don't walk in the locker room and feel like there's any tension between players as in years past.

The chemistry should get even better now that Mike Dunleavy is back.

Justin Tyme
01-08-2009, 12:00 PM
I am so glad to hear this! I was afraid with the continual losing things might start to deteriorate.

Thanx for the info.

Conflict
01-08-2009, 12:01 PM
Nice to hear because some fans on this board seem to know that Granger isn't that a good teammate.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 12:11 PM
Nice to hear because some fans on this board seem to know that Granger isn't that a good teammate.
Huh?

Conflict
01-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Danny is not overrated at all. My only knock on him is this: He might not be a great teammate.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________


From the topic is DG overrated? This is an example of one post that some member think he is not that a great teammate. Didn't want to search further.

Unclebuck
01-08-2009, 12:29 PM
This team is doing the best that the can - really it is the first time in a long time that I am very confident in saying that. These players play hard, they play together - they play to win. Why there is still a lot of panic and complaining by Pacers fans is beyond me. Isn't this 100% what we expected from this team

PaceBalls
01-08-2009, 01:20 PM
I find that very encouraging given the fact they have lost alot of games. I think alot of it is we finally have a team leader (Granger) who isn't shoving it down everyones throat saying how it is HIS team etc.. or even thinking that way.. Just go out and play hard all the time without all the talk is how you are a team leader.

OakMoses
01-08-2009, 01:28 PM
There is a lot of genuine emotion and excitement that's expressed by this team. Just watch Jack's reaction to Danny's game-winner last night or to Ford's game winner against Philly: he's ecstatic. The same goes for most of the guys on the bench. They're jumping up and down and yelling in support of their teammates much more than you generally see from an NBA team.

I think Danny is the leader in this. I loved that when he hit the game winner last night, he didn't have that smug, "I'm a bada$$" swagger as he walked off the court. He had a big, goofy grin on his face.

beast23
01-08-2009, 01:58 PM
I think Danny is the leader in this. I loved that when he hit the game winner last night, he didn't have that smug, "I'm a bada$$" swagger as he walked off the court. He had a big, goofy grin on his face.

That was a perfect way to discribe it.

And I think that is a quality that makes a player and his team endearing to its fan base. Not posing with chest puffed out and jersey being put on display, but just a big goofy grin.

I haven't seen that kind of "pure joy" demonstrated by a Pacer player since Reggie Miller hit a big shot a few years ago and ran to the opposite end of the court and just kept jumping up in the air and landing in a half circle from each previous jump. Just a display of pure joy in playing the game and being able to complete an important play/shot.

It's those small things that make most fans truly fall in love with their chosen teams.

Bball
01-08-2009, 02:31 PM
FWIW... I'm pretty sure Granger did tug the jersey and show the Indiana on it....

No biggie, just trying to mention it for accuracy's sake.

-Bball

Hicks
01-08-2009, 02:33 PM
Granger has previously done those things, however. Chest thumping, pulling his jersey across "Indiana". He does both.

xtacy
01-08-2009, 02:40 PM
glad to hear this. even though we lost a lot of games it's great that the team chemistry is good.

naptownmenace
01-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Granger has previously done those things, however. Chest thumping, pulling his jersey across "Indiana". He does both.

I don't have a problem with a player doing either of these things as long as it's the front of the jersey he's putting on display. Ain't nothing wrong with pointing out that "INDIANA" just won.


Great to hear about the improved locker room and chemistry. The team is filled with players that want to prove they belong in this league but nobody thinks that they entitled or that they are better than they are.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 03:02 PM
I don't have a problem with a player doing either of these things as long as it's the front of the jersey he's putting on display. Ain't nothing wrong with pointing out that "INDIANA" just won.


That is a great statement, there, 'menace.

"Ain't nothin' wrong with that."

croz24
01-08-2009, 03:13 PM
unfortunately, a good locker room won't make troy murphy, or jarrett jack, or jeff foster, or travis diener, or brandon rush any better of a player. it seems like wells is merely trying to sell tickets here.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 03:15 PM
unfortunately, a good locker room won't make troy murphy, or jarrett jack, or jeff foster, or travis diener, or brandon rush any better of a player. it seems like wells is merely trying to sell tickets here.
Alright, Buzz Killington!!!

You just never have anything positive to say...ever.

Way to go. You ruined a perfectly happy thread.



http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=62151&dateline=1205520035



<EMBED height=381 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k1gg445xYZ1mkqMrqh&related=1 allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></EMBED>
Buzz Killington A tribute (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vgax_buzz-killington-a-tribute_shortfilms)
Uploaded by Toninu (http://www.dailymotion.com/Toninu)

Since86
01-08-2009, 03:15 PM
Well hopefully they can trade Danny for Jeff Green, and we can become that much better.

Seriously though, chemistry has a lot to do with whether or not a team wins or loses. It's one of those big X factors. Teams that don't get along crumble as the season progresses, and teams that enjoy each other play better basketball. While it won't make them individually better, it makes the TEAM better.

croz24
01-08-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't have a problem with a player doing either of these things as long as it's the front of the jersey he's putting on display. Ain't nothing wrong with pointing out that "INDIANA" just won.

players pointing to their names on the back or showing their chest and occasionally pounding their chest really gets at me. but what granger does doesn't. he'll pound his chest for a brief moment, but mainly holds out the "indiana" on the jersey. i see no problem with that, and actually love the fact that he has that much respect for his team.

croz24
01-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Well hopefully they can trade Danny for Jeff Green, and we can become that much better.

Seriously though, chemistry has a lot to do with whether or not a team wins or loses. It's one of those big X factors. Teams that don't get along crumble as the season progresses, and teams that enjoy each other play better basketball. While it won't make them individually better, it makes the TEAM better.

yup, good chemistry has made the pacers a great team this year (13-22). if you have that much of a problem with my comment on green's potential, then why don't you provide a counter argument/opinion instead of bring up that topic in every thread you post? my question as an nba fan, is how much do really know about jeff green? how can you mock my statement when you probably have seen 2 maybe 3 games of his? provide an argument that says green can't be as good or drop the issue completely...

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 03:24 PM
yup, good chemistry has made the pacers a great team this year (13-22). if you have that much of a problem with my comment on green's potential, then why don't you provide a counter argument/opinion instead of bring up that topic in every thread you post? my question as an nba fan, is how much do really know about jeff green? how can you mock my statement when you probably have seen 2 maybe 3 games of his? provide an argument that says green can't be as good or drop the issue completely...
I haven't seen Jeff Green play at all this season, unless we've played the team he is on. Heck, I don't know anything about the guy, but I know I want Granger.

No, we aren't proud of our record, but you have to have a good team chemistry before you win games. That is what we are proud of.

I think you are just a little frustrated that we are rebuilding and not winning.

It's that simple.

Sollozzo
01-08-2009, 03:26 PM
It's nice to have likable players for once.

Since86
01-08-2009, 03:35 PM
yup, good chemistry has made the pacers a great team this year (13-22). if you have that much of a problem with my comment on green's potential, then why don't you provide a counter argument/opinion instead of bring up that topic in every thread you post? my question as an nba fan, is how much do really know about jeff green? how can you mock my statement when you probably have seen 2 maybe 3 games of his? provide an argument that says green can't be as good or drop the issue completely...


Every post I make? Hardly. Actually I think that's the first time.

With that said, chemistry isn't the defining factor to wins. No one has ever claimed it to be. Chemistry can be the difference between 13-22 and 10-25 though. Not having issues between players goes a long way. It makes them more enjoyable to watch, and more successful. But in no way is it the most important aspect of the team. I can provide countless examples just from the years of watching Tinsley and AJ. Those Pacer squads routinely underachieved. That's even without talking about the bigger elephant in the room with Ron and JO.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 03:38 PM
OMG, this is too good.

croz24
01-08-2009, 03:40 PM
I haven't seen Jeff Green play at all this season, unless we've played the team he is on. Heck, I don't know anything about the guy, but I know I want Granger.

No, we aren't proud of our record, but you have to have a good team chemistry before you win games. That is what we are proud of.

I think you are just a little frustrated that we are rebuilding and not winning.

It's that simple.

uhh lol...i don't think anybody has wanted to rebuild more on this message board than me. but to rebuild, i think that would require more young talent than what we have. rookie or not, brandon rush has been awful this year and i don't see that improving. hibbert hasn't shown much either but to his defense, centers take longer to develop. granger is a fine young player, but if the pacers are going to ever win during his prime, they'll need more than just dunleavy as his sidekick.

croz24
01-08-2009, 03:45 PM
Every post I make? Hardly. Actually I think that's the first time.

With that said, chemistry isn't the defining factor to wins. No one has ever claimed it to be. Chemistry can be the difference between 13-22 and 10-25 though. Not having issues between players goes a long way. It makes them more enjoyable to watch, and more successful. But in no way is it the most important aspect of the team. I can provide countless examples just from the years of watching Tinsley and AJ. Those Pacer squads routinely underachieved. That's even without talking about the bigger elephant in the room with Ron and JO.

if that was the first time, then join the club. but in mocking my statement about jeff green, are you or are you not going to compare the two and provide an opinion as to why jeff green can never be in granger's league as a player? or are you going to man up like duke and admit you really don't know much about green and are blindly supporting granger?

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 03:46 PM
uhh lol...i don't think anybody has wanted to rebuild more on this message board than me. but to rebuild, i think that would require more young talent than what we have. rookie or not, brandon rush has been awful this year and i don't see that improving. hibbert hasn't shown much either but to his defense, centers take longer to develop. granger is a fine young player, but if the pacers are going to ever win during his prime, they'll need more than just dunleavy as his sidekick.
Not sure a team of rookies is going to get you to win many games there, champ.

I have no problem with Rush or Hibby's progress so far.

By no means has Rush been awful. He is a rookie for cake's sake. You've got to be kidding me. Hibbert has shown many glimpses of how versatile his game can be. And it will be like that.

You just can't expect the youngest horse with no experience to come out the gate to win the race, dude.

***Please share your supplier.

Speed
01-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Green is no Bayless that is for sure.

croz24
01-08-2009, 03:53 PM
Not sure a team of rookies is going to get you to win many games there, champ.

I have no problem with Rush or Hibby's progress so far.

By no means has Rush been awful. He is a rookie for cake's sake. You've got to be kidding me. Hibbert has shown many glimpses of how versatile his game can be. And it will be like that.

You just can't expect the youngest horse with no experience to come out the gate to win the race, dude.

***Please share your supplier.

dude, like brandon rush is totally shooting below 40% on the year, averaging more turnovers and personal fouls than assists, and has already been benched by the coaching staff this year. if rush hasn't been awful, champ, then what has he been? do you actually believe this team as currently assembled, will become a contender in a couple years time once rush and hibbert develop? if so, give me some of what you're smoking.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 03:55 PM
if that was the first time, then join the club. but in mocking my statement about jeff green, are you or are you not going to compare the two and provide an opinion as to why jeff green can never be in granger's league as a player? or are you going to man up like duke and admit you really don't know much about green and are blindly supporting granger?
When you are trying to compare Jeff Green to Danny Granger, you are going to get mocked.

Nothing personal, it's just bound to happen.

croz24
01-08-2009, 04:00 PM
When you are trying to compare Jeff Green to Danny Granger, you are going to get mocked.

Nothing personal, it's just bound to happen.

but as you stated, you know nothing about the guy. not sure why we shouldn't mock you for trying argue something you don't know anything about.

Since86
01-08-2009, 04:01 PM
I've been following Green, I have him on my fantasy team. Can Jeff be as good? Yes, a lot of players can be as good, they all have the phsyical tools to be capable. Will he be? Doubt it.

You can't reasonably expect a player to make the strides Danny has in the past 2 years, that's why it's a nonsense statement. It's unrealistic. Especially when he's on a team with a player like Durant and a nice and up in coming player like Westbrook.

I see Green as a 17pt 9reb guy. I don't see him ever being in the top 10 in scoring for a month of a season, let alone half of it and showing signs of the average going up instead of down.

Is that man enough for you?

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 04:08 PM
but as you stated, you know nothing about the guy. not sure why we shouldn't mock you for trying argue something you don't know anything about.
Please, by all means, mock me.

croz24
01-08-2009, 04:10 PM
I've been following Green, I have him on my fantasy team. Can Jeff be as good? Yes, a lot of players can be as good, they all have the phsyical tools to be capable. Will he be? Doubt it.

You can't reasonably expect a player to make the strides Danny has in the past 2 years, that's why it's a nonsense statement. It's unrealistic. Especially when he's on a team with a player like Durant and a nice and up in coming player like Westbrook.

I see Green as a 17pt 9reb guy. I don't see him ever being in the top 10 in scoring for a month of a season, let alone half of it and showing signs of the average going up instead of down.

Is that man enough for you?

it's about time. but since even you acknowledge green can be as good, why mock the statement? another thing, just because a player isn't in the same ballpark statistically as another, doesn't mean he isn't as good. green will never be asked to do what granger has been asked. but does that make him any less of a player? green has made HUGE strides in just two years and is truly a nearly identical player to granger. less of a shooter right now but a better man defender. who would you rather have leading your team...ai in his prime, or reggie miller in his prime? the game of basketball isn't all about stats.

rexnom
01-08-2009, 04:17 PM
it's about time. but since even you acknowledge green can be as good, why mock the statement? another thing, just because a player isn't in the same ballpark statistically as another, doesn't mean he isn't as good. green will never be asked to do what granger has been asked. but does that make him any less of a player? green has made HUGE strides in just two years and is truly a nearly identical player to granger. less of a shooter right now but a better man defender. who would you rather have leading your team...ai in his prime, or reggie miller in his prime? the game of basketball isn't all about stats.
I'm sorry but I don't get where you get this idea that Danny is a volume, AI-type of scorer. He's an efficient scorer. I direct you to Naptown_Seth who says it much better than I.


And as has been said, the flaw with "good on bad team" and the "well someone has to get those stats and score those points" is EFFICIENCY. Iverson, IMO, was a guy who looked greater than he was due to being given all the offensive chances. He's typically shot the ball very poorly and made up for it with FTAs.

So certainly every team will have a leading scorer, but usually if the team is bad it means the leading scorer is having to do more work with less team. If the guy is truly mediocre then he's not going to be up to the challenge of scoring big while maintaining a quality FG%.

We aren't just sitting on 25 ppg to announce Danny as great. It's the shooting PCT, his ability to get to the line, and his defensive effort that get him the credit he gets.

Last night he hit that one 3 with a guy swiping right through his shot mid-air. That's typical of his play. The weakness of the other options has brought the focus down on him, yet his scoring and effectiveness have only gone up (or stayed the same at worst).


Of the NBA players taking at least 14 shots per game (43 NBA players), Granger's 1.37 points per shot is 5th in the NBA. And look at the company that puts him in.

Amare 1.56
D Harris 1.51
Bosh 1.45
James 1.44
Granger 1.37
Roy 1.35
Duncan 1.33

If you drop down to 13 FGAs you can pick up Paul and Yao both with a 1.48. Still leaves Danny as a top 10 EFFICIENT VOLUME scorer.

And of guys shooting from the outside a lot where FG% tends to drop and fouls are harder to come by Danny again ranks really high. The top 50 3PA guys go down to 3.8 per game, Danny is taking 6.7. His 1.37 PPS here ranks him 6th. Totally different group of AS caliber players except for Granger and Lebron.

Posey 1.48
James 1.44
Billups 1.44
K Martin 1.43
R Allen 1.39
Granger 1.37

He's also 12th in 2P% among this same list of top 3PA shooters (ie pure shooters who are even more deadly as they get inside the arc).

He's also 7th in PPS among the top 20 PPG scorers in the NBA (Dwight Howard joins this list plus guys previously mentioned).

His weakness is TOs, but of the top 20 he's one of the few that's not a true PG or combo-guard (Nash, Wade). His TO/STL and TO/AST are poor in comparison to those passing/quick hands players, but one of the guys on that list that mostly closely matches Danny's TO/STL and TO/AST ratios is Carmelo Anthony. Another close match is Paul Pierce.


His stats, ie his tangible, measurable results, state that he is playing at the level that other AS caliber players play at. When you see James or Pierce do whatever it is they do, they end up accumulating the same types of numbers Granger is. I don't care if he flopped like a turtle and the ball magically went in 50% of the time, results are who you are.

Danny is making the most of his chances and is scoring at an elite player level.


Good players on bad teams like Durant or Rudy Gay aren't doing that. Frankly there aren't many guys in the top scorers list that haven't proven themselves already on good teams (like Butler, Vince, Jamison, Gordon), and Butler/Jamison are both shooting a significantly lower PCT than Danny despite having at least each other to rely on.


BE AMAZED STAT - Granger is getting 7.0 FTAs per game, Kobe gets 7.3!

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 04:18 PM
the game of basketball isn't all about stats.
Sho' 'nuff it is.

croz24
01-08-2009, 04:21 PM
I'm sorry but I don't get where you get this idea that Danny is a volume, AI-type of scorer. He's an efficient scorer. I direct you to Naptown_Seth who says it much better than I.

you all attack me. i don't attack you. where in that statement do i compare granger to ai????? the only reason ai was brought up in comparison to reggie miller is to help illustrate a point that basketball is more than just stats. since86 wanted to argue that jeff green will never put up the #s that granger is right now. but does that make jeff green less of a basketball player? that's the point. granger was never compared to ai so spare me.

croz24
01-08-2009, 04:22 PM
Sho' 'nuff it is.

are you for real?

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 04:29 PM
are you for real?
I'm just giving you all a reason to mock me.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 04:34 PM
I honestly think that the chemistry in the locker room determines how well your team communicates on the floor.

Without a good relationship, would've Mike passed the ball to Danny last night?

Since86
01-08-2009, 04:40 PM
it's about time. but since even you acknowledge green can be as good, why mock the statement? another thing, just because a player isn't in the same ballpark statistically as another, doesn't mean he isn't as good. green will never be asked to do what granger has been asked. but does that make him any less of a player? green has made HUGE strides in just two years and is truly a nearly identical player to granger. less of a shooter right now but a better man defender. who would you rather have leading your team...ai in his prime, or reggie miller in his prime? the game of basketball isn't all about stats.


You get mocked because of the way you present your opinions. You say them as if they were fact.

I find it funny that now you're arguing basketball isn't all about stats, when you were just arguing that chemistry isn't important. No it's not about stats, but at the same time they are used to evaluate players. Danny is absolutely acing his evaluation. At the same token about what players are being asked to do doesn't make them any less of player, then I could come up with an argument that the years Ben Wallace spent in Det. was one of the best 4-5yrs any player has ever been. He knew his role, and executed it almost perfectly. Not many players, ever, have been that good at their role. Is he a better player for it? Hell no. Players are asked to perform roles that fit their ability. Danny is asked to do more, because he is capable of doing more. Bigger the role, better the player.

Danny has been playing like a franchise player. The chances of Jeff Green doing it, are slim to none.

ChicagoJ
01-08-2009, 04:46 PM
Chemistry and "everybody gets along fine" are not the same thing.

Chuck, Reggie, and Detlef were good friends off the court. Chuck and Reggie built mansions next door to each other on Geist and spent free time shooting pool together.

Chuck was traded away to fix "chemistry", which did not actually improve.

Chemistry did not improve until Detlef was traded away. But Detlef was not a jerk or bad teammate, he just caused problems because his two best spots on the court were also Reggie's #1 spot and Rik's #1 spot. With Derrick McKey, chemistry finally improved.

This team hasn't even been friendly in the recent past. But please don't confuse that with chemistry, which can't even begin to develop until a general sense of teamwork (and friendliness) is established.

Also note that "frendliness" is not a requirement for good chemistry. Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and Rodman were not friendly with each other, but worked well together on the basketball court.

Not to rain on the parade, as this is improvement in "interpersonal working relationships" is indeed a good thing.

count55
01-08-2009, 04:50 PM
Chemistry and "everybody gets along fine" are not the same thing.

Chuck, Reggie, and Detlef were good friends off the court. Chuck and Reggie build mansions next door to each other on Geist and spent free time shooting pool together.

Chuck was traded away to fix "chemistry", which did not actually improve.

Chemistry did not improve until Detlef was traded away. But Detlef was not a jerk or bad teammate, he just caused problems because his two best spots on the court were also Reggie's #1 spot and Rik's #1 spot.

This team hasn't even been friendly in the recent past. But please don't confuse that with chemistry, which can't even begin to develop until a general sense of teamwork (and friendliness) is established.

Also note that "frendliness" is not a requirement for good chemistry. Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and Rodman were not friendly with each other, but worked well together on the basketball court.

Not to rain on the parade, as this is improvement in "interpersonal working relationships" is indeed a good thing.

Excellent post. I can remember Rickey Green once talking about how the 1990 Pacer locker room was one of tightest groups he'd been around, but it didn't translate to wins.

There's a difference between chemistry on the the court and chemistry off the court. Al and JO were great friends, but it was a nightmare when you tried to play them together.

That being said, it is better that the locker room atmosphere is remaining more positive than the other way around.

(BTW...I do think that Dunleavy and Danny have very good on-court chemistry.)

croz24
01-08-2009, 04:57 PM
You get mocked because of the way you present your opinions. You say them as if they were fact.

I find it funny that now you're arguing basketball isn't all about stats, when you were just arguing that chemistry isn't important. No it's not about stats, but at the same time they are used to evaluate players. Danny is absolutely acing his evaluation. At the same token about what players are being asked to do doesn't make them any less of player, then I could come up with an argument that the years Ben Wallace spent in Det. was one of the best 4-5yrs any player has ever been. He knew his role, and executed it almost perfectly. Not many players, ever, have been that good at their role. Is he a better player for it? Hell no. Players are asked to perform roles that fit their ability. Danny is asked to do more, because he is capable of doing more. Bigger the role, better the player.

Danny has been playing like a franchise player. The chances of Jeff Green doing it, are slim to none.

since this is a message board, is it not assumed that our statements are statements of opinion? if not, i guess we all should start with the imo's, jmo's, imvho's after every statement made huh? i also never said chemistry isn't important. stop taking my posts out of context. chemistry is very important, but it will not turn a team with no talent into a good team. thus, i don't understand what mike wells is getting at. he's stating how good our chemistry is, but what good is that when we are 13-22? that great chemistry isn't helping us maintain leads late, it isn't improving the basketball iq of the players i mentioned, it isn't putting fans in the seats...

danny granger is being asked to score so much because the pacers literally have nobody else capable of putting up consistent points. granger was forced into this role by management. with durant on green's team putting up 20 shots per game, no green won't ever put up 25ppg. but if i had to choose between the two, i'd take green OVER DURANT every time.

Since86
01-08-2009, 05:06 PM
Players that dislike each other very rarely develop good on court chemistry. While being friends off the court doesn't automatically translate on the court, it's pretty much a requirement if you want on court chemistry to develop.

Obviously this team is going to struggle with on court chemistry. For the past 3 off seasons, the Pacers have changed their roster more times than I have changed my underwear. (Pure hyperbole, I swear. :D) There has been no continuity, which is another piece to the puzzle.

TJ stepping in and meshing with Danny from day 1 was unrealistic. TJ stepping in and getting a long with Danny, sure helps their relationship grow on and off the court. Ron obviously wasn't going to play alongside JO effectively considering their off court problems. AJ and Tinlsey's problems with their on court roles caused them off court problems with each other.

travmil
01-08-2009, 05:09 PM
Croz, can we please just stop this insane BS? You are upset because Danny is providing every shred of evidence that your analysis of him was and continues to be off the mark. I know it's hard to man up and admit you may have made a mistake, but there is abslutely nothing Danny is doing right now to support your view that he's at best a #2 option. He's clearly a #1 type of guy and you can't handle it. And no I don't think I'm being harsh and I don't give a crap what you, the other posters here, or the admins think about me calling you out on it. Grow up already.

Since86
01-08-2009, 05:21 PM
I just now saw the end of the game thread. Sorry I even poked at the subject. In the infamous words of Earl, "Let's just move on."

croz24
01-08-2009, 05:22 PM
Croz, can we please just stop this insane BS? You are upset because Danny is providing every shred of evidence that your analysis of him was and continues to be off the mark. I know it's hard to man up and admit you may have made a mistake, but there is abslutely nothing Danny is doing right now to support your view that he's at best a #2 option. He's clearly a #1 type of guy and you can't handle it. And no I don't think I'm being harsh and I don't give a crap what you, the other posters here, or the admins think about me calling you out on it. Grow up already.

what part of my analysis is off? granger is scoring points and is slowing improving his turnover problem, but again, the pacers are 13-22. is that an acceptable record in your opinion? if not, where do we direct the criticism? i've directed it on the pacers lack of talent and lack of leadership. being the #1 option on the pacers, why is granger immune to the criticism? my evidence is 13-22 and continually late game collapses. yours is individual stats. yet my opinion is the one that's "insane BS"?

travmil
01-08-2009, 05:30 PM
So it's your opinion that Danny Granger is entirely at fault for the 13-22 record then?

D23
01-08-2009, 05:31 PM
Chemistry and "everybody gets along fine" are not the same thing.

Chuck, Reggie, and Detlef were good friends off the court. Chuck and Reggie built mansions next door to each other on Geist and spent free time shooting pool together.

Chuck was traded away to fix "chemistry", which did not actually improve.

Chemistry did not improve until Detlef was traded away. But Detlef was not a jerk or bad teammate, he just caused problems because his two best spots on the court were also Reggie's #1 spot and Rik's #1 spot. With Derrick McKey, chemistry finally improved.

This team hasn't even been friendly in the recent past. But please don't confuse that with chemistry, which can't even begin to develop until a general sense of teamwork (and friendliness) is established.

Also note that "frendliness" is not a requirement for good chemistry. Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, and Rodman were not friendly with each other, but worked well together on the basketball court.

Not to rain on the parade, as this is improvement in "interpersonal working relationships" is indeed a good thing.

Good point. I think what you're describing is team chemistry vs. team spirit, and that they're both important, which is absolutely correct.

xtacy
01-08-2009, 05:32 PM
unfortunately, a good locker room won't make troy murphy, or jarrett jack, or jeff foster, or travis diener, or brandon rush any better of a player.

but it will definately make pacers a better team.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 05:35 PM
what part of my analysis is off? granger is scoring points and is slowing improving his turnover problem, but again, the pacers are 13-22. is that an acceptable record in your opinion? if not, where do we direct the criticism? i've directed it on the pacers lack of talent and lack of leadership. being the #1 option on the pacers, why is granger immune to the criticism? my evidence is 13-22 and continually late game collapses. yours is individual stats. yet my opinion is the one that's "insane BS"?

It's an acceptable record for a rebuilding team with upcoming talent and a soon-to-be superstar.

Jonathan
01-08-2009, 05:39 PM
The Pacers are only three games out of the playoffs and are beating the teams they should (Sacremento, OKC, & New York). They are 3-1 this year and have Dunleavy Jr back.

PaceBalls
01-08-2009, 05:39 PM
since this is a message board, is it not assumed that our statements are statements of opinion? if not, i guess we all should start with the imo's, jmo's, imvho's after every statement made huh? i also never said chemistry isn't important. stop taking my posts out of context. chemistry is very important, but it will not turn a team with no talent into a good team. thus, i don't understand what mike wells is getting at. he's stating how good our chemistry is, but what good is that when we are 13-22? that great chemistry isn't helping us maintain leads late, it isn't improving the basketball iq of the players i mentioned, it isn't putting fans in the seats...

danny granger is being asked to score so much because the pacers literally have nobody else capable of putting up consistent points. granger was forced into this role by management. with durant on green's team putting up 20 shots per game, no green won't ever put up 25ppg. but if i had to choose between the two, i'd take green every time.

I think it's hilarious that Danny is having arugably the best individual season of any Pacer EVER in the history of the club and this guy Croz is saying he would take Jeff Green over Danny every time... lol@ya

croz24
01-08-2009, 05:48 PM
So it's your opinion that Danny Granger is entirely at fault for the 13-22 record then?

no, and i've never stated such. i just witnessed the pacers blow yet another late lead against an injured/sick team, offer an opinion as to why they blew it instead bowing down to granger for his last second 3, and get hammered for it. when in reality, everyone on the board has acknowledge the reason for our late game problems and i was just agreeing with the board. granger settled for long range j's in the 4th when the pacers were struggling to score. had he played like he did in the 1st 3 quarters, the pacers wouldn't have needed a last second shot and wouldn't have blown yet another lead.

but as the leader of the team, why is granger not allowed to be even remotely criticized on this board? leaders accept criticism for losses and defer praise during wins. granger is not a perfect player. he's playing very well right now and is a pleasure to watch, but if you all want him to be truly great, he needs to become a smarter player late in games and understand the importance driving to the basket when nobody's shot it falling.

croz24
01-08-2009, 05:50 PM
I think it's hilarious that Danny is having arugably the best individual season of any Pacer EVER in the history of the club and this guy Croz is saying he would take Jeff Green over Danny every time... lol@ya

yet another poster who doesn't read, or at least can't comprehend. in that point of the post, i was referring to durant and green. i would take green over durant every time.

croz24
01-08-2009, 05:52 PM
It's an acceptable record for a rebuilding team with upcoming talent and a soon-to-be superstar.

if you believe the pacers are a rebuilding team with true upcoming talent and feel granger is indeed a soon-to-be superstar, then i can't argue that.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 05:56 PM
no, and i've never stated such. i just witnessed the pacers blow yet another late lead against an injured/sick team, offer an opinion as to why they blew it instead bowing down to granger for his last second 3, and get hammered for it. when in reality, everyone on the board has acknowledge the reason for our late game problems and i was just agreeing with the board. granger settled for long range j's in the 4th when the pacers were struggling to score. had he played like he did in the 1st 3 quarters, the pacers wouldn't have needed a last second shot and wouldn't have blown yet another lead.

but as the leader of the team, why is granger not allowed to be even remotely criticized on this board? leaders accept criticism for losses and defer praise during wins. granger is not a perfect player. he's playing very well right now and is a pleasure to watch, but if you all want him to be truly great, he needs to become a smarter player late in games and understand the importance driving to the basket when nobody's shot it falling.
But Danny made the shot.

Putnam
01-08-2009, 05:56 PM
Is there any way this thread could get back on the track of "best locker room"? 'Cause that is worth knowing.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 05:58 PM
Is there any way this thread could get back on the track of "best locker room"? 'Cause that is worth knowing.

My apologies, putty.

croz24
01-08-2009, 06:02 PM
But Danny made the shot.

yes he made the shot but that's not indicative of the season. the pacers have lost far more games late than they've won. it's a trend that needs to stop. we won this one, but blowing yet another lead is not a good sign regardless of whether or not granger made the shot.

CableKC
01-08-2009, 06:03 PM
I will say that I am glad that we are learning this about the team.

In the past, I have said that one of the things that has ruined the potential of this team from reaching their goals ( dating all the way back to when we held the best record in the league ) were "variables". This can be a very broad term.....but I have always thought that "variables" like injuries, trust among players, overblown egos, on/off court drama, etc....has always affected how well and consistent this team can perform. In this case, "drama"....whether it is on/off the court or inside the lockeroom among Teammates...was one of those "intangibles" that I am glad that TPTB have strived to minimize if not eliminate on this team.

What are the end result based off of what we have seen?

Yep, you guessed it....a dismal 13-22 record so far. But before you scoff at that...remember that we have had key injuries to our lineup at various times with various players during that stretch and the real core of this team has only played for less then a season ( dating back to last year ). Building good Team Chemistry for the long-term is one of those "foundational" building blocks ( among others ) that allow Teams to play well over the long term. If we could get anywhere near what the Pistons and Spurs have done over the last 8 years by building a very nice core of Players that trust each other and ( as a side-effect ) therefore play well together, I would be happy.

Now, if we could cure ourselves against that "injury" bug that has plagued us forever.....we can finally see what this team can do.

croz24
01-08-2009, 06:04 PM
as for the op, i'll offer something else, i want the team who has the best chemistry on the court. as that's where the games are decided, NOT the locker room.

mildlysane
01-08-2009, 06:10 PM
Croz, can we please just stop this insane BS? You are upset because Danny is providing every shred of evidence that your analysis of him was and continues to be off the mark. I know it's hard to man up and admit you may have made a mistake, but there is abslutely nothing Danny is doing right now to support your view that he's at best a #2 option. He's clearly a #1 type of guy and you can't handle it. And no I don't think I'm being harsh and I don't give a crap what you, the other posters here, or the admins think about me calling you out on it. Grow up already.

This.

PaceBalls
01-08-2009, 06:25 PM
yet another poster who doesn't read, or at least can't comprehend. in that point of the post, i was referring to durant and green. i would take green over durant every time.

Well it wasn't my lack of reading comprehension it was your bad writing. The way you worded it, you could have been referring to either.

edit: Actually reading it over again I can see I misread it originally my bad. You still are just as silly though and this whole you vs all of Pacers Digest is pretty amusing.

Naptown_Seth
01-08-2009, 07:17 PM
That is a great statement, there, 'menace.

"Ain't nothin' wrong with that."
The reason Bball and Hicks bring it up however is because JO did the EXACT SAME THING and people ripped on him for it. My #1 pet peeve is hypocritical attitudes. "I like him so his actions are okay, and the reason I like him is because of his good actions" - circular logic that got flipped on JO and some other Pacers.

I saw Jack get pretty darn happy when they beat Miami back in Reggie's final year, and AJ/Reggie piled on him after Wade missed the shot Jack was defending. JO was thrown under the bus for the jersey snap. We've had guys that loved the team wins, and they still got labeled as selfish because of their style of play or off-court stuff or injuries, and so on.


This blurb isn't about not going out on the town (I bet guys are doing it right now) or saying the guys parade around the court like they just got out of finishing school (they don't), this is just saying that unlike recent years these guys like being around each other, at least within the confines of their job.

I'll take it, that makes a big difference in the kind of effort a guy will give you. And hopefully over time it will translate into improved play.

As much as I was ready to trade Dun and/or Troy, I'm not now. Why? Consistency. Rasho, Ford, Jack, okay if you find a quality deal.

But at least try to keep Danny, Mike, Troy and Jeff together simply because they are getting to know each other on the court finally. And if possible try to keep 4-5 other main guys on the roster too. Let's see that 2000 Pacers thing where the same guys kept playing together for year after year till they got great.

Naptown_Seth
01-08-2009, 07:26 PM
I haven't seen Jeff Green play at all this season, unless we've played the team he is on. Heck, I don't know anything about the guy, but I know I want Granger.
Dude :-o

OKC game, Durant, Green, Westbrook, freaky tattoo guy with busted face at the time


Look I'll stick up for croz on this one though I wouldn't take Green over Durant myself. I think people don't realize who the F Green is, as DD just proved. Jeff Green is an explosive wing who is a better defender than Durant and AT TIMES a better offensive player than KD. I think the thing with Durant is that the thing he does great, scoring, he does at an elite level. So even though Green isn't that far off of Durant overall, Durant has more superstar potential even if its only on offense.

It does bug me to hear people rip on players they haven't paid any attention to or very little.

Green for Danny - not a redickulous thought...but I'd never do it. ;)

Merz
01-08-2009, 09:20 PM
I haven't been here a while so I didn't know that Jeff Green was Croz's new savior (if only the stupid front office would trade Granger for him) for the Pacers. Last time I was here it was Martell Webster and a bunch of junk from the Blazers.

Can you at least admit you were wrong about that one, Croz? (or have you already?.....doubt it)

flakcatcher
01-08-2009, 10:08 PM
I have to call Croz's trolling skills into question.

Sure, he's made a few well-timed inflammatory comments here and there. But Pacers Digest is undeniably troll-weak. On an NBA messageboard that boasts high-quality trolls with real experience, he'd be regarded as a second-rate troll at best.

Croz obviously has some raw talent. But let's be honest -- it's easy to troll effectively on a board that sorely lacks big-time trolls.

Make no mistake: I applaud Croz for his ability to make moderately aggravating posts and garner a decent amount of attention in the process. But he's no DatDude. If this board was populated with a corps of top-notch trolls, he'd be a solid rotation troll at best.

Just sayin'.

duke dynamite
01-08-2009, 11:18 PM
Dude :-o

OKC game, Durant, Green, Westbrook, freaky tattoo guy with busted face at the time

Oh yeah, that guy.

croz24
01-09-2009, 12:04 AM
I haven't been here a while so I didn't know that Jeff Green was Croz's new savior (if only the stupid front office would trade Granger for him) for the Pacers. Last time I was here it was Martell Webster and a bunch of junk from the Blazers.

Can you at least admit you were wrong about that one, Croz? (or have you already?.....doubt it)

never called green a savior or even suggested trading for him. i just mentioned once that he has granger's potential and could become better. nothing special, but it took off on here and now is mentioned on every thread.

why would i admit i'm wrong about the portland trade? webster has been hurt all year, and yes given the same opportunity to score, imo can become nearly as good once healthy. i don't think that trade offer i posted on the trade forum was bad at all. it would have given us outlaw, webster, and the #13 pick while keeping #11.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 12:06 AM
Sure, he's made a few well-timed inflammatory comments here and there. But Pacers Digest is undeniably troll-weak.

I think we'll take that as a compliment.

Hicks
01-09-2009, 12:15 AM
Satire 1
ChicagoJ 0

:D

A-Train
01-09-2009, 12:31 AM
Good point. I think what you're describing is team chemistry vs. team spirit, and that they're both important, which is absolutely correct.

Agreed. A lot of things go into making a good team... Talent, chemistry, likability, ego (or lack thereof). It takes a combination of all these things to bring a team together to be successful at a high level. I think we see most, if not all, of these attributes on the current Celtics team.

But, one thing that guarantees a team will NOT be successful is when you add one or more "me guys" who continually get in trouble both on and off the court. Add THAT to a team, and the team loses coherence and eventually fractures and loses the necessary "team spirit" to succeed.

We saw that play itself out over the last several years with the Pacers.

Does a group of "good guys" guarantee success? Of course not. But, it's a very important first building block upon which this current Pacers team can build.

Anthem
01-09-2009, 12:47 AM
In the infamous words of Earl, "Let's just move on."
I don't know where you get off making fun of a guy who lost parts of his foot.

Anthem
01-09-2009, 12:47 AM
I have to call Croz's trolling skills into question.

Sure, he's made a few well-timed inflammatory comments here and there. But Pacers Digest is undeniably troll-weak. On an NBA messageboard that boasts high-quality trolls with real experience, he'd be regarded as a second-rate troll at best.

Croz obviously has some raw talent. But let's be honest -- it's easy to troll effectively on a board that sorely lacks big-time trolls.

Make no mistake: I applaud Croz for his ability to make moderately aggravating posts and garner a decent amount of attention in the process. But he's no DatDude. If this board was populated with a corps of top-notch trolls, he'd be a solid rotation troll at best.

Just sayin'.
I am not even remotely worthy. You are the man.

CableKC
01-09-2009, 01:14 AM
This blurb isn't about not going out on the town (I bet guys are doing it right now) or saying the guys parade around the court like they just got out of finishing school (they don't), this is just saying that unlike recent years these guys like being around each other, at least within the confines of their job.

I'll take it, that makes a big difference in the kind of effort a guy will give you. And hopefully over time it will translate into improved play.

As much as I was ready to trade Dun and/or Troy, I'm not now. Why? Consistency. Rasho, Ford, Jack, okay if you find a quality deal.

But at least try to keep Danny, Mike, Troy and Jeff together simply because they are getting to know each other on the court finally. And if possible try to keep 4-5 other main guys on the roster too. Let's see that 2000 Pacers thing where the same guys kept playing together for year after year till they got great.
I totally agree with this. Ignoring that I think that we would be hard-pressed to find a team that wouldn't mind taking on a big contract that would impact their 2010 Salary Cap ( which is 2/3 of the teams out there hoping to hit it big in the 2010 FA Sweepstakes ), I'm all for keeping them for the very reasons that you suggest.....we need the consistency of building a good core involving most of the players that we will likely have over the next 2-3 seasons.

Will Galen
01-09-2009, 01:28 AM
Green for Danny - not a redickulous thought...but I'd never do it. ;)

Me either, but I would go much further.

I'm not one of those people that would trade anyone if it would make the Pacers better.

I wouldn't take . . . well anyone for Danny. I've watched him grow before my eyes and to me it would be like trading one of my children.

Kemo
01-09-2009, 01:50 AM
Me either, but I would go much further.

I'm not one of those people that would trade anyone if it would make the Pacers better.

I wouldn't take . . . well anyone for Danny. I've watched him grow before my eyes and to me it would be like trading one of my children.


A-:censored:KING-MEN BROTHER !!!!

:applaud::amen::iagree:

ABADays
01-09-2009, 10:48 AM
Every post I make? Hardly. Actually I think that's the first time.

With that said, chemistry isn't the defining factor to wins. No one has ever claimed it to be. Chemistry can be the difference between 13-22 and 10-25 though. Not having issues between players goes a long way. It makes them more enjoyable to watch, and more successful. But in no way is it the most important aspect of the team. I can provide countless examples just from the years of watching Tinsley and AJ. Those Pacer squads routinely underachieved. That's even without talking about the bigger elephant in the room with Ron and JO.

One thing that is missing here is that if they can hang tough and together with this record just think of how it will be when they start winning. This is great news.

A-Train
01-09-2009, 11:58 AM
One thing that is missing here is that if they can hang tough and together with this record just think of how it will be when they start winning. This is great news.

Best case scenario is for this team to continue to grow together, but also continue to lose a lot of close games, thus assuring a very high draft pick next year.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 12:04 PM
Best case scenario is for this team to continue to grow together, but also continue to lose a lot of close games, thus assuring a very high draft pick next year.
Uhh, no. You never make it a goal to lose. Shame on you.

Unclebuck
01-09-2009, 12:05 PM
Pacers are notw5-6 in games decided by 3 points or less and have won 3 straight. I know I have a lot more confidence when the game goes down to the last shot

A-Train
01-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Uhh, no. You never make it a goal to lose. Shame on you.

Yeah, I figured someone might take that the wrong way.

I'm not saying the team TRIES to lose. I'm hoping they fight as hard as they can every night. But, getting a high draft pick next year would be the best thing for the team in the long run.

Playing .500 ball and getting mediocre draft picks year in and year out is not a good way to build a team. The Pacers proved that in the late 80's, early 90's. They always barely made the playoffs, got ousted in the first round, then didn't have a high enough draft pick the next year to make that much of a difference. So, mediocre they remained.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 12:25 PM
Yeah, I figured someone might take that the wrong way.

I'm not saying the team TRIES to lose. I'm hoping they fight as hard as they can every night. But, getting a high draft pick next year would be the best thing for the team in the long run.

Why do we need high draft picks? We shouldn't be re-building every year. We have two quality draft picks this year in Rush and Hibbert.

Yeah, having a draft pick is great, especially a 1st rounder, but it's not going to help us too much with all the developing young talent we currently have. It will just be another player that the team has to put many resources into developing.

Don't get me wrong, we've found hidden gems before late in the first round (Maybe just one or two recently).

The bottom line is that you can't hope your team loses. Whether by 1 point or 100.


Playing .500 ball and getting mediocre draft picks year in and year out is not a good way to build a team. The Pacers proved that in the late 80's, early 90's. They always barely made the playoffs, got ousted in the first round, then didn't have a high enough draft pick the next year to make that much of a difference. So, mediocre they remained.

None of our players in the late 90's were high picks, either. We were not mediocre.

I still don't call the majority of the 90's teams mediocre, either.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 12:27 PM
That's right. The losing is not by design. It just isn't a big deal - THIS YEAR. When I watch the Pacers lose, I feel no disappointment at all because they are progressing toward two goals: thier young players are generally getting better (though it might not appear that way at times) and they are getting closer to a really good draft pick.

They aren't supposed to be good, so if they overachieve and destroy their draft opportunity that is a bad thing.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 12:35 PM
They aren't supposed to be good, so if they overachieve and destroy their draft opportunity that is a bad thing.
Could you help me by explaining this for me. How is it bad? Overachieving to me would be making the playoffs, and a major step forward in development. (IMO)

A-Train
01-09-2009, 12:43 PM
They aren't supposed to be good, so if they overachieve and destroy their draft opportunity that is a bad thing.

Well said. And I agree that this only goes for this year.

A-Train
01-09-2009, 12:45 PM
Could you help me by explaining this for me. How is it bad? Overachieving to me would be making the playoffs, and a major step forward in development. (IMO)

Do you believe we're set with the players we have right now?

Unclebuck
01-09-2009, 12:46 PM
That's right. The losing is not by design. It just isn't a big deal - THIS YEAR. When I watch the Pacers lose, I feel no disappointment at all because they are progressing toward two goals: thier young players are generally getting better (though it might not appear that way at times) and they are getting closer to a really good draft pick.

They aren't supposed to be good, so if they overachieve and destroy their draft opportunity that is a bad thing.

I really don't care much about the draft.

But no, I don't live and die with every win or loss with this team - I do feel good for the guys when they win and bad for them when they loss - because I think this team tries to play the right way.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 12:47 PM
Do you believe we're set with the players we have right now?
Not at all. I do believe we have a little bit more moving and shaking to go.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 12:50 PM
Why do we need high draft picks? We shouldn't be re-building every year. We have two quality draft picks this year in Rush and Hibbert.

Yeah, having a draft pick is great, especially a 1st rounder, but it's not going to help us too much with all the developing young talent we currently have. It will just be another player that the team has to put many resources into developing.

Don't get me wrong, we've found hidden gems before late in the first round (Maybe just one or two recently).

The bottom line is that you can't hope your team loses. Whether by 1 point or 100.

We have no young talent at PF, and we still need a lot of help at PG. We have stop-gaps in those positions right now. And we have no bench depth other than Dunleavy once Brandon and Roy move into the starting lineup.

The roster makeover is far from complete. The Pacers are no longer "tearing it down" but it will take another season or two to fill all the big holes in the roster. Assuming that every move works as planned. There are likely to be a couple of missteps along the way, too. George McCloud, anyone?

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 12:54 PM
Could you help me by explaining this for me. How is it bad? Overachieving to me would be making the playoffs, and a major step forward in development. (IMO)

The foundation is far from solid. I guess I see this team as having slightly fewer holes than a block of swiss cheese. You see them as closer to being a complete team.

In my opinion, they need two things: some time to grow up, and also a few more players to complete the core that is being built. I don't see Ford or any of our PFs in that "core". I don't see a backup C anywhere, unless its Hibbert and we still need to draft or trade for another starting C.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 12:56 PM
I really don't care much about the draft.

I haven't cared about the draft since the late eighties, but this is the first time in twenty years that we've been rebuilding via the draft, so I believe it is time to care about it again.

JMO. Normally I'm right there with you on this.

Hicks
01-09-2009, 01:12 PM
This isn't supposed to be that great of a draft (not that that makes it gospel). Color me unenthused about hoping for a high pick this year.

OakMoses
01-09-2009, 01:17 PM
We have no young talent at PF, and we still need a lot of help at PG. We have stop-gaps in those positions right now. And we have no bench depth other than Dunleavy once Brandon and Roy move into the starting lineup.

The roster makeover is far from complete. The Pacers are no longer "tearing it down" but it will take another season or two to fill all the big holes in the roster. Assuming that every move works as planned. There are likely to be a couple of missteps along the way, too. George McCloud, anyone?

I agree with your general premise, but I'd argue that McRoberts has shown just as much potential, if not more, than Hibbert. In addition, he's played just as well, if not better, in the minutes he's gotten. I know he's on the last year of his deal, so he's not exactly locked up as part of a future core, but I don't think you can say there's no young talent at PF.

vnzla81
01-09-2009, 01:30 PM
I haven't cared about the draft since the late eighties, but this is the first time in twenty years that we've been rebuilding via the draft, so I believe it is time to care about it again.

JMO. Normally I'm right there with you on this.

Agreed, we need to care about the draft, I agreed to what you said about the pacers not having a PF or a back up center and I don't feel that the point guards they have now are the ones to take the pacers to the promise land. For the people that keeps saying that this is not a good draft, just pay more attention to college basketball, I watched SC playing really good ball this week and I also like Greg monroe also BJ Mullens looks really good. There is few intenational players that may be good for the pacers.

Since86
01-09-2009, 02:00 PM
Could you help me by explaining this for me. How is it bad? Overachieving to me would be making the playoffs, and a major step forward in development. (IMO)

How is squeaking into the playoffs, with all likelihood a horrible overall record, a major step forward in development?

I'm in no way advocating for tanking, I believe you put forth your best effort every night regardless, but how is being labeled as an underserving team that only got in because a set number had to be there an accomplishment?

Yes, I know the example of Atlanta last year is going to be brought up, but everyone and their mother knew they needed a PG. They got Bibby, and wouldn't ya know, they turned out to be a pretty good squad. Getting him was the accomplishment, not limping into the playoffs.

It's been the attitude that the playoffs are a measuring stick for success in this franchise for far too long. Making the playoffs and bowing out either the first or second round year after year breeds mediocrisy, and the blind hope that pieces will magically fall into place and suddenly be back in the finals. I would much rather lose and not make the playoffs, and having the end result being better picks or forcing TPTB to make moves to improve the team. Being stuck in the middle, and not making moves to improve because your too afraid it will back fire or just you're just hoping it will be your time next year, is far worse than missing the playoffs. The middle is the worst place to be.

OakMoses
01-09-2009, 02:06 PM
How is squeaking into the playoffs, with all likelihood a horrible overall record, a major step forward in development?


In general I feel like success breeds success. Also, we can't forget that there's a very large monetary incentive that teams get for making the playoffs. For a team like the Pacers that's in a small market and concerned with the bottom line, playoff revenues are very important.

travmil
01-09-2009, 02:14 PM
This isn't supposed to be that great of a draft (not that that makes it gospel). Color me unenthused about hoping for a high pick this year.

Not only that, but every once in a while you get lucky drafting at 17 anyway.

A-Train
01-09-2009, 02:15 PM
In general I feel like success breeds success. Also, we can't forget that there's a very large monetary incentive that teams get for making the playoffs. For a team like the Pacers that's in a small market and concerned with the bottom line, playoff revenues are very important.

Yes, revenues are important, but keep the big picture in mind here.

Would you sacrifice one year of a one and out for several years of playing deep into the playoffs? This team needs more pieces if they're going to be competitive with the Celtics and Cavs in the East. And that's what I'm looking at here... not just being competitive enough to make the playoffs, but to competitive enough to win a championship. THAT should be our focus. Not just making the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed.

If not making the playoffs this year puts us in a better position (via the draft or by trading high draft picks) to really compete in the coming years, then I'd rather not make the playoffs this year.

I understand what you're saying about not ever wanting your team to lose, duke, but I'm not wanting them to lose as much as I'm wanting them to get back to an elite level again. And that ain't happenin' this year.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 02:15 PM
Yes, I know the example of Atlanta last year is going to be brought up, but everyone and their mother knew they needed a PG. They got Bibby, and wouldn't ya know, they turned out to be a pretty good squad. Getting him was the accomplishment, not limping into the playoffs.

But Atlanta still looks like a playoff team. They've completed step 1.

They got Bibby, a veteran. Why do we need to draft? Why can't we find someone already established?

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 02:16 PM
I agree with your general premise, but I'd argue that McRoberts has shown just as much potential, if not more, than Hibbert. In addition, he's played just as well, if not better, in the minutes he's gotten. I know he's on the last year of his deal, so he's not exactly locked up as part of a future core, but I don't think you can say there's no young talent at PF.

I could be persuaded to think that McRoberts would make a nice backup PF that brings energy and fundamentals.

But we do need more than just McRoberts turning into a 16-20 mpg player.

I'm patient with Hibbert. It takes young centers a while to achieve consistency. He's clearly got things to improve but I think he'll get there soon enough.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 02:17 PM
But Atlanta still looks like a playoff team. They've completed step 1.

They got Bibby, a veteran. Why do we need to draft? Why can't we find someone already established?

Who are we going to trade for them? We don't have trading chips. ATL had trading chips that they accumulated via the draft.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 02:19 PM
Believe me, Billy Knight ran a duplicate of the "build via the draft" plan that he and Donnie did together in the late eighties/ early nineties. Right down to the "never draft a PG, eventually you can trade for one" strategy.

rexnom
01-09-2009, 02:19 PM
This isn't supposed to be that great of a draft (not that that makes it gospel). Color me unenthused about hoping for a high pick this year.
I agree. If there was some sort of guarantee we'd get Blake Griffin, I might be singing a different tune. However, in general, I don't think a high draft pick is necessarily the answer. It could be. Or it couldn't. I like how we paint Brandon and Roy into our future starting lineup with Danny but still clamor for high draft picks when all three were relatively low picks. I would much rather the Pacers make the playoffs and battle in a playoff atmosphere. I saw Danny grow his rookie year more in that one playoff series than in the entire regular seasons.

Since86
01-09-2009, 02:19 PM
In general I feel like success breeds success. Also, we can't forget that there's a very large monetary incentive that teams get for making the playoffs. For a team like the Pacers that's in a small market and concerned with the bottom line, playoff revenues are very important.

Having a horrible record, and only making the playoffs because the rest of the East has an even worse record, isn't success. That's my point.

Winning is success. Losing most of the time, and just happening to be in the top 8 is hardly something to celebrate.

And while I don't even pretend like I know anything about the financial side, I doubt the increased revenue will lengthen in the life of the Pacer franchise, or it's life in Indy. It might help the burden for next year, but it's not like the franchise is going to collapse any time sooner if they don't get it. I know that's not what you're saying BTW. Just that I don't think the overall impact of it outweighs the situation.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 02:21 PM
Danny was a top level talent that fell on draft day. It isn't a good assumption to believe that very many late-teen draft picks ever pan out as starters.

We got lucky.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 02:25 PM
I agree. If there was some sort of guarantee we'd get Blake Griffin, I might be singing a different tune. However, in general, I don't think a high draft pick is necessarily the answer. It could be. Or it couldn't. I like how we paint Brandon and Roy into our future starting lineup with Danny but still clamor for high draft picks when all three were relatively low picks. I would much rather the Pacers make the playoffs and battle in a playoff atmosphere. I saw Danny grow his rookie year more in that one playoff series than in the entire regular seasons.
I agree.

Since86
01-09-2009, 02:38 PM
Danny was a top level talent that fell on draft day. It isn't a good assumption to believe that very many late-teen draft picks ever pan out as starters.

We got lucky.

And I agree.

Danny was such a good talent Bird actually apologized for working him out because he said he it was a waste of Danny's time due to him being taken so early and the Pacers not having a realistic shot at him. Thankfully his knee issues scared people off.

Talent wise, Danny was an extremely high draft pick.

A-Train
01-09-2009, 02:39 PM
I like how we paint Brandon and Roy into our future starting lineup with Danny but still clamor for high draft picks when all three were relatively low picks.

We wouldn't have been in position to get those guys had we squeaked into the playoffs last year.

The only reason we got Rush was because we were in the draft lottery and had the pick to trade for him. We got Hibbert via a trade.

duke dynamite
01-09-2009, 02:51 PM
We wouldn't have been in position to get those guys had we squeaked into the playoffs last year.

The only reason we got Rush was because we were in the draft lottery and had the pick to trade for him. We got Hibbert via a trade.
But that was last year...

A-Train
01-09-2009, 03:24 PM
But that was last year...

Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Obvious. :cool:

Naptown_Seth
01-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Pacers are notw5-6 in games decided by 3 points or less and have won 3 straight. I know I have a lot more confidence when the game goes down to the last shot
Exercise destroys tissue and makes way for greater growth. So do forest fires.

So no pain, no gain. The team has young guys that need to learn things, one of those things being how to handle close games. So while it sucks that they still blow leads, at least they are getting a ton of chances to experience late pressure.

Either you have dumb guys who will never get it or all of this will end up paying off. Maybe it's already happening.

Now personally I don't think its as simple as "they learned to close out". I think they got lucky a few times...but hold your anger. ;) I also think that most of the time people, and not just in sports, see the most growth and learning by pure chance experiences.

Danny felt good about his shot, the team has felt good about chances to win late (TJ, Jack, Troy's tip) when they tried them, but that's true when they've missed too. There is something else to it, some mindset or groove or inner peace that locks you in and IMO the only way to ever find that place is to fall a**backward into it.

Once you do though it sticks in your memory. Now that Granger has made that shot he'll feel that memory the next time and find it easier to lock into that comfort zone. I think this is what happened with Reggie, or has happened with Horry.

You become that guy, but I don't think they were always certain to be that guy. I think they had a few shots and they happened to fall while for other guys they were misses. The guys who have it go in grow from that and get better at it. Almost a catch-22, you can't do it till you do it. So it helps to luck into it early on.


I recall the Reggie Pacers moving from self-confidence to then learning to protect big leads, avoiding playing down to competition, how to close out a series, and eventually how to protect home court with extreme efficiency. But they didn't learn all those things in one season.

It may take a few years but it does feel like they are really going the right direction.



Will - I agree, I couldn't give up Danny for Wade at this point. No more than I would have been okay with trading Reggie even for Jordan by 97 or so. It would have bugged me no matter how well the trade went. It was tough as hell letting Det, Dale and Jax go and luckily we got 2 of them back for a bit. :)

Naptown_Seth
01-09-2009, 03:45 PM
We wouldn't have been in position to get those guys had we squeaked into the playoffs last year.

The only reason we got Rush was because we were in the draft lottery and had the pick to trade for him. We got Hibbert via a trade.
Roy still comes over in the exact same deal. Rush might have fallen 3-4 more spots, and if not you still could have gotten Chalmers or Lee to help the backcourt.

What you lose if you make the playoffs is getting Jack. McBob was a throw in that you might have been able to get for Ike even, if you knew he was worth it.

Naptown_Seth
01-09-2009, 03:52 PM
Playing .500 ball and getting mediocre draft picks year in and year out is not a good way to build a team. The Pacers proved that in the late 80's, early 90's. They always barely made the playoffs, got ousted in the first round, then didn't have a high enough draft pick the next year to make that much of a difference. So, mediocre they remained.Good lord.

Rik Smits, Tisdale, Person - how'd those teams do? Those are the "miss playoffs, get high pick" guys.

Then .500 ball, sub-10 picks come along, guys like Reggie, Dale, Tony, Best, and even Jax wasn't a high draft pick for NY. How'd the team fare with them?

The 80/90s had 2 stages - the crappy "high picks" version and then the much better "good picks but .500 ball every year and smart trades" version that kicked butt. Cripes even though Herb Williams was a high pick by the time they traded him for Detlef he had very little value to the Pacers, it was just a trade steal.

vnzla81
01-09-2009, 03:53 PM
I don't understand why people keeps saying that the pacers are a young team and need to get to the playoffs to get experience, the have 15 players(counting tinsley) out of the 15 they have 7players either are over 30years old or getting there, they need to build trough the draft, just like Miami,Cleveland,Memphis,Atlanta, even the celtics, if they did not had all the pieces to make a trade they could have never got KG or Ray. for the other guys that keep saying that they could sing a free agent, you need to understand that the pacers don't have any money to sing a big free agent for at least another two years




"YOU CAN'T BE A YOUNG TEAM WHEN ALMOST 50% OF YOUR PLAYERS ARE OLD"

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 04:24 PM
But the old players are all expendable (generally.)

Foster, Rasho, Daniels, Tinsley and Murphy aren't part of the long term plans. I don't think Ford should be part of the long term plans, although he might be. Dunleavy, who knows - I'd love him to be a sixth man when Rush moves to the starting lineup.

The next step is to convert those guys into players that are the next step of the rebuilding process.

mb221
01-09-2009, 04:25 PM
I don't understand why people keeps saying that the pacers are a young team and need to get to the playoffs to get experience, the have 15 players(counting tinsley) out of the 15 they have 7players either are over 30years old or getting there...

The only players actively involved in the rotation that are over 30 are Jeff Foster and Rasho. I don't think it is relevant to include Baston or Tinsley in this statistic, as neither are involved in the future plans of the team. Dunleavy, Murphy, and Daniels are all 28 (which I guess is where you filled out your 7 people that are "getting there"), but 28 is still two years away from 30, and two years is a long time. While the Pacers certainly aren't the youngest team in the NBA, they still have a welth of players that have many years left in their careers.

(beat to the punch)

vnzla81
01-09-2009, 04:36 PM
But the old players are all expendable (generally.)

Foster, Rasho, Daniels, Tinsley and Murphy aren't part of the long term plans. I don't think Ford should be part of the long term plans, although he might be. Dunleavy, who knows - I'd love him to be a sixth man when Rush moves to the starting lineup.

The next step is to convert those guys into players that are the next step of the rebuilding process.

I agreed, my point is why some people keep saying that this players need experience when a big % of the players are not going to be here next year? I see the pacers making some noise in maybe two years and by that time some of the players they have right now would well over past of their prime. That is why I am one of the few guys that wants the pacers to build trough the draft

Hicks
01-09-2009, 04:43 PM
I agreed, my point is why some people keep saying that this players need experience when a big % of the players are not going to be here next year? I see the pacers making some noise in maybe two years and by that time some of the players they have right now would well over past of their prime. That is why I am one of the few guys that wants the pacers to build trough the draft

The guys that are staying need the experience.

ChicagoJ
01-09-2009, 04:48 PM
The guys that are staying need the experience.

Which is not the same as "sitting on the bench, watching the veterans sneak into the playoffs."

Hicks
01-09-2009, 04:54 PM
Which is not the same as "sitting on the bench, watching the veterans sneak into the playoffs."

Hibbert needs it, he starts
Danny needs it, he starts
Dunleavy needs it, he'll probably be starting
Rush needs it, I predict he'll be back in the rotation by then
Ford needs it, he starts
Jack needs it, he's a key player
Hell, even Diener will need and get some of it

At least 5 of those 7 will see significant time, and probably all of them will play more than garbage minutes. This team needs it.

vnzla81
01-09-2009, 05:16 PM
playoff experience is overrated look at the wizards, they go to the playoffs every year and get kill, I want the pacers to be a contender not a team in the middle

vnzla81
01-09-2009, 05:17 PM
Which is not the same as "sitting on the bench, watching the veterans sneak into the playoffs."

veterans that are not going to be here next year:confused:

Hicks
01-09-2009, 05:20 PM
playoff experience is overrated look at the wizards, they go to the playoffs every year and get kill, I want the pacers to be a contender not a team in the middle

It's not a one to one correlation.

jhondog28
01-09-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm just giving you all a reason to mock me.

What ever you do do not mock Duke. His favorite player is the same as mine and he will put dirt about you in his blog on the Pacers home page ;)

Peck
01-09-2009, 07:48 PM
I've said this in previous years but I want to say it again here.

There is no ONE way to build a title team. When building a team you can have an idea or a goal but there really is no one way to do it. You can not look at other teams and say "but so and so did it this way" because each team and situation is unique unto itself.

Even drafting the best player at the number one pick is not a magic answer even if that player turns out to be great.

Building through youth and the draft is no magic answer either.

Yet neither is signing free agents and making trades.

So for anyone to make the claim that we should absolutely do one thing or the other is just not really accurate in my thoughts.

You have to be lucky first of all. The players you get have to stay relatively healthy. They have to mesh together (hence a good lockeroom is a good way to start but not the end all be all of everything) and frankly you have to have more than an above average talent pool on your team.

I think having an aggressive management team who does not settle goes a long long way helping you win as well.

Personally right now I think we have that, so I feel comfortable that they are looking to make the moves that need to be made.

As the team is made do I think that this is a championship contender even if left alone and allowed to mature over a couple of years? Lord no.

However going back to the management again, I think that they have thier eye on a bigger prize and understand that it will take steps to get there.

Good trades, wise draft picks and getting what we can out of free agency is really the only options we have for us, but even that is no guarantee.

NashvilleKat
01-09-2009, 09:00 PM
uhh lol...i don't think anybody has wanted to rebuild more on this message board than me. but to rebuild, i think that would require more young talent than what we have. rookie or not, brandon rush has been awful this year and i don't see that improving. hibbert hasn't shown much either but to his defense, centers take longer to develop. granger is a fine young player, but if the pacers are going to ever win during his prime, they'll need more than just dunleavy as his sidekick.

Agreed, Rush hasn't shown us much so far, but his per game scoring average is similar to Granger's his first year, about 7.5 pts a game. Over the summer, I'm sure he'll shoot thousands of 3-pointers until the NBA 3-pt line becomes second nature to him. He's a great leaper, so hopefully he'll also learn to finish strong with slam dunks, and earn multiple trips to the free throw line...instead of letting it roll off the rim. I have high hopes that next year will see his game improve like Granger's 2nd season, to maybe 13-14-pts a game.

Anthem
01-09-2009, 11:04 PM
Agreed, Rush hasn't shown us much so far, but his per game scoring average is similar to Granger's his first year, about 7.5 pts a game. Over the summer, I'm sure he'll shoot thousands of 3-pointers until the NBA 3-pt line becomes second nature to him.
Actually, his 3-point shooting isn't bad. He's just missed too many close to the rim. Once he hits those his percentage will jump up.

duke dynamite
01-10-2009, 12:55 AM
What ever you do do not mock Duke. His favorite player is the same as mine and he will put dirt about you in his blog on the Pacers home page ;)
lmao

YoSoyIndy
01-10-2009, 12:16 PM
playoff experience is overrated look at the wizards, they go to the playoffs every year and get kill, I want the pacers to be a contender not a team in the middle

How is being able to play in the most competitive form of basketball overrated? The reason the Pacers lose a lot of close games is because they don't have a lot of experiencing playing together in very tough situations.

travmil
01-10-2009, 12:24 PM
How is being able to play in the most competitive form of basketball overrated? The reason the Pacers lose a lot of close games is because they don't have a lot of experiencing playing together in very tough situations.

I agree with this. Basically when the going gets tough (tight game late in the 4th), the tough get going. The Pacers are making strides as evidenced by some recent wins, but they aren't yet tough enough (mentally at least) to win them the majority of the time like a veteran playoff tested team will. And when I say tough I'm meaning tough as a whole team. I know the pacers have a few players that are individually tough, but they are not tough as a team.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-10-2009, 12:25 PM
playoff experience is overrated look at the wizards, they go to the playoffs every year and get kill, I want the pacers to be a contender not a team in the middle

That's just a bad example. They've been severely crippled by injuries. Name any team in the playoffs and take away their two best players then see how they do. Don't forget to put them up against LeBron. What team is gonna win that series?

As for making the playoffs, I feel like that should always be a goal. Tanking pays off sometimes if there's truly a remarkable player in the draft like a Duncan or LeBron, but there is no Duncan in this draft. Even if you do increase your chances by tanking, there's still a chance you don't get the top pick. Then what? You just instilled losing into your team. For a group of young guys like this, it should be try to win every game and get as far as you can.

A-Train
01-11-2009, 01:56 PM
As for making the playoffs, I feel like that should always be a goal. Tanking pays off sometimes if there's truly a remarkable player in the draft like a Duncan or LeBron, but there is no Duncan in this draft. Even if you do increase your chances by tanking, there's still a chance you don't get the top pick. Then what? You just instilled losing into your team. For a group of young guys like this, it should be try to win every game and get as far as you can.

I don't think anyone has advocated "tanking". That's not at all the point. I, for one, want them to try their absolute hardest to win every game. But, I'd also like the chance at a high draft pick next year in order to further build on where this team is right now.

As Peck mentioned, there is not one magic bullet to solve every team's woes. But, getting high draft picks and either using them to draft a "sure thing" or using them to trade for proven talent is certainly one aspect of building a team for the long run.

I see next year as the year we begin to fight for quality playoff appearances.