PDA

View Full Version : Vets not contributing but getting too many mins!!!



kbills05
01-21-2009, 09:51 AM
i don't understand what this guy(j.O'brien) is trying to achieve here? 1st he has Dunleavy starting along side granger when he'd clearly be better as a 6th man giving the 2nd unit the scoring it needs....

On top of everything Rasho,Murphy,and Jack are getting to many minutes that they do not deserve.

"My Solution"

play Ford at the point and stop pushing up the ball regardless if the team scores or not......also by the way at SG you start the rookie Rush, and let him learn the system and go through mistakes but he gives you outside shooting as well as a good defender, at the small forward what you do have is a constant in Danny Granger, at the PF position you can go w/ McRoberts wh o has better defense than Murphy but also athletic ability w/Hibbert at center who would be the pacers low post presence....But you must bring Dunleavy off the Bench due to his defensive liability w/ O'brien happens not to care for...your thoughts?

Major Cold
01-21-2009, 09:59 AM
:goodevil:


:rockon2::fingerscr

:deadhorse
:notlisten

travmil
01-21-2009, 10:06 AM
i don't understand what this guy(j.O'brien) is trying to achieve here? 1st he has Dunleavy starting along side granger when he'd clearly be better as a 6th man giving the 2nd unit the scoring it needs....

On top of everything Rasho,Murphy,and Jack are getting to many minutes that they do not deserve.

"My Solution"

play Ford at the point and stop pushing up the ball regardless if the team scores or not......also by the way at SG you start the rookie Rush, and let him learn the system and go through mistakes but he gives you outside shooting as well as a good defender, at the small forward what you do have is a constant in Danny Granger, at the PF position you can go w/ McRoberts wh o has better defense than Murphy but also athletic ability w/Hibbert at center who would be the pacers low post presence....But you must bring Dunleavy off the Bench due to his defensive liability w/ O'brien happens not to care for...your thoughts?

My thought is that this thread will be yet another that is moved in the "FIRE JOB" thread.

Alabama-Redneck
01-21-2009, 10:09 AM
i
"My Solution"

play Ford at the point and stop pushing up the ball regardless if the team scores or not......also by the way at SG you start the rookie Rush, and let him learn the system and go through mistakes but he gives you outside shooting as well as a good defender, at the small forward what you do have is a constant in Danny Granger, at the PF position you can go w/ McRoberts wh o has better defense than Murphy but also athletic ability w/Hibbert at center who would be the pacers low post presence....But you must bring Dunleavy off the Bench due to his defensive liability w/ O'brien happens not to care for...your thoughts?

What would you do for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters after Rush, Hibbert and McRoberts each have 4-5 fouls and you are down 20 points ?

Please reply.

:cool:

Unclebuck
01-21-2009, 10:13 AM
What would you do for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters after Rush, Hibbert and McRoberts each have 4-5 fouls and you are down 20 points ?

Please reply.

:cool:

Classic - and thank you - saved me from responding

Brad8888
01-21-2009, 10:21 AM
My thought is that this thread will be yet another that is moved in the "FIRE JOB" thread.

I suspect that before too long the "Fire Jim O'Brien" thread may end up as one of the longest threads in the recent history of the site. Most topics end up leading to a discussion of O'Brien, and I believe that says something. Either a lot of posters here don't have a clue about basketball, or we have a problem with our coach.

duke dynamite
01-21-2009, 10:25 AM
My thought is that this thread will be yet another that is moved in the "FIRE JOB" thread.
Yes.

Also, everyone is contributing. This thread is just another opportunity for the topic starter to complain about Dunleavy starting.

Alabama-Redneck
01-21-2009, 10:29 AM
I suspect that before too long the "Fire Jim O'Brien" thread may end up as one of the longest threads in the recent history of the site. Most topics end up leading to a discussion of O'Brien, and I believe that says something. Either a lot of posters here don't have a clue about basketball, or we have a problem with our coach.

:ding:

Another correct statement!!

:cool:

Major Cold
01-21-2009, 10:31 AM
I suspect that before too long the "Fire Jim O'Brien" thread may end up as one of the longest threads in the recent history of the site. Most topics end up leading to a discussion of O'Brien, and I believe that says something. Either a lot of posters here don't have a clue about basketball, or we have a problem with our coach.


Both? Including me. The problem with our coach is that the next guy cannot do any better with the team that we have.

Roaming Gnome
01-21-2009, 11:26 AM
Meh :unimpress

Shade
01-21-2009, 11:33 AM
I will leave this here for now, but I'm really getting tired of the borderline threads with the subtle purpose of taking jabs at JOB. There's a reason I keep moving these threads to that comprehensive one.

This thread needs to remain focused primarily on the discussion of who should start/get X minutes, or it will be merged with the rest.

This is my final warning on the subject. Any further questionable threads will be moved and the appropriate infractions handed out for repeat offenders.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-21-2009, 11:47 AM
I can't find a good way to say this so I'll be blunt.

There's a pretty good chance none of the young guys will ever amount to quality starters in this league. That's just the way it is. I think some of you have too much riding on Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, Stephen Graham & Josh McRoberts. In an ideal world all four would reach our imagined potential for them. Graham & McRoberts have a very steep hill to climb. Even though more is expected of Rush and Hibbert if even one of them can become a solid NBA player it will be a success.

If a player is ready to play in the NBA the coaches play them and when they're not they sit and learn.

Shade
01-21-2009, 12:07 PM
I can't find a good way to say this so I'll be blunt.

There's a pretty good chance none of the young guys will ever amount to quality starters in this league. That's just the way it is. I think some of you have too much riding on Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, Stephen Graham & Josh McRoberts. In an ideal world all four would reach our imagined potential for them. Graham & McRoberts have a very steep hill to climb. Even though more is expected of Rush and Hibbert if even one of them can become a solid NBA player it will be a success.

If a player is ready to play in the NBA the coaches play them and when they're not they sit and learn.

I think Hibbert has the most potential to become a legit starter due to the lack of quality players at his position.

I have always said that Rush would never be more than a solid player, and I still believe that is his ceiling. I see him as a 7th-8th man on a good team at his peak.

Graham and McBob will be career back-ups on good teams. And I like Graham more than most.

BRushWithDeath
01-21-2009, 12:11 PM
I think Hibbert has the most potential to become a legit starter due to the lack of quality players at his position.

I have always said that Rush would never be more than a solid player, and I still believe that is his ceiling. I see him as a 7th-8th man on a good team at his peak.

Graham and McBob will be career back-ups on good teams. And I like Graham more than most.


I agree with all of this. But at this stage in their careers they are not so far worse than the older guys to justify consistent losses with the vets. If just one of those players out performs their expectations it would be worth them all getting consistent minutes.

JayRedd
01-21-2009, 01:09 PM
From the mouth of Jimmy.

Mike Wells
Indianapolis Star
http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/01/are_they_in_or.html



"I don't think it's fair to have the same guys on the inactive list every night," O'Brien said. "Maceo (Baston) has been on the inactive list, so I thought him being a veteran, it's worth giving him a uniform. They'll be different guys on the inactive list every night."



"Our defensive numbers are not good when Roy is in there," O'Brien said about [removing Hibbert from the starting lineup]. "Our offensive numbers are fine, but they run pick-and-rolls with him involved. They attack him and they get in foul trouble and it puts them in the bonus. I'd rather go with a guy that gives us a chance of not being in foul trouble. There's a reason why we have a huge free throw differential. The other team gets in the bonus too quick."

Shade
01-21-2009, 01:11 PM
From the mouth of Jimmy and with setup by Mikey Wells.

Mike Wells
Indianapolis Star
http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/01/are_they_in_or.html

That makes absolutely no sense at all. :crazy:

BRushWithDeath
01-21-2009, 01:16 PM
Yea let's give a jersey to a an old guy who most assuredly won't be on the team (or likely any NBA team) next season while a young guy with potential is wearing a suit behind the bench. That makes perfect sense.

tonythetiger
01-21-2009, 01:23 PM
On top of everything Rasho,Murphy,and Jack are getting to many minutes that they do not deserve.

I do not see any validity to your complaint about Rasho's minutes. He has the second highest average of assists per game for any center in the NBA this season despite only playing 20 minutes per game and all the while with far fewer turnovers than the others on the list. Last night he led the team in assists in only 15 minutes of play- which is about all he has been playing lately.

BRushWithDeath
01-21-2009, 01:28 PM
I do not see any validity to your complaint about Rasho's minutes. He has the second highest average of assists per game for any center in the NBA this season despite only playing 20 minutes per game. Last night he led the team in assists in only 15 minutes of play- which is about all he has been playing lately.

His complaint in Rasho's minutes are because other than getting some assists and hitting the occasional wide open jump shot he brings nothing. He can't move. I don't think I've ever seen an NBA player labor that much. Maybe Sabonis in his last year but I think I'd take him over Rasho in a foot race. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Rasho just retires after this year. Rasho is a terrible defender and a worse rebounder. These are not good traits from an NBA center. If he played 5 minutes in each half he could be very effective. But 20 per game is too much.

travmil
01-21-2009, 01:37 PM
I do not see any validity to your complaint about Rasho's minutes. He has the second highest average of assists per game for any center in the NBA this season despite only playing 20 minutes per game and all the while with far fewer turnovers than the others on the list. Last night he led the team in assists in only 15 minutes of play- which is about all he has been playing lately.

Ugh...this is a problem. You shouldn't be pointing out assists as the best part of your center's game. Ever.

Quis
01-21-2009, 03:40 PM
Someone should remind Jimmy O. that Danny Granger is second in the league in fouls per-game amongst small forwards (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics?stat=nbafouls&league=nba&split=0&sort=fouls&avg=pg&qual=true&season=2009&seasontype=2&pos=sf), and that he needs to be riding the pine because of it.

Unclebuck
01-21-2009, 03:47 PM
Ugh...this is a problem. You shouldn't be pointing out assists as the best part of your center's game. Ever.

Thats not really true. Bill Walton was a great passer - it was the best part of his game - in fact it really helps having a really good passing big guy

travmil
01-21-2009, 04:01 PM
Thats not really true. Bill Walton was a great passer - it was the best part of his game - in fact it really helps having a really good passing big guy

Walton was an excellent center who just happened to be able to pass, which was the icing on the cake. With Rasho, his passing is the cake and there is no icing.

Unclebuck
01-21-2009, 04:25 PM
Walton was an excellent center who just happened to be able to pass, which was the icing on the cake. With Rasho, his passing is the cake and there is no icing.

Fair enough - I probably shouldn't have compared Rasho with Bill

bigrichard82
01-21-2009, 08:35 PM
I will leave this here for now, but I'm really getting tired of the borderline threads with the subtle purpose of taking jabs at JOB. There's a reason I keep moving these threads to that comprehensive one.

This thread needs to remain focused primarily on the discussion of who should start/get X minutes, or it will be merged with the rest.

This is my final warning on the subject. Any further questionable threads will be moved and the appropriate infractions handed out for repeat offenders.

Obey thy Geekness or thou shall flex his cyber muscles!!

Link?

vnzla81
01-21-2009, 09:34 PM
His complaint in Rasho's minutes are because other than getting some assists and hitting the occasional wide open jump shot he brings nothing. He can't move. I don't think I've ever seen an NBA player labor that much. Maybe Sabonis in his last year but I think I'd take him over Rasho in a foot race. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Rasho just retires after this year. Rasho is a terrible defender and a worse rebounder. These are not good traits from an NBA center. If he played 5 minutes in each half he could be very effective. But 20 per game is too much.

I remember when Steven A was comparing Rasho to Kwame Brown. He was at this show on ESPN in the morning and Steven A got into an argument with the other guy about who was most similar to llgauskas, and then Steven A said to the other guy that he was crazy in trying to compare Zydrunas to any of this two guys, he said that they were not even close to llgauskas. I though this was funny and I agree with him.

tonythetiger
01-21-2009, 11:45 PM
His complaint in Rasho's minutes are because other than getting some assists and hitting the occasional wide open jump shot he brings nothing. He can't move. I don't think I've ever seen an NBA player labor that much. Maybe Sabonis in his last year but I think I'd take him over Rasho in a foot race. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Rasho just retires after this year. Rasho is a terrible defender and a worse rebounder. These are not good traits from an NBA center. If he played 5 minutes in each half he could be very effective. But 20 per game is too much.

Actually, Rasho is by far the best screen-setting big man on the Pacers, and he is- despite your claims to the contrary- a good defender. No, he is not athletic or explosive but he never has been. He plays with his brains. Rasho will not retire- he is only 32 years old. European teams have been trying to get him to go back to Europe to finish his career, and he may do that, but he will not be retiring from basketball for some time.

ChicagoJ
01-22-2009, 11:38 AM
There's a pretty good chance none of the young guys will ever amount to quality starters in this league. That's just the way it is.

That could be true, but those guys have a better future ahead of them than Murphy, Rahso, Daniels, and Foster. Its not like our veterans - other than Dunleavy - are particuarly inspiring. (While he's been excellent, I still include Granger in our "young guy" category, not with the "veterans".)


I think some of you have too much riding on Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, Stephen Graham & Josh McRoberts.

Well, that's only because the of the point I made above. Our "experienced" players just don't bring many wins. That is the #1 reason why I've been pushing for a youth movement since last summer. The entire Pacers organization has a lot riding on Hibbert, Rush, Graham, and McRoberts. If they don't pan out, we're drafting *their* replacements next June and we are starting over. And that may be true.

Regarding Rush, while he doesn't have "9-TIME ALL STAR!!" potential, his floor is also pretty high, once he works through the learning curve. There is something to be said for his predictability, as you need a number of solid NBA players to surround your 'star'. He'll be fine.

Jonathan
01-22-2009, 12:26 PM
Mc Roberts, Hibbert, & Rush should only be on the court at the same time if we are up or down by thirty points.

pacergod2
01-22-2009, 12:38 PM
ChicagoJ I couldn't agree with you more.

Major Cold
01-22-2009, 12:42 PM
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar06/images/060301j2.gif

Seems to me that vets contribute no matter how much time they put in.

ChicagoJ
01-22-2009, 12:51 PM
How long have you been waiting to do that?

:laugh:

JayRedd
01-22-2009, 01:03 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Major Cold
01-22-2009, 01:16 PM
well i have waited really long. But I hate to just be sarcastic. but I could not resist.

sloopjohnb
01-22-2009, 01:50 PM
There's a pretty good chance none of the young guys will ever amount to quality starters in this league. That's just the way it is. I think some of you have too much riding on Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, Stephen Graham & Josh McRoberts. In an ideal world all four would reach our imagined potential for them. Graham & McRoberts have a very steep hill to climb. Even though more is expected of Rush and Hibbert if even one of them can become a solid NBA player it will be a success

You're exactly right!

The NBA has 30 teams with 15 roster spots each team. That means there are 450 NBA players every season, which seems like a lot. But this is a revolving door for most of the players since only 8-10 players get significant playing time for each team. So on every team in the NBA there are a handful of players riding the pine. Some may never get the opportunity. Some may not get the right opportunity. Some may get several opportunities and continuously fail. I believe the average career of an NBA player is somewhere around 5-7 years, but I'm not certain on that. Considering that's an average, take into account there are several players who play 3-4 years and are gone, never to be heard from again. The other stretch of players are the superstars, who have long lasting careers; and the role players, who find the right niches to fit into; those players might last 9-11 years.

For every Danny Granger success story, there is a Shawne Williams story to match it. For every Jermaine O'Neal success story (i.e., the trade that brought him from Portland to Indiana), there is a Kwame Brown or Ike Diogu story to match. For every Antonio Davis success story (2nd round pick that works his way into a successful career), there is a James White story to match.

I hope that one of those guys (Hibbert, Rush, Graham, or McRoberts) find success in the league, and better yet, I hope that success is with Indiana. Time will tell.

CableKC
01-22-2009, 03:14 PM
As to why Hibbert and McRoberts don't get as many minutes as I think they should ( since I think that they should share a total of about 10-15 minutes a game ), the only reasons I can think of is because JO'B likes to go with his "Small Ball with Scoring at all positions" lineup with Murphy at the Center spot and to go with Players that he trusts more to not make mistakes who also have the experience. Based off of the quote from JO'B about Hibbert being effective on the offensive end but not as good on the defensive end, it seems that he would much rather IMHO run go with a more experienced Frontcourt lineup. It really looks like JO'B is choosing to eliminate the chance for making mistkaes by choosing to completely exclude our less experienced players ( BRush, Hibbert and McRoberts ) from the lineup and going with a more experienced lineup. But given the liklihood that JO'B will run the Rasho, Foster and Murphy into the ground by giving them more minutes then they can handle ( at least to the point where they are not as effective as they can be due to fatigue ), I think that it's best NOT to eliminate Hibbert or McRoberts from the lineup completely but to minimize the possiblility of them making mistakes by simply limiting their minutes to the 2nd and 3rd QTRs. That way, players like Rasho and Foster could get some much needed rest before they are called upon to finish out games.

As for why Jack is getting so many minutes, I understand why he is getting the nod at the SG position over BRush ( cuz he's a rookie and still makes some mistakes ) and why Jack get's more minutes at the backup PG spot then Diener ( cuz Diener is best suited to play as a 3rd PG option for 10-12 mpg ). But I think that the only reason why Jack is getting so much burn now is because Marquis isn't still 100%. I suspect that once Marquis is closer to returning to full health ( if that is even possible for him ), he should start eating into Jack's minutes at the SG spot. But I suspect that Jack will still be closing out games ahead of Marquis since Marquis isn't as good of a 3pt shooter.

But that leads to a legit question.....who would you prefer to have close out games at the Guard rotation.....Jack, Marquis, both ( where Jack plays the PG spot and Marquis the SG spot ) or neither ( where Ford plays the Point and Dunleavy the SG spot )?

BRushWithDeath
01-22-2009, 03:17 PM
But that leads to a legit question.....who would you prefer to have close out games at the Guard rotation.....Jack, Marquis, both ( where Jack plays the PG spot and Marquis the SG spot ) or neither ( where Ford plays the Point and Dunleavy the SG spot )?

I would rather never have Jack in to close out a game. Unless it is purely as a foul shooter. He's got too high a propensity for ridiculous boneheaded plays down the stretch.

BillS
01-22-2009, 04:58 PM
While it seems stupid in this forum to talk about "quality of losses" (even putting quotes around the term doesn't make it sound really dumb), the fact of the matter is that playing the bottom of the bench strong minutes and sittiing the vets will unquestionably cause our "almost wins" to become "sure losses".

On the record and in the history books, who cares.

On the face being presented to the city, a HUGE difference.

If the rookies were getting no minutes at all in a bad season, then I'd say, <strike>"Look, it's Larry Brown again!"</strike> "Give 'em some floor time!", but it seems to me that the DNP-CD are nowhere near the majority of the games for Rush and Hibbert.