PDA

View Full Version : Postgame pacers vs raptors



pianoman
01-16-2009, 10:40 PM
THat was an ugly game reminiscent of the sixers game. danny was bad in the 4th for some reason. It was a good team effort. WIN STREAK!!:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

PaceBalls
01-16-2009, 10:42 PM
It sure is nice having a guy like JJ who can knock down 6 straight FTs without ever having a doubt. We have missed that the last few years.

vnzla81
01-16-2009, 10:42 PM
good game for the pacers to win, it was boring.............

jhondog28
01-16-2009, 10:42 PM
Dunleavy's smarts won this game. You can see the veteran leadership this team desperately needs.

WInslow22
01-16-2009, 10:43 PM
It's a darn good thing that we traded Jermaine. What did he have like two points in 23 minutes?????

pianoman
01-16-2009, 10:44 PM
Now everybody is beginning to see what we were missing with dunleavy out

crunk-juice
01-16-2009, 10:48 PM
Jack is the guy i want shooting FT in the clutch every time.

i was going to be furious but they got the win.. can't be too angry.

NapTonius Monk
01-16-2009, 10:50 PM
It's a darn good thing that we traded Jermaine. What did he have like two points in 23 minutes?????

This was like his 1st game back from injury.

crunk-juice
01-16-2009, 10:50 PM
This was like his 1st game back from injury.

i think that helps his point :)

jhondog28
01-16-2009, 10:55 PM
Ok the issue with the Pacers is that their offense is built around the princeton offense which consists of movement and cutting and passing. When they turn into a dribble and shoot team they suck badly. That was brutal to watch in the 4th

Justin Tyme
01-16-2009, 10:55 PM
Where's all the Jack haters?

Dr. Hibbert
01-16-2009, 11:00 PM
I was very impressed with Jack tonight. Much more controlled than we're used to seeing. He was really an asset tonight.

Rough night for the young'ns though: no Hibby, BRush was invisible and McRoberts may as well have been.

Bball
01-16-2009, 11:00 PM
Random thoughts:

After saying on his radio show that we'd be tightening the rotation, OBrien played all 12 active players tonight. Huh?

Quinn talked about the young guys causing the team to lose it's rhythm but to my eyes it wasn't that at all. McRoberts kinda got a raw deal with a couple of calls and that did allow Toronto to close... But I think the lineup OBrien was trying to close with was questionable. I said today that Foster is a situational player... Well today was one of those situations where he was very effective. But he got glued to the bench in the 4th. TJ Ford has a knack for making some tough baskets and Jarret Jack has a knack for overdribbling and missing those same type of shots. So TJ stays glued to the bench for much of the Toronto comeback. Then when TJ does come back, Jack stays in the game.

Granger appeared to overreact on what got him the technical unless that had been building for a while. In either case, the T and the 4 fouls got him on the bench where he cooled considerably. IMHO, a cold Danny trying to force some things was a significant factor in Toronto coming back. I have no idea why OBrien didn't see this and try and settle Danny down. I was hoping to see the team to run a play getting Granger going to the basket where he could get fouled and get in rhythm at the FT line or get an easy backet for his rhythm. No idea why OBrien didn't do that, or if he did, what happened to blow it up (if I was guessing I'd say it was because Jarret Jack blew something up by overdribbling).

ONeal was a factor in this game... A positive factor for the Pacers! :devil: He might've done more to help the Pacers secure a win in his play tonight than he did in much of his play when he wore a Pacers uni. Ouch... that was harsh! ;)
Seriously, ONeal didn't scare anyone tonight.

Not sure why Graham disappeared to the bench. Wasn't he part of the period where we were pulling away?

Nice seeing Jack hit FT after FT to secure the game.

-Bball

Unclebuck
01-16-2009, 11:05 PM
I'm going to post something that is totally unfair, but Josh McRoberts really killed our momentum, his fouls, his bad shots his T, it slowed the game down, gave the Raptors a lot of free throws, and IMO started the comeback for the Raps.

Danny needs to go to the basket when he can hit a shot, draw a foul, create something for a teammate - he was frustating in the 4th quarter.

oh well, decent win tonight - really a must win

Justin Tyme
01-16-2009, 11:06 PM
Ist thing I noticed about Hibbert tonight was he was supporting a sweat band. I don't recall seeiong it b4. Was it the 1st time?

Unclebuck
01-16-2009, 11:08 PM
Random thoughts:

After saying on his radio show that we'd be tightening the rotation, OBrien played all 12 active players tonight. Huh?

Quinn talked about the young guys causing the team to lose it's rhythm but to my eyes it wasn't that at all. McRoberts kinda got a raw deal with a couple of calls and that did allow Toronto to close... But I think the lineup OBrien was trying to close with was questionable. I said today that Foster is a situational player... Well today was one of those situations where he was very effective. But he got glued to the bench in the 4th. TJ Ford has a knack for making some tough baskets and Jarret Jack has a knack for overdribbling and missing those same type of shots. So TJ stays glued to the bench for much of the Toronto comeback. Then when TJ does come back, Jack stays in the game.

Granger appeared to overreact on what got him the technical unless that had been building for a while. In either case, the T and the 4 fouls got him on the bench where he cooled considerably. IMHO, a cold Danny trying to force some things was a significant factor in Toronto coming back. I have no idea why OBrien didn't see this and try and settle Danny down. I was hoping to see the team to run a play getting Granger going to the basket where he could get fouled and get in rhythm at the FT line or get an easy backet for his rhythm. No idea why OBrien didn't do that, or if he did, what happened to blow it up (if I was guessing I'd say it was because Jarret Jack blew something up by overdribbling).

-Bball

Foster played almost the whole 4th quarter, he was taken out for a few offensive possessions very late in the game. JOB had no choice but to play a lot of guys as Danny and jeff got into foul trouble - and Mike still can't play huge minutes

Bball
01-16-2009, 11:09 PM
I thought we recovered from the McRoberts' stuff and pulled away again to our largest lead after that. I thought a couple of the calls were questionable and I still don't know why he got a "T". But in any case, I thought the 'pain' from that we easily surmounted and pulled away again. Am I wrong?

I know Josh did come back in, but he only had 1 foul left, quickly got it, and was gone. Not sure how that really hurt us at that point.

Bball
01-16-2009, 11:10 PM
Foster played almost the whole 4th quarter, he was taken out for a few offensive possessions very late in the game. JOB had no choice but to play a lot of guys as Danny and jeff got into foul trouble - and Mike still can't play huge minutes

I didn't notice when he went out, I just know I was looking for him and he was on the bench (Foster).

-Bball

LoneGranger33
01-16-2009, 11:11 PM
As I always say, don't get too high after a win and...no, that's it.

Justin Tyme
01-16-2009, 11:12 PM
I'm going to post something that is totally unfair, but Josh McRoberts really killed our momentum, his fouls, his bad shots his T, it slowed the game down, gave the Raptors a lot of free throws, and IMO started the comeback for the Raps.

Danny needs to go to the basket when he can hit a shot, draw a foul, create something for a teammate - he was frustating in the 4th quarter.

oh well, decent win tonight - really a must win



I'll have to agree McBob was terrible tonight. Granger didn't help by missing 16 shots either, a great many in the 4th qtr.

tonythetiger
01-16-2009, 11:25 PM
I said today that Foster is a situational player... Well today was one of those situations where he was very effective. But he got glued to the bench in the 4th...

I am a little confused by this statement. Foster played almost the entire fourth quarter- from the start of it until 1:30 was left in the game.


ONeal was a factor in this game... A positive factor for the Pacers! :devil: He might've done more to help the Pacers secure a win in his play tonight than he did in much of his play when he wore a Pacers uni. Ouch... that was harsh! ;)
Seriously, ONeal didn't scare anyone tonight.


Rasho knows how to defend Jermaine O'Neal.

Roaming Gnome
01-16-2009, 11:31 PM
TonyTheTiger... I love your name and avatar combination! "They're Great!!!"

Bball
01-16-2009, 11:36 PM
I am a little confused by this statement. Foster played almost the entire fourth quarter- from the start of it until 1:30 was left in the game.





Maybe I should go back to Foster hating then...

I didn't like the Ford, Jack lineup and when I started thinking about who was gone to make room for Ford, Jack, Danny, Dunleavy it seemed it was Foster.

Shade
01-16-2009, 11:42 PM
I can't believe we almost choked that one away. I was afraid I was going to have to ban everyone on the forum tonight, had we lost that one.

beast23
01-16-2009, 11:50 PM
ONeal was a factor in this game... A positive factor for the Pacers! :devil: He might've done more to help the Pacers secure a win in his play tonight than he did in much of his play when he wore a Pacers uni. Ouch... that was harsh! ;)
Seriously, ONeal didn't scare anyone tonight.

-Bball

Did you just say that?

Only one game... and yes, I know that JO is just returning from injury. I was pleased when the trade was made, I've been pleased ever since, and I will be pleased in the future. Tonight just reinforced that for me.
:dance:

Unclebuck
01-16-2009, 11:55 PM
Did you notice how Jeff was upset when he was taken out with JO came into the game - I think he was looking forward to battling with JO. Rasho did a great job on JO though

Bball
01-16-2009, 11:59 PM
I wonder what Foster said to JO as they stood together at the FT lane. Quinn commented that Jeff shouldn't be doing that (talking)... Had Quinn not said anything I would've assumed it was something one step more indepth than "the weather is cold".

Shade
01-17-2009, 12:12 AM
The best part of the game was the Raptors fan section. Chants of "Let's go, Raptors!" faded until the 4th quarter, and were replaced with chants of "Let's go, Pacers!" once the game was decided. :laugh:

pianoman
01-17-2009, 12:37 AM
interesting stat: There were no blocks for either team tonight

Doddage
01-17-2009, 12:39 AM
I can't believe we almost choked that one away. I was afraid I was going to have to ban everyone on the forum tonight, had we lost that one.
:laugh:

Bball
01-17-2009, 12:39 AM
I thought Rasho got a block?

Did I actually watch this game or sleep thru it and dream up my own version of it?

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 12:48 AM
If JO was a steak, there would be no pink in the middle. Let's just say the dude is well done....and so was the trade.

As for McRoberts stinking it up, it was painfully obvious he was trying too hard. That tends to happen even more often when a player only gets a couple minutes of garbage time a week.

Rush probably looked more foolish when he went something like 1-17. Hibbert has had his moments of committing a bunch of fouls in a short period of time....and he's looked like a sloth out there at times.

Yes, McRoberts looks like a wild animal out there at the moment, but that's only a sign of an effort player who lacks experience...not a bad player who cannot help a team.

Suaveness
01-17-2009, 01:01 AM
I thought Rasho got a block?

Did I actually watch this game or sleep thru it and dream up my own version of it?

It was the latter. JO played 40 minutes and did a tap dance at halftime.

cinotimz
01-17-2009, 01:44 AM
24 point lead with 12 minutes to go. Only way you give the other team any chance whatsoever, is to be unable to defend. It seems that this team really really struggles to get stops if other teams are focused on scoring.

Push comes to shove, when the other team needs to get a bucket and we need to prevent one, am I the only one that feels like the other team prevails at something like a rate of 9 out of 10? :cry:

MrSparko
01-17-2009, 01:49 AM
McRoberts was a maroon out there tonight.

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 01:53 AM
24 point lead with 12 minutes to go. Only way you give the other team any chance whatsoever, is to be unable to defend. It seems that this team really really struggles to get stops if other teams are focused on scoring.

Push comes to shove, when the other team needs to get a bucket and we need to prevent one, am I the only one that feels like the other team prevails at something like a rate of 9 out of 10? :cry:

You are not alone.

Defense is not something we should think about. It's pointless. Instead, focus on how savvy Mike Dunleavy can be on offense. That's the only way we will win games with this style...unless we are facing teams who are struggling.

Oh, and Mike Dunleavy is the reason we won this game...and it wasn't just the play at the end of the game. He is also this team's only hope of squeeking into the playoffs...and that route will not be via defense.

deekay85
01-17-2009, 05:53 AM
Nice win. Ugly 4 quarter. JO on one leg 7 rebounds and 2 points.
Danny shoots little bit too much. In the last to just 31% form the field. But his drive against bosh was outstanding! good job!

Justin Tyme
01-17-2009, 06:43 AM
Defense got the Pacers the win tonight.

111 point JO'B style defense.

Justin Tyme
01-17-2009, 06:48 AM
I can't believe we almost choked that one away. I was afraid I was going to have to ban everyone on the forum tonight, had we lost that one.


I'm beginning to firmly believe it doesn't matter what happens in the 1st 43 minutes of a game, just watch the last 5 minutes to see if the Pacers can win it or blow it.

indygeezer
01-17-2009, 08:28 AM
I'm beginning to firmly believe it doesn't matter what happens in the 1st 43 minutes of a game, just watch the last 5 minutes to see if the Pacers can win it or blow it.

This is basically true of every basketball game.


I would like to point out too that every game seems to be JO's first game back from an injury.

Unclebuck
01-17-2009, 10:18 AM
I'm beginning to firmly believe it doesn't matter what happens in the 1st 43 minutes of a game, just watch the last 5 minutes to see if the Pacers can win it or blow it.

I saw a stat earlier this season that flies in the face of that theory. It is something like 78% of the teams that win the first quarter win the game, and the team that leads at halftime wins 75% and the team that leads going into the fourth quarter wins at 95% rate.

So actually the first qy=uarter is important

WInslow22
01-17-2009, 10:21 AM
24 point lead with 12 minutes to go. Only way you give the other team any chance whatsoever, is to be unable to defend. It seems that this team really really struggles to get stops if other teams are focused on scoring.

Push comes to shove, when the other team needs to get a bucket and we need to prevent one, am I the only one that feels like the other team prevails at something like a rate of 9 out of 10? :cry:

We just don't have anyone that can defend the interior against a dominant big like Bosh. He got anything he wanted in the fourth quarter. I'm a thinking once we get (if we get) a solid post defender that can at least consistently hinder opposing dominant bigs, we will drastically improve. Am I oversimplifying things??????:D

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 10:35 AM
I saw a stat earlier this season that flies in the face of that theory. It is something like 78% of the teams that win the first quarter win the game, and the team that leads at halftime wins 75% and the team that leads going into the fourth quarter wins at 95% rate.

So actually the first qy=uarter is important

While I agree that theory doesn't apply generally, it applies to the Pacers this season. The reason? Most teams have a better defense and can make some stops.

The many comebacks, including the historic comeback run made by Philly earlier this year, are hard to ignore. Even a dog team like Toronto with a one-legged C made a run at us.

Fortunately Dunleavy is back. If Dunleavy had not been playing, this would have been another disappointing loss.

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 10:41 AM
We just don't have anyone that can defend the interior against a dominant big like Bosh. He got anything he wanted in the fourth quarter. I'm a thinking once we get (if we get) a solid post defender that can at least consistently hinder opposing dominant bigs, we will drastically improve. Am I oversimplifying things??????:D

No. The best solutions are usually pretty simple. ...but I would word it a little different though. We need a post defender who is mobile and can block shots. If we had a Rasheed Wallace or Dale Davis type player, this team would immediately be above .500 the rest of the way.

dryley
01-17-2009, 11:06 AM
I'm going to post something that is totally unfair, but Josh McRoberts really killed our momentum, his fouls, his bad shots his T, it slowed the game down, gave the Raptors a lot of free throws, and IMO started the comeback for the Raps.

Danny needs to go to the basket when he can hit a shot, draw a foul, create something for a teammate - he was frustating in the 4th quarter.

oh well, decent win tonight - really a must win

I'm one who's been wanting to see more McBob, but Wow...this is correct! As someone else said, he was a "maroon" out there.

Is any one else a little worried about Danny's "short fuse" lately? Sometimes it seems he's looking for a fight...

WInslow22
01-17-2009, 11:13 AM
No. The best solutions are usually pretty simple. ...but I would word it a little different though. We need a post defender who is mobile and can block shots. If we had a Rasheed Wallace or Dale Davis type player, this team would immediately be above .500 the rest of the way.

I firmly agree............

dryley
01-17-2009, 11:18 AM
Another odd thought: Why is it that McBob was allowed to self-destruct to his six fouls, but Hibbert is only allowed two or three?

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 11:27 AM
Another odd thought: Why is it that McBob was allowed to self-destruct to his six fouls, but Hibbert is only allowed two or three?

McBob supporter here...:blush:

I think McBob made most of his mistakes on defense and JOb didn't see them because he only watches one side of the floor...;)...thus Josh was not immediately yanked.

Yes, McBob looked terrible last night. But players that put forth maximum effort can have some pretty high highs and pretty low lows...particularly when they are inexperienced and rarely see the floor. All things considered, I don't think you can make any conclusions from a 5 minute period in one game.

Time will tell whether McBob can help a team. There's a reason he was kept over the well known Croshere...and it was all about potential.

tonythetiger
01-17-2009, 11:38 AM
interesting stat: There were no blocks for either team tonight

Pacers had 5 blocks: 2 each for Granger and Dunleavy; and yes, 1 for Rasho.

Will Galen
01-17-2009, 11:43 AM
interesting stat: There were no blocks for either team tonight

You read the post game box on Pacers.com didn't you? Well it's wrong, the Pacers had 5 blocks. Danny had 2, Dun had 2, and Rasho had 1.

EDIT, You beat me to it.


No. The best solutions are usually pretty simple. ...but I would word it a little different though. We need a post defender who is mobile and can block shots. If we had a Rasheed Wallace or Dale Davis type player, this team would immediately be above .500 the rest of the way.

I wish when we were discussing Tinsley to Denver earlier in the year we could have somehow gotten Camby. That would have been perfect!

jeffg-body
01-17-2009, 12:02 PM
If JO was a steak, there would be no pink in the middle. Let's just say the dude is well done....and so was the trade.

As for McRoberts stinking it up, it was painfully obvious he was trying too hard. That tends to happen even more often when a player only gets a couple minutes of garbage time a week.

Rush probably looked more foolish when he went something like 1-17. Hibbert has had his moments of committing a bunch of fouls in a short period of time....and he's looked like a sloth out there at times.

Yes, McRoberts looks like a wild animal out there at the moment, but that's only a sign of an effort player who lacks experience...not a bad player who cannot help a team.


I have to agree that McBob was just over-trying to get the most of the little time he was playing. Also a couple of those fouls were pretty ticky tack.

Brad8888
01-17-2009, 12:06 PM
As a McRoberts fan, I feel he had a very rough night. Officiating had something to do with it, but mostly it was his own doing. He seemed to be desperate to do something, ANYTHING, with what he assumed were going to be to be his few minutes on the floor and made many mistakes as a result. Yes, he disrupted our flow, but so did Danny's T to an extent. Thankfully Dunleavy had the professionalism and leadership to pull out the win by shifting our focus to drawing fouls and FT shooting.

Justin Tyme
01-17-2009, 12:15 PM
I saw a stat earlier this season that flies in the face of that theory. It is something like 78% of the teams that win the first quarter win the game, and the team that leads at halftime wins 75% and the team that leads going into the fourth quarter wins at 95% rate.

So actually the first qy=uarter is important


We are talking about the Pacers. There are always exception to the rules. It never even crossed my mind leading by 22-24 points going into the 4th qtr the Pacers would let the Raptors back in the game. Foolish me, they have been doing it all year.

Will Galen
01-17-2009, 12:24 PM
We are talking about the Pacers. There are always exception to the rules. It never even crossed my mind leading by 22-24 points going into the 4th qtr the Pacers would let the Raptors back in the game. Foolish me, they have been doing it all year.

I figured they might, and I hate watching those type games!

I wonder what the biggest comeback is the Pacers have allowed. I know they allowed Phily to come back from 26 down this year.

On the other hand I love to win big comeback games.

Putnam
01-17-2009, 12:50 PM
I saw a stat earlier this season that . . . something like 78% of the teams that win the first quarter win the game, and the team that leads at halftime wins 75% and the team that leads going into the fourth quarter wins at 95% rate.


While I agree that theory doesn't apply generally, it applies to the Pacers this season. The reason? Most teams have a better defense and can make some stops.

The many comebacks, including the historic comeback run made by Philly earlier this year, are hard to ignore. Even a dog team like Toronto with a one-legged C made a run at us.


UncleBuck cites a general principle, supported by factual evidence based on a large number of instances involving all teams. BlueNGold refutes him with one point of contrary data from the Sixers loss and says the idea may be true, but not for the Pacers.

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Ahd_Div.html



The link doesn"t show results for teams leading after the first quarter. But what it does show supports Uncle Buck. Of course all games are decided in the 4th. As geezer says, every game is decided that way.

The Pacers are a .478 team when they lead at the half and a .150 team when they trail after three quarters. They've got a winning record .562 when they lead at the beginning of the 4th quarter. They lost 7 out of 16 games when they led starting the 4th, but it is not reasonable to expect a team with a losing overall record to win the 4th quarter every game.

The impression that nothing matters but the last three minutes is not right.

CableKC
01-17-2009, 12:56 PM
I saw a stat earlier this season that flies in the face of that theory. It is something like 78% of the teams that win the first quarter win the game, and the team that leads at halftime wins 75% and the team that leads going into the fourth quarter wins at 95% rate.

So actually the first qy=uarter is important
Although there isn't a listing for the 1st QTR, there is a record for how well the Pacers when they lead after the 1st Half:

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Ahd_Cnf.html

When the Pacers are ahead after the Half, they are 11-12. When they are behind at the Half, they are 4-13. Unfortunatetly, in the entire league.....we are the one of the worst teams at ultimately winning a game if we go into the 2nd half ahead with a lead.

Putnam
01-17-2009, 02:02 PM
Although there isn't a listing for the 1st QTR, there is a record for how well the Pacers when they lead after the 1st Half:

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Ahd_Cnf.html

When the Pacers are ahead after the Half, they are 11-12. When they are behind at the Half, they are 4-13. Unfortunatetly, in the entire league.....we are the one of the worst teams at ultimately winning a game if we go into the 2nd half ahead with a lead.


Great post, KC :) Why didn't I think of that?

JayRedd
01-17-2009, 02:13 PM
Did I actually watch this game or sleep thru it and dream up my own version of it?

Been wondering that for years. I kid.


As for McRoberts stinking it up, it was painfully obvious he was trying too hard. That tends to happen even more often when a player only gets a couple minutes of garbage time a week.

That tends to happen when you're not a particularly good NBA player too.


No. The best solutions are usually pretty simple. ...but I would word it a little different though. We need a post defender who is mobile and can block shots. If we had a Rasheed Wallace or Dale Davis type player, this team would immediately be above .500 the rest of the way.

You think having one of the better post defenders of his generation would help? Well then, we should look into that.


Is any one else a little worried about Danny's "short fuse" lately? Sometimes it seems he's looking for a fight...

I think it's great.

MiaDragon
01-17-2009, 02:22 PM
I saw a stat earlier this season that flies in the face of that theory. It is something like 78% of the teams that win the first quarter win the game, and the team that leads at halftime wins 75% and the team that leads going into the fourth quarter wins at 95% rate.

So actually the first qy=uarter is important

Not for us it seems.

1stQ 2ndQ 3rdQ 4thQ
A 18 17 11 16

B 18 19 24 21

T 3 2 3 1

Win the 1st win the game 10gms

Win the 1st lose the game 11gms

Lose the 1st win the game 4gms

Lose the 1st Lose the game 14gms

This is just some quick slinging of numbers but It looks like the 3rd Q is killing us.

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 02:28 PM
That tends to happen when you're not a particularly good NBA player too.



Sure, but he doesn't have to be a particularly good NBA player to help this team on defense.

Anyway, McRoberts is very young and inexperienced...and yes it shows. But due to his court awareness and athleticism, I fully expect him to be a productive sub in the NBA...hopefully in Indiana...even if he does have to go through some embarrassing moments.

JayRedd
01-17-2009, 02:41 PM
Sure, but he doesn't have to be a particularly good NBA player to help this team on defense.

Anyway, McRoberts is very young and inexperienced...and yes it shows. But due to his court awareness and athleticism, I fully expect him to be a productive sub in the NBA...hopefully in Indiana...even if he does have to go through some embarrassing moments.

Just saying that when even your team's starters have "embarrassing moments" of their own, it's not too difficult to see why a coach wouldn't want to continually roll the dice on another guy who's probably 50/50 on making some really bad mistakes and closer to 100% of missing defensive assignments. There's not a lot of additional room for error after those made by our starters.

Justin Tyme
01-17-2009, 02:43 PM
Is any one else a little worried about Danny's "short fuse" lately? Sometimes it seems he's looking for a fight...


Yes, I've noticed and have described it as "chippy" the few times I've mentioned it. You want a tuff player and not a soft player, but Granger is going overboard with being Mr. Tuffask. All he needs is to get a bad rep with the ref's, and he'll have a harder time getting calls in the future. I'm sure he's getting frustrated and at times I feel he thinks he needs to do it all. The other teams are keying on him like all teams do other teams best player which makes it harder for him to produce. That goes with the territory of being a good player, and he needs to learn and adjust to it. I feel the pressure of the other teams are putting on him is beginning to bother him. With Dun back, I hope he'll understand he doesn't have do it all and take the chip off his shoulder b4 it gets into trouble.

Peck
01-17-2009, 02:52 PM
As a McRoberts fan, I feel he had a very rough night. Officiating had something to do with it, but mostly it was his own doing. He seemed to be desperate to do something, ANYTHING, with what he assumed were going to be to be his few minutes on the floor and made many mistakes as a result. Yes, he disrupted our flow, but so did Danny's T to an extent. Thankfully Dunleavy had the professionalism and leadership to pull out the win by shifting our focus to drawing fouls and FT shooting.

I've made a few posts on this phenom. that I have dubbed setting them up for failure.

There is no doubt McRoberts had an awful game, most of his was his fault however he was hosed on a couple of calls. But once he got a couple of fouls it was like sharks in the water with blood for the Raptors. They started going right at him.

BTW, that T he got was an absolute joke. Yes he yelled "defication" loudly but believe me all you have to do is listen to Foster after almost every play under neath and you will hear the exact same thing except even worse.

However this is what you get when you have a player who only plays every 8 or 9 games. They feel that when they get on the floor they have to produce and that makes them over work and over react, usually producing bad games.

O'Brien can turn this around if he will give Josh a few more min. in the next couple of games to get this right. However my guess is that Josh will be gone again and we'll hear how bad he disrupted the team if the subject ever comes up.

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 05:55 PM
I've made a few posts on this phenom. that I have dubbed setting them up for failure.

There is no doubt McRoberts had an awful game, most of his was his fault however he was hosed on a couple of calls. But once he got a couple of fouls it was like sharks in the water with blood for the Raptors. They started going right at him.

BTW, that T he got was an absolute joke. Yes he yelled "defication" loudly but believe me all you have to do is listen to Foster after almost every play under neath and you will hear the exact same thing except even worse.

However this is what you get when you have a player who only plays every 8 or 9 games. They feel that when they get on the floor they have to produce and that makes them over work and over react, usually producing bad games.

O'Brien can turn this around if he will give Josh a few more min. in the next couple of games to get this right. However my guess is that Josh will be gone again and we'll hear how bad he disrupted the team if the subject ever comes up.

Excellent post.

It's hard to judge McRoberts...but I can see past how foolish he looked last night and continue to be optimistic. I think he has a high ceiling because of his court awareness, athleticism and natural aggressiveness. Those characteristics are crucial because they really cannot be taught.

My hope? One of these days, I hope to see McRoberts throwing down some monstrous dunks and protecting the paint on the other end. He's still a baby at this point and is bound to get physically stronger and smarter with his game. Those are the only two things stopping him IMO.