PDA

View Full Version : Free Brandon Rush



tfarks
01-10-2009, 01:22 AM
With a last second play setup you need a couple good screeners and some shooters. The play drawn would have worked well if it wasn't thrown in to Foster, rather someone who looked for a quick pass to Dunleavy, and if not available could turn and shoot. For the sake of it lets just say it was broken, Its hard to believe the play was designed for a one option pass to Dunleavy.

Brandon Rush needs to be in the game more, especially with Daniels out. Its obvious his minutes would lessen with the return of Dunleavy, but how much better would it have been to see Rush guarding Kobe to allow Granger to be involved in the final play? We know he's a rookie and has his shortcomings, but the talents he does possess (defense and shooting range) need to be utilized more efficiently. O'Brien should consider dropping the bench banishments to 'teach lessons' and keep those players available for whatever advantage they may bring.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 01:25 AM
Not til he proves that he's better than Graham does Rush have a chance of seeing the floor...

Has to earn it.

Then he knows he deserves it and can play like it.

MiaDragon
01-10-2009, 01:25 AM
Not til he proves that he's better than Graham does Rush have a chance of seeing the floor...

Has to earn it.

Then he knows he deserves it and can play like it.

LMAO

LoneGranger33
01-10-2009, 01:29 AM
LMAO

Don't laugh. Clearly, Rush has more potential than Graham (and probably more talent right now as well) but he's just not putting it together on the floor the way you'd want him too. I'd much rather see Rush than Graham right now, just because I think Rush has more room to improve, but he's not wrong. Graham is outplaying Rush in the minutes he gets.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 01:29 AM
You can go through the whole earning minutes thing if you wish, I believe its irrelevant here. For one, the Pacers lack talent, he has it. Sure, he's not polished yet, but I compare him to late inning defensive replacement in a baseball game. He doesn't have to be a great player, just someone who currently possesses a useful talent. Graham would not have been a good option to guard Kobe, Rush would have. If you want to make him ride the bench and earn his minutes that's fine, but he's not useless and should not be treated as such.

El Pacero
01-10-2009, 01:29 AM
Agreed, Rush has shown little this season to even deserve the inbound pass. But, he might have done better on D than Jack, I would maybe go with that one but he has to step up consistently.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 01:39 AM
With Kobe the only thing you can do is try to bother him with length. You can't use someone who is overly aggressive or uses strength to defend, all you will get is a foul called. Rather, you look to someone who has quickness and can stay close and contest his shot as much as possible. There are 2 guys on the Pacers who can do this, both were on the bench. Only one had to be.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 01:44 AM
You can go through the whole earning minutes thing if you wish, I believe its irrelevant here.

You mean giving a guy a sense of entitlement so that he thinks he's too good to have to work for anything?

Wasn't that our problem with Tinsley, Jackson, and Harrington?

And Kobe would have baited Rush into one of those "another lesson you lesson as a NBA rookie" moments.

Anthem
01-10-2009, 01:46 AM
Not til he proves that he's better than Graham does Rush have a chance of seeing the floor...
Graham's gotten his minutes at the 3. Rush should play the 2 instead of Jack.

And I like Jack. But not as a SG guarding Kobe.

Shade
01-10-2009, 01:46 AM
Graham has consistently outplayed Rush with the minutes each has been allotted.

With Dun back, it will be even harder for Brandon to work his way into the rotation. He's going to have to earn it.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 01:48 AM
Graham's gotten his minutes at the 3. Rush should play the 2 instead of Jack.

And I like Jack. But not as a SG guarding Kobe.

So you'd have Dunleavey at the 4 when a potential rebound may be very important?

LoneGranger33
01-10-2009, 01:49 AM
With Kobe the only thing you can do is try to bother him with length. You can't use someone who is overly aggressive or uses strength to defend, all you will get is a foul called. Rather, you look to someone who has quickness and can stay close and contest his shot as much as possible. There are 2 guys on the Pacers who can do this, both were on the bench. Only one had to be.

This is fair. I didn't think having Danny on Kobe was a bad idea - he just make a bad decision to reach in when he should have just contained and challenged. But it's still MMQBing to say that Rush would have fared any better - I'm torn on that, but I definitely see where you're coming from. Jack was getting shot over all night. Might as well give the kid a chance at some point.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 01:49 AM
You are way off track here. Your argument is tangential to the one I am trying to convey. I am not talking about Rush getting 30 minutes a game, that is another discussion. I am talking about giving your team its best chance to win the game. You know the ball is going to Kobe, you want to put your best defender on him. In no way, shape or form does letting Rush enter the game for this possession give him any sense on entitlement. You are jumping out to a unprovable assumption about how Rush would process this situation in his mind. The fact of the matter is the coach has a responsibility, to use the players he is given in the best manner conducive to winning the basketball game. Rush should have been on Kobe. I won't address the "baiting the rookie," again its just another assumption that has no basis.

MiaDragon
01-10-2009, 01:53 AM
You mean giving a guy a sense of entitlement so that he thinks he's too good to have to work for anything?

Wasn't that our problem with Tinsley, Jackson, and Harrington?

And Kobe would have baited Rush into one of those "another lesson you lesson as a NBA rookie" moments.

please show me where the hell you're getting this?!?

Shade
01-10-2009, 01:57 AM
You are way off track here. Your argument is tangential to the one I am trying to convey. I am not talking about Rush getting 30 minutes a game, that is another discussion. I am talking about giving your team its best chance to win the game. You know the ball is going to Kobe, you want to put your best defender on him. In no way, shape or form does letting Rush enter the game for this possession give him any sense on entitlement. You are jumping out to a unprovable assumption about how Rush would process this situation in his mind. The fact of the matter is the coach has a responsibility, to use the players he is given in the best manner conducive to winning the basketball game. Rush should have been on Kobe. I won't address the "baiting the rookie," again its just another assumption that has no basis.

Here are two facts about the NBA:

- Superstar calls exist.
- Rookie calls exist.

So, the solution is to put a rookie on a superstar? That's called suicide.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 02:01 AM
That's an incredibly weak argument for this particular situation. While it is true that rookies are not given the benefit of the doubt for quite some time, refs are and always will be much more inclined to hesitate on calling a foul for the last play of the game. You are not asking Rush to get the steal, or the block, where aggression is needed and the chance for a foul increases drastically. What you are looking for is someone with length to contest the inevitable jumper you know is coming.

Shade
01-10-2009, 02:04 AM
Yet, I've seen it happen time and again.

It's Kobe freaking Bryant. If the game is on the line and a rookie is on him, he's going to get the call.

I agree with you 100% that Jack should not have been on him (was screaming that all game long, actually), but Rush would have been a foul magnet. I'd have gone with Graham and hoped for the best.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 02:09 AM
Being the last play of the game is more or less semantical at this point, it was most likely the Laker's last possession and time was running off the clock. A foul call would have required contact, something that wasn't needed. The quick whistle on Granger was because of contact, all you want is someone who can stick with Kobe and the length to best contest the shot. If this only decreases his chance of making that shot 1% then it is the correct choice. If it was made or missed a time out was going to be called, and Rush could have been taken out.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 02:15 AM
please show me where the hell you're getting this?!?

you know who Mike Tyson is?

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 02:19 AM
please show me where the hell you're getting this?!?

I'm not saying that Rush has a sense of entitlement or doesn't have talent. If you give him something he doesn't deserve... that leads to entitlement and hurts your team by saying, sorry Stephen, you're a better player now and we appreciate your hard work, but we're playing the rookie who hasn't figured things out in practice or games, but we're sure he'll do it against Kobe.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 02:26 AM
I'm not saying that Rush has a sense of entitlement or doesn't have talent. If you give him something he doesn't deserve... that leads to entitlement and hurts your team by saying, sorry Stephen, you're a better player now and we appreciate your hard work, but we're playing the rookie who hasn't figured things out in practice or games, but we're sure he'll do it against Kobe.

I understand your sentiment, but I definitely disagree. I don't believe being asked to use your strength of defending to help your team win leads to a sense of entitlement. If anything it would give him confidence, knowing that he can help the team win. I won't pretend to know what the players are thinking, but I sincerely doubt Graham would be sitting there saying I should be out there guarding Kobe, I've played way better than Rush has. I think he would understand that Rush has defensive skills and O'Brien is using his best judgment for the team. And a well run team will not question the coach's decisions.
I think your argument is best fit for whether or not Rush should be playing 30 minutes a game because he has a higher ceiling, or in other words having more potential and favor as a high 1st round draft pick and as such playing over Graham. However, I still don't believe this would lead to entitlement, but it most definitely could.

Trader Joe
01-10-2009, 03:12 AM
Playing Graham over Rush right now is merely cutting off your nose to spite you face, IMO.

MiaDragon
01-10-2009, 03:57 AM
Playing Graham over Rush right now is merely cutting off your nose to spite you face, IMO.

Graham couldn’t sniff the floor last year but NOW its time to see what he has, I dont get it....

imawhat
01-10-2009, 04:03 AM
It has less to do with Graham and more to do with Rush. Brandon looks like he's a hit a wall.

Graham has played well the past two games though. His defense on Kobe tonight wasn't as bad as I'd expected.

Quis
01-10-2009, 05:18 AM
Rush wasn't even that good in college, 13/5/2 on 43% shooting. I'm not sure why anyone thought such mediocre college production would translate to anything worth a damn in the
NBA. He was a bottom-third of the first round talent, just like the mock drafts had him.

xtacy
01-10-2009, 05:55 AM
Not til he proves that he's better than Graham does Rush have a chance of seeing the floor...

Has to earn it.

Then he knows he deserves it and can play like it.


LMAO

why?

rush has more potential but he hasn't done anything to prove it. i mean he is now in the nba. i can understand he would struggle about quickness or mental strenght but i don't understand him not being able to shoot the ball. did he forget how to shoot?

tfarks
01-10-2009, 01:06 PM
Rush wasn't even that good in college, 13/5/2 on 43% shooting. I'm not sure why anyone thought such mediocre college production would translate to anything worth a damn in the
NBA. He was a bottom-third of the first round talent, just like the mock drafts had him.

You are being way too axiomatic with that line of thought. Projecting a player goes way beyond stats. Athleticism and how they will translate to the NBA game is more complex then looking at their collegiate stat sheet. If it was so easy, mock drafts would be filled with stat sheet stuffers and the draft selections would follow as such.

QuickRelease
01-10-2009, 01:28 PM
You mean giving a guy a sense of entitlement so that he thinks he's too good to have to work for anything?

Wasn't that our problem with Tinsley, Jackson, and Harrington?

And Kobe would have baited Rush into one of those "another lesson you lesson as a NBA rookie" moments.

I don't agree with this as it pertains to Jackson. Of all the things you could say about Jax, I don't think his issues centered on entitlement.

Anthem
01-10-2009, 01:33 PM
Playing Graham over Rush right now is merely cutting off your nose to spite you face, IMO.
In the long term, maybe. But Graham gave you far more than Rush would have last night. I like Graham, even though he's raw, and I think he could become a good backup for us. His play has improved by leaps and bounds since he's actually been on the floor.

Quis
01-10-2009, 01:46 PM
You are being way too axiomatic with that line of thought. Projecting a player goes way beyond stats. Athleticism and how they will translate to the NBA game is more complex then looking at their collegiate stat sheet. If it was so easy, mock drafts would be filled with stat sheet stuffers and the draft selections would follow as such.

Yes, players who put up great numbers in college wont necessarily have the tools to do the same in the NBA. But that's now what we're talking about here.We're talking about a player who wasn't that productive in college. Why would someone who wasn't that productive in college translate to being anything better than "not that productive" in the NBA? We're not talking about a fresh-out-of-high school raw product. Brandon Rush was allegedly one of the most NBA-ready players in the draft and has been given ample opportunity to prove himself through the first 30 games and preseason. Thus far he's been a huge disappointment.

MiaDragon
01-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Rush wasn't even that good in college, 13/5/2 on 43% shooting. I'm not sure why anyone thought such mediocre college production would translate to anything worth a damn in the
NBA. He was a bottom-third of the first round talent, just like the mock drafts had him.

IIRC I remember seeing several mocks projecting him to go late in the lottery. Could it be he is still getting over his ACL tear?

All Im saying is while suffering through this "rebuilding year" why not let the young guys go through the growing pains now and not later?

tfarks
01-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Yes, players who put up great numbers in college wont necessarily have the tools to do the same in the NBA. But that's now what we're talking about here.We're talking about a player who wasn't that productive in college. Why would someone who wasn't that productive in college translate to being anything better than "not that productive" in the NBA? We're not talking about a fresh-out-of-high school raw product. Brandon Rush was allegedly one of the most NBA-ready players in the draft and has been given ample opportunity to prove himself through the first 30 games and preseason. Thus far he's been a huge disappointment.

Sporadic playing time through 30 games is not a sufficient sample size. NBA-Ready is a far too arbitrary for me to analyze, I believe its unfair to look at a player's production in a negative light because he was supposedly ready to make a quicker transition than others. What we are looking at is someone who is still quite raw, even with ample collegiate games. He is in the process of making the most difficult transition one can make. Whether or not the management is where it should be is another argument, but their choice was Brandon Rush. The Pacers will not make the playoffs, and for lack of a better expression, you have to see the forest through the trees. Sure, Graham can give you more productive minutes right now, and he has value off the bench in the future. But Rush is a potential starter, someone who has been deemed by the Pacers' franchise to one day be the starting shooting guard. Jerking his minutes around is a questionable way to get him to that point. The best way to analyze your draft choice is to play him. If his playing time doesn't deviate from what we have seen so far, there are more question marks going into next season. If you give him a lot of minutes, you are much further down the line with understanding how he will perform next year.
It's understandable to want the player performing better in the game, but the only way to truly rebuild your team is to give your rookie's minutes and let them learn from their mistakes. I think O'Brien will do this, my main detraction is from what seems to be the consensus on this board, that Rush is a failure, and his high pick was not warranted. There is absolutely nothing substantial to that evaluation.

Mr. Sobchak
01-10-2009, 03:28 PM
Rush wasn't even that good in college, 13/5/2 on 43% shooting. I'm not sure why anyone thought such mediocre college production would translate to anything worth a damn in the
NBA. He was a bottom-third of the first round talent, just like the mock drafts had him.


There's something to be said about being the best player on a national championship team. Rush was the consumate team player during his senior season, often sacrificing his own stats for the good of the team.

Rush clearly has the physical tools to be successful and has looked more agressive in his short tenure with Pacers than he ever did at Kansas. Once his shot starts falling he's gonna be a damn fine player. I've said it over and over again- great shooters (which Rush was in college) don't suddenly lose their shot. He is clearly in a slump.

Naptown_Seth
01-10-2009, 03:39 PM
Don't laugh. Clearly, Rush has more potential than Graham (and probably more talent right now as well) but he's just not putting it together on the floor the way you'd want him too. I'd much rather see Rush than Graham right now, just because I think Rush has more room to improve, but he's not wrong. Graham is outplaying Rush in the minutes he gets.
Not on defense.

Rush is struggling with his shot and doesn't always maintain his confidence when things go south, but I still greatly prefer his one on one defensive skills.


The bigger problem is this though - with no TJ Ford how do you spend a significant number of minutes with Jack at SG???? Seriously. WTF aren't you putting Rush on Kobe instead of flipping Jarrett Jack?

Dumbfounding to say the least.


As for "then he's earned it", screw that. At some point JOB has decided to commit to Roy and it's starting to show. Roy is learning to do a few things well while still stinking it up in other ways. Who cares, you gotta learn some time and I'd just as soon have that happen now vs later.

But then it's the same thing with McRoberts. Every time he comes in he makes a huge block, rebound, pass, score, whatever it takes. Yes he gets some fouls and yes he's a little overall wild in his play, but not so much to come close to off-setting his physical positive impact for the Pacers.

And yet off he goes to the bench most nights too, I guess to "earn it".


There is no good reason that between Roy, Rasho, Troy, Jeff and McBob playing the 4-5 that you can't be finding 15 for Roy AND 6-10 for McBob from the 96 total. That's still giving you 70-75 minutes to split among 3 vets, 2 of whom definitely need to have low minutes nights from time to time (Jeff/Rasho) just to keep healthy. For the math challenged that still 30 for Troy and 20 each for the other 2 on average.


But of course when you push small to a ridiculous degree even when 2 of your smalls are out (Ford, Daniels) then you are cutting out those minutes from the bigs.

It would be different if Rasho and Troy were out and TJ/Quis were in and you were compenstating by going small. And I don't buy the speed/athletic thing either since McBob gets up and down as well as anyone on the team.


I like Jack, I really do. But damn he is struggling, especially at the 2 spot and you've got other talent you can lean on right now. I have no problem that Graham is getting minutes ahead of Rush, but I do hate shortening up the PG spot to take time from Rush.

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2009, 03:45 PM
Not til he proves that he's better than Graham does Rush have a chance of seeing the floor...

Has to earn it.

Then he knows he deserves it and can play like it.

If you really had to earn playing time McRoberts would not be getting DNPs while Rasho and Foster play tons of minutes.

Naptown_Seth
01-10-2009, 03:46 PM
You know another guy I wouldn't want touching the ball - GRANGER. I mean the dude sucked from deep his rookie year so clearly he needed bench time in year 2 to learn how to "earn it".

But then they just made him a starter and his prima donna attitude has carried on while his shooting has only got worse.




Oh wait, you mean we aren't going to debate in fantasyland? Seemed like that was the direction this whole "what has Rush done" or "look at his college stats" was taking.

Rooks DEVELOP. Cripes, Graham damn sure should be ahead of Rush right now, he's had the experience to be there. IMO the issue is with people who totally misread Rush's college game or didn't watch him play. He made guys like Arthur and Chalmers better, he was the best help defender KS had, and he had the best awareness factor on the court.

He's learning NBA moves and NBA systems right now and 100% identical to Granger's early career he's overthinking because that's the type of player he is. Frankly so is Roy. That's why I like them both so much because like Danny we can expect more growth than the average player shows because they are smart enough to continue learning for many years after entering the league.

Sorry they aren't stars now, but neither was Danny his first season. DG hasn't just gotten better, he's also improved RELATIVE TO HIS OWN DRAFT CLASS. Think about that, he's kept moving up while other guys plateaued or dropped off. That's the way we should be looking at Rush and Roy.

And PT along the way shouldn't hurt them any more than it did Granger.

imawhat
01-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Not on defense.

Rush is struggling with his shot and doesn't always maintain his confidence when things go south, but I still greatly prefer his one on one defensive skills.


The bigger problem is this though - with no TJ Ford how do you spend a significant number of minutes with Jack at SG???? Seriously. WTF aren't you putting Rush on Kobe instead of flipping Jarrett Jack?

Dumbfounding to say the least.


Kobe owned Rush. I'm probably the second biggest Rush supporter on this board, but Brandon had no place on the floor against Kobe.


I know the circumstances are different, but Rush's regression reminds me a lot of what happened to Shawne Williams last year. He was playing reasonably well and got benched for reasons I still don't understand. And while I fully expect Brandon to respond well (Shawne never did), his poor play has actually gotten to a point where it's more valuable to have Stephen Graham on the floor, even defensively.

I've seen a lot of players recently get very physical when Rush is guarding them. He seems to be intimidated, and I think O'Brien said something to the effect of Rush needed to use his size and strength to become a more consistent physical defender.

Trader Joe
01-10-2009, 05:41 PM
We spent a number 11 pick (essentially) on Brandon Rush. You have to let rookies develop. Graham has very little value to this franchise, and is easily replaceable. If you don't intend to develop Rush then you wasted a draft pick plain and simple. Rookies struggle, they learn to get better by playing through it.

Also what has Rush ever done to show us he will develop some sense of entitlement?

If the Pacers were battling for a top 4 playoff spot, and you truly think that Graham gives you the better chance to win then yeah go with that. However, that is simply not the case. This is a borderline playoff team at best.
We can replace Stephen Graham, easily. He doesn't do anything particularly well, and just about every team in the NBA has a player like him. That's not to say Rush is some sort of prodigy, but we did use a lottery pick to get him, and just that means he should be getting Graham's PT. If Rush never works out, we can go get another Graham.

Naptown_Seth
01-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Kobe owned Rush. I'm probably the second biggest Rush supporter on this board, but Brandon had no place on the floor against Kobe.
If Jack or Graham had even a modicum of success in his place I could agree with your point, but as Quinn even pointed out all Kobe had to do on Jack was dribble to the lane and shoot right over him, rinse repeat.

So at that point why not at least let Rush have the run at him if all 3 guys are going to do jack squat in that role. Plus if we are talking about Rush's shooting and then having Jack play SG...um, yikes. Oh-fer was the theme of the night for JJ.

The only thing Graham was able to do was come down and score back against Kobe, which at some point got Kobe ticked off and going at him harder.

The main debate IMO is Jack vs Rush because bottom line that's the choice that was being made last night and I didn't see anything that made me feel Jack vs Kobe was working in any possible way. That was a pretty bad situation for the Pacers all night.


I will defend Graham on one thing, he does do something extremely well and that's leaping at the rim. The dude is an awesome dunker, very explosive and he can make even good defenders come up cold if they let him get in that range. He's also got at times a really nice jumper. He has value and makes a nice bench piece, someone that can come in and solve a specific problem (offense going to the rim).

I don't dislike him anymore than I disliked John Long for playing ahead of Reggie Miller in his first season. But you still got Reggie in the game.

Anthem
01-10-2009, 08:24 PM
Graham has very little value to this franchise, and is easily replaceable.
Look, Graham's getting his PT at SF. Rush isn't losing minutes to Graham, he's losing them to Jack. So these Rush/Graham comparisons are silly.

That said, anybody who want to play for the Pacers and is a developing talent has value to the franchise. As Nap said, Graham could develop into a very nice bench player. I'm certainly in no hurry to get rid of him, and I don't begrudge him the minutes he's gotten.

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2009, 08:37 PM
All the minutes that Foster and Rasho are playing is what irks me the most.

tfarks
01-11-2009, 12:40 AM
MPG wise, Foster is getting 25, Rasho 22, and Hibbert 13. Jack is at 30, Daniels 33, and Rush at 23. The Pacers have the 2nd worse record in the East, only ahead of Washington, with a .361 winning percentage. They will not make the playoffs. This team is rebuilding and needs to act accordingly. Rush and Hibbert especially need to see their minutes increased. Its nice to see the team win, but in the long run getting these two players more minutes will assure a brighter future for this franchise. Rasho is gone at the end of the season, Daniels and Jack may be as well. These three logging a lot of minutes is not an optimal situation. The team is trying to eek out wins to appease themselves and the fan base. I personally would like to see the young guys given larger roles. It hurts to see the Pacers lose, and you have to play every game to win, but I think O'Brien can get this done while setting the Pacers up for next season, where they will have a better chance at being a factor in the playoff race. And when the Pacers have their lottery pick, the same situation will rear its head next year.
If O'Brien is a worthwhile coach, he can incorporate more minutes for the rookies while still putting the Pacers in a position to win games.

Big Smooth
01-11-2009, 02:16 AM
Rush was a better choice than Jack because at the very least, Rush has the length to contest/bother Kobe's shot. Maybe Kobe baits him into a foul.......okay.......how is that worse than letting Kobe shoot what amounts to an uncontested jumper over Jack? For Jack to be asked to guard Kobe one-on-one with no help with the game on the line.....wow.

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2009, 02:35 AM
Graham couldn’t sniff the floor last year but NOW its time to see what he has, I dont get it....

Its very simple, Rush is underperforming and Graham is more productive on the floor. Rush is more talented and has more potential, but is not putting it together at this time. He is not benched, however, and is still getting out there for 10 minutes or so every game. The fact of the matter is we have a better chance of winning with Graham out there more than rush... right now...

Rush will play more minutes when he shows that he deserves them. It is as simple as that. Throwing rush out there over graham to get minutes he doesn't deserve hurts the team concept and chemistry. Stephan is earning his minutes, he deserves them at the present time. I don't understand the complaining, Graham has played well.

as for the other issue, I hope rush is the defensive guy in a season or two... but putting a rookie on kobe is an automatic foul. Late in the game or not.

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2009, 02:41 AM
Rush was a better choice than Jack because at the very least, Rush has the length to contest/bother Kobe's shot. Maybe Kobe baits him into a foul.......okay.......how is that worse than letting Kobe shoot what amounts to an uncontested jumper over Jack? For Jack to be asked to guard Kobe one-on-one with no help with the game on the line.....wow.

Jack did a pretty decent job contesting that shot, and Kobe hits that exact shot on, well, everyone. It doesn't really matter whos gaurding him. I don't think this arguement holds any water. You always want him shooting that shot over putting him on the line. better than uncontested free throws that he hits at like a 90% rate.

Kemo
01-11-2009, 03:11 AM
I posted the following in another thread, but got no response... I figure it is best copied and pasted into this thread, since the focus in here in on Brandon Rush...


.
.
.



Here is my analysis of Brandon ..


.
.
.
.



I feel that Brandon himself, set expectations for himself way too high before even stepping foot on the floor at Conseco Fieldhouse..

Remember after we drafted him, and in an interview, when he said he wanted to be the next Reggie Miller for us ?
Don't get me wrong I think it is admirable, that he aspires to raise his game to Reggie level.. I don't fault him whatsoever for it... But I think by saying that, in a way , he psyched himself out, and put enormous expectations on his shoulders... I think THIS is one of the factors in why it is taking him longer to adjust to the NBA game , and the reason why he over-thinks things ...

I have no doubt , that Brandon will "one day" be a very good player..
But I really think that he initially set the bar so high on himself, that he didn't realize the time it will take him, and the speed and adjustments he is gonna have to make in the NBA setting.. In turn , he overanalyzes his game on the floor, and thinks too much , instead of just playing the game like he KNOWS how, and using his instincts....

I have all the faith in the world he WILL learn and surpass all our expectations of him...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2009, 03:23 AM
I think Rush is going to be a very solid player for us and hopefully a very good man defender we can use to gaurd other team's stars. People calling him a bust at this point are grossly premature. He has already shown all the positive things he can do out there, but without any consistency whatsoever. Its a rookie thing...

As far as wing rotations go, I think Granger is our Reggie, Mike is our Jalen Rose, and I am hoping Rush becomes our Derrick Mckey. I will be pretty happy with that for years to come.

Quis
01-11-2009, 04:31 AM
I'll stop saying Brandon Rush is a disappointment when Brandon Rush stops being a disappointment. I think certain posters just need to accept the fact that they're poor talent evaluators and stop making excuses. Yes, Granger wasn't that hot through his first 30 games. But Granger's improvement is the exception, not the rule. For every disappointing rookie that went on to become anywhere near Granger's level there's 10 who went on to become NBA rejects.

I want Rush to succeed, I'd like to see the Pacers become relevant again sometime in the next decade, but I'm not optimistic at this point.

count55
01-11-2009, 08:27 AM
I'll stop saying Brandon Rush is a disappointment when Brandon Rush stops being a disappointment. I think certain posters just need to accept the fact that they're poor talent evaluators and stop making excuses. Yes, Granger wasn't that hot through his first 30 games. But Granger's improvement is the exception, not the rule. For every disappointing rookie that went on to become anywhere near Granger's level there's 10 who went on to become NBA rejects.

I want Rush to succeed, I'd like to see the Pacers become relevant again sometime in the next decade, but I'm not optimistic at this point.

Careful, now...Your Kofi is showing.

tfarks
01-11-2009, 01:03 PM
I'll stop saying Brandon Rush is a disappointment when Brandon Rush stops being a disappointment. I think certain posters just need to accept the fact that they're poor talent evaluators and stop making excuses. Yes, Granger wasn't that hot through his first 30 games. But Granger's improvement is the exception, not the rule. For every disappointing rookie that went on to become anywhere near Granger's level there's 10 who went on to become NBA rejects.

I want Rush to succeed, I'd like to see the Pacers become relevant again sometime in the next decade, but I'm not optimistic at this point.

And I think a certain poster needs to accept the fact that 30 games is not an infallible sample size where one can accurately derive a player's future. If you go through the league and tell me every player who will fail and succeed based on 30-40 games and that prediction bears out, then I will stop making excuses.

A-Train
01-11-2009, 01:23 PM
It hurts to see the Pacers lose, and you have to play every game to win, but I think O'Brien can get this done while setting the Pacers up for next season, where they will have a better chance at being a factor in the playoff race. And when the Pacers have their lottery pick, the same situation will rear its head next year.
If O'Brien is a worthwhile coach, he can incorporate more minutes for the rookies while still putting the Pacers in a position to win games.

Amen. Get the young guys their experience this year while we have no chance of making the playoffs, get a lottery pick, then make the push NEXT year to make noise in the post-season.