PDA

View Full Version : I feel bad for Croshere



Unclebuck
01-31-2004, 11:37 PM
Everyone knows Croshere is capable of playing 20-25 minutes every game, maybe more, and scoring well, rebounding, playing hard and helping a team.

But with AL, Ron, J.O. and Jeff there really aren't many minutes available, it comes down to either Pollard or Croshere, but Pollard balances the Pacers better, otherwise Pacers are too small with AL and Cro as the two big guys coming off the bench.

Some will say that Carlisle is treating Croshere the same way Isiah did. Maybe to some degree. But at least Rick gives him a chance, how many times was Cro yanked out of a game after one mistake or missed shot, at least Rick if he plays Croshere will give him a chance to make a mistake and play through it.

I know many had a major problem with Isiah the past few season because Croshere did not play, I did not fault him for that, Pacers have better players at Croshere's position. So not playing Croshere was very understandable.

What I had a problem with the past three years, were inconsistant substitutions. One game Croshere would play 20 minutes, then not play again for two week, and the exact same thing with Foster, and Strickland and really every bench player except AL.

Back to Croshere for a second you have to respect his approach, how he stays ready, how he does not cause any problems and I know of two games at least this season that the Pacers lose if it weren't for Croshere. Tonight's game and the first home game with the Pistons in December

ABADays
01-31-2004, 11:40 PM
But you know what. He's always ready. Cro is a pros pro.

Hicks
01-31-2004, 11:44 PM
But you know what. He's always ready. Cro is a pros pro.

Here here!

This one's for Cro! :usa:

MSA2CF
01-31-2004, 11:45 PM
Austin Powers he's our man, if he can't do it no one can...except maybe Reggie. :D

Suaveness
02-01-2004, 12:13 AM
I agree...and I feel as though he should get more minutes....when he actually plays, he plays consistant.

bulletproof
02-01-2004, 12:57 AM
Hard to feel bad for a guy making $7 million a year for riding the pine. At any time he could have opted out of his contract.

Peck
02-01-2004, 02:08 AM
Hard to feel bad for a guy making $7 million a year for riding the pine. At any time he could have opted out of his contract.

I know in our world, well at least my world, 7 million dollars is like monopoly money. It's so much that I will never see it. I don't know about you, but my guess is you probably don't make 7 large a year either.

But to these guys it really almost can't be looked at from that standpoint. Yes, in the sense that he will never have to work again or ever have to struggle to make the rent, you are 100% correct.

But, IMO, money is just a given at their level. At some point I would think they want some form of accomplishment. Look at how many times to this day that J.O. speaks about respect & this is a guy making more than Austin.

I'm not saying your wrong because your not. But I just think you can't really look at the $$ the same way we would.

Peck
02-01-2004, 02:38 AM
Everyone knows Croshere is capable of playing 20-25 minutes every game, maybe more, and scoring well, rebounding, playing hard and helping a team.

But with AL, Ron, J.O. and Jeff there really aren't many minutes available, it comes down to either Pollard or Croshere, but Pollard balances the Pacers better, otherwise Pacers are too small with AL and Cro as the two big guys coming off the bench.

Some will say that Carlisle is treating Croshere the same way Isiah did. Maybe to some degree. But at least Rick gives him a chance, how many times was Cro yanked out of a game after one mistake or missed shot, at least Rick if he plays Croshere will give him a chance to make a mistake and play through it.

I know many had a major problem with Isiah the past few season because Croshere did not play, I did not fault him for that, Pacers have better players at Croshere's position. So not playing Croshere was very understandable.

What I had a problem with the past three years, were inconsistant substitutions. One game Croshere would play 20 minutes, then not play again for two week, and the exact same thing with Foster, and Strickland and really every bench player except AL.

Back to Croshere for a second you have to respect his approach, how he stays ready, how he does not cause any problems and I know of two games at least this season that the Pacers lose if it weren't for Croshere. Tonight's game and the first home game with the Pistons in December

I would never have said that Carlisle was doing the same thing that Thomas did to Austin until this last month. The string of DNP-CD's without reason, to me, is just as bad if not worse than what Isiah did.

Pollard played a little better in those games, but did he play better than Austin? The answer btw way is hell no.

So Pollard is a little taller & weighs a few more pounds. But what does he really bring to the floor that Austin can't & then what does he do to make up for what Croshere does that he can't pretend to do?

BTW, Primoz is bigger as well & is actually bigger than Pollard, by this logic shouldn't he play the backup min.?

What changed? Why all of a sudden was Austin, who by your own admission has played well, relagated to DNP-CD's or token min.

But this isn't a post to bash Pollard really, until last night I've thought he's done ok out there.

You won't like my ideas so for the sake of peace I should just not say anything. But you know me, I've never been a dove :devil:

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Jeff Foster is not any better at any one thing (yes kids this includes rebounding) that he can make up for the fact that Austin can outscore him every game if given the time.

I won't buy the defense B.S. either because last night was the perfect example of how flexible Austin can be. For the first 4 min. he was in the game he was assigned to Walter McCarty & he shut him down. He was in his face on every shot & kept up with him step for step. The rest of the game he was assigned Mihm, Blount, Hunter & Stewart. Non of these are considered a gazelle. They are bangers & low post players. Austin stood toe to toe with each of them & did not back down.

Go to the second to last offensive possesion for the Celts. Carlisle does the old offense/defense switch. He puts in Foster for Croshere & Mark Blount procedes to back him to the hoop for a post shot that goes in.

On two or three possesions prior to that he tried that on Croshere & could not budge him. Hence passing off to (I think) Davis for a layup attempt, that failed.

Beleive me guys I know most of you are going to disagree with me & I know some of you will think I'm nuts because there is this idea that Foster is a rebounding machine. I don't buy it, I think he is probably the most overrated rebounder I've ever seen. He is a hustle rebounder & IMO he is the easiest person to keep off of the boards when somebody focuses on him. The argument will be made that you have to focus on him but I still have to ask when all a player does is rebound (ie Rodman, old Wallace, etc) shouldn't they dominate the boards every night? Not grab 7 a game? If he was so great should he ever grab anything less than 11 or even 10 a game?

Here's my thought on this. If Foster & Crosheres min. were reversed does anybody think that Austin wouldn't grab 6 rbg? Honestly?

My guess is he would grab at least 6 a game if not more, but I'll say 6.

Now let me ask this does anybody think that he would get 5.7 ppg? My guess is you could double that & put him at about 10 a game.

So if he grabs one less board but scores 5 more points is there really a big differance in the one board a game that Foster gets? I say no.

I think Austin would open up the floor better for Jermaine. I think he is a better passer. I think he would certainly have more trouble defending the faster big men of the league but IMO would do better against the post players.

NBA.com list Jeff at 6'11" tall & 242 lbs while listing Austin at 6'10" & 242 lbs.

Is that one inch in height that much differance? I've seen them often right next to each other & Foster is taller, but not by more than an inch.

There must be something to Austin because Carlisle is not the first coach to bench him. So I'm willing to say there has to be something there.

But I'll be hones I just don't see it. If it were me I'd start Austin & bring Jeff off of the bench. Or at the very least Austin would get every single min. that Foster doesn't get.

Ok, bash away.

bulletproof
02-01-2004, 02:41 AM
Hard to feel bad for a guy making $7 million a year for riding the pine. At any time he could have opted out of his contract.

I know in our world, well at least my world, 7 million dollars is like monopoly money. It's so much that I will never see it. I don't know about you, but my guess is you probably don't make 7 large a year either.

But to these guys it really almost can't be looked at from that standpoint. Yes, in the sense that he will never have to work again or ever have to struggle to make the rent, you are 100% correct.

But, IMO, money is just a given at their level. At some point I would think they want some form of accomplishment. Look at how many times to this day that J.O. speaks about respect & this is a guy making more than Austin.

I'm not saying your wrong because your not. But I just think you can't really look at the $$ the same way we would.


I think accomplishment is important to a man regardless of his profession. And the money is relative to that profession. If you're lucky, you do something you love to do and the money comes second, but at some point you want to get paid commeasurate to your talent and accomplishments at a level your profession will bear.

You also ignored the second half of my statement. If accomplishment was paramount to Cro, he could have opted out of his contract and hoped to get picked up by a team where he would have had a more significant role.

Bball
02-01-2004, 03:05 AM
You also ignored the second half of my statement. If accomplishment was paramount to Cro, he could have opted out of his contract and hoped to get picked up by a team where he would have had a more significant role.

Would that not be frowned on (majorly) by the players' union?

-Bball

Anthem
02-01-2004, 03:08 AM
BTW, Primoz is bigger as well & is actually bigger than Pollard, by this logic shouldn't he play the backup min.?

ABSOLUTELY! Move Croshere and Pollard to clear minutes for Primoz!!! :dance: :pepper:

Seriously, Jeff can't shoot like Austin, and Austin definately defends certain players well. But Jeff's hustle sometimes gets rebounds, but often results in broken plays for the other team. He's just disruptive. And it's nice to have 3 guys on the court that are a threat for 3-5 steals a night (Artest and Tinsley being the other 2).

Austin can defend his man, if his man has no offensive moves that involve moving the feet. But he's not the team defender that Jeff is.

Not that I really care either way. But Carlisle, like Thomas before him, seems to think that "Cro does O" and that's it. Also, Austin's not really 6'10". He's 6'9", max, and he plays quite a bit smaller. Jeff may be only a little taller, but you can't tell me he doesn't play a lot bigger.

When Austin came onto the court, I told my friend (who's a Celtics fan, at whose house I watched the game) that Bird was showcasing him for Ainge. I still think I'm right.

Peck
02-01-2004, 03:38 AM
BTW, Primoz is bigger as well & is actually bigger than Pollard, by this logic shouldn't he play the backup min.?

ABSOLUTELY! Move Croshere and Pollard to clear minutes for Primoz!!! :dance: :pepper:

Seriously, Jeff can't shoot like Austin, and Austin definately defends certain players well. But Jeff's hustle sometimes gets rebounds, but often results in broken plays for the other team. He's just disruptive. And it's nice to have 3 guys on the court that are a threat for 3-5 steals a night (Artest and Tinsley being the other 2).

Austin can defend his man, if his man has no offensive moves that involve moving the feet. But he's not the team defender that Jeff is.

Not that I really care either way. But Carlisle, like Thomas before him, seems to think that "Cro does O" and that's it. Also, Austin's not really 6'10". He's 6'9", max, and he plays quite a bit smaller. Jeff may be only a little taller, but you can't tell me he doesn't play a lot bigger.

When Austin came onto the court, I told my friend (who's a Celtics fan, at whose house I watched the game) that Bird was showcasing him for Ainge. I still think I'm right.

Interesting. My first thought on this was that it was nonsense, but then I went to realgm & played for a second. It didn't take a lot of time to come up with Austin Croshere straight up for Chris Mills.

It works salary cap. wise btw.

Personnaly I hate it. I can't stand salary dumps but in this case I guess it might make some sense from both the team & the players point of view.

Mills will never suit up here. His contract expires at the end of this season & he would not be re-signed & it certainly would clear up some space or at the very least make it so we don't have to pay for Croshere for a couple of more years.

In Austins case he gets to go to a team that he might be able to get some consistant min. with.

Again, I hate these kind of trades. But I understand it is the way of the world.

flip
02-01-2004, 08:37 AM
why? he is horrible on "d".quite lazy.and very few rebounds.

i'm not much of an IT fan as a coach,but i'll agree,"cro does 0".many of our players could stand stationary at the top of the key and fire 3s.he does very very little else.give any of our guards open shots [ which is the defense fault ] and let them fire up 5-3s and most will make 3 of them.when you don't do much but that,should be rather easy.

and give him more playing time.no frickin way.jeff and scott [most of the time] have a better and more valuable game.for a 6-9 player,he is a bummer.call me a cro basher,that's what i am.i may eat some crow once in a while on this one,but doubt it.

have had to eat some crow on al this yr,but the final product made it kinda fun.

glad that ka is back - should lower our to's..

Unclebuck
02-01-2004, 09:08 AM
.

I won't buy the defense B.S. either because last night was the perfect example of how flexible Austin can be. For the first 4 min. he was in the game he was assigned to Walter McCarty & he shut him down. He was in his face on every shot & kept up with him step for step. The rest of the game he was assigned Mihm, Blount, Hunter & Stewart. Non of these are considered a gazelle. They are bangers & low post players. Austin stood toe to toe with each of them & did not back down.

Go to the second to last offensive possesion for the Celts. Carlisle does the old offense/defense switch. He puts in Foster for Croshere & Mark Blount procedes to back him to the hoop for a post shot that goes in.

On two or three possesions prior to that he tried that on Croshere & could not budge him. Hence passing off to (I think) Davis for a layup attempt, that failed.

Beleive me guys I know most of you are going to disagree with me & I know some of you will think I'm nuts because there is this idea that Foster is a rebounding machine. I don't buy it, I think he is probably the most overrated rebounder I've ever seen. He is a hustle rebounder & IMO he is the easiest person to keep off of the boards when somebody focuses on him. The argument will be made that you have to focus on him but I still have to ask when all a player does is rebound (ie Rodman, old Wallace, etc) shouldn't they dominate the boards every night? Not grab 7 a game? If he was so great should he ever grab anything less than 11 or even 10 a game?

Here's my thought on this. If Foster & Crosheres min. were reversed does anybody think that Austin wouldn't grab 6 rbg? Honestly?

My guess is he would grab at least 6 a game if not more, but I'll say 6.

Now let me ask this does anybody think that he would get 5.7 ppg? My guess is you could double that & put him at about 10 a game.

So if he grabs one less board but scores 5 more points is there really a big differance in the one board a game that Foster gets? I say no.

I think Austin would open up the floor better for Jermaine. I think he is a better passer. I think he would certainly have more trouble defending the faster big men of the league but IMO would do better against the post players.

NBA.com list Jeff at 6'11" tall & 242 lbs while listing Austin at 6'10" & 242 lbs.

Is that one inch in height that much differance? I've seen them often right next to each other & Foster is taller, but not by more than an inch.

There must be something to Austin because Carlisle is not the first coach to bench him. So I'm willing to say there has to be something there.

But I'll be hones I just don't see it. If it were me I'd start Austin & bring Jeff off of the bench. Or at the very least Austin would get every single min. that Foster doesn't get.

Ok, bash away.


I am going to make this short and sweet because we have argued about this for a couple of seasons.

Did you not see the two Spurs games and see the fantastic job Foster did on Duncan. Tim even admitted it after the second game.

Peck, obviously the Pacers coaching staff disagrees with you, they have said many many times how good a defender Jeff is and they always oput Jeff on the best inside scorer.

Rebounding is a debatable point, but the defense is not even comparable.

Jeff is an extremely talented defensive player beyond his hustle and effort. He has extremely quick feet which enables him to have great footwork, he has extremely quick hands.

I am really surprised this is even a discussion point after the defense Jeff has played this season.

Peck
02-01-2004, 09:27 AM
.

I won't buy the defense B.S. either because last night was the perfect example of how flexible Austin can be. For the first 4 min. he was in the game he was assigned to Walter McCarty & he shut him down. He was in his face on every shot & kept up with him step for step. The rest of the game he was assigned Mihm, Blount, Hunter & Stewart. Non of these are considered a gazelle. They are bangers & low post players. Austin stood toe to toe with each of them & did not back down.

Go to the second to last offensive possesion for the Celts. Carlisle does the old offense/defense switch. He puts in Foster for Croshere & Mark Blount procedes to back him to the hoop for a post shot that goes in.

On two or three possesions prior to that he tried that on Croshere & could not budge him. Hence passing off to (I think) Davis for a layup attempt, that failed.

Beleive me guys I know most of you are going to disagree with me & I know some of you will think I'm nuts because there is this idea that Foster is a rebounding machine. I don't buy it, I think he is probably the most overrated rebounder I've ever seen. He is a hustle rebounder & IMO he is the easiest person to keep off of the boards when somebody focuses on him. The argument will be made that you have to focus on him but I still have to ask when all a player does is rebound (ie Rodman, old Wallace, etc) shouldn't they dominate the boards every night? Not grab 7 a game? If he was so great should he ever grab anything less than 11 or even 10 a game?

Here's my thought on this. If Foster & Crosheres min. were reversed does anybody think that Austin wouldn't grab 6 rbg? Honestly?

My guess is he would grab at least 6 a game if not more, but I'll say 6.

Now let me ask this does anybody think that he would get 5.7 ppg? My guess is you could double that & put him at about 10 a game.

So if he grabs one less board but scores 5 more points is there really a big differance in the one board a game that Foster gets? I say no.

I think Austin would open up the floor better for Jermaine. I think he is a better passer. I think he would certainly have more trouble defending the faster big men of the league but IMO would do better against the post players.

NBA.com list Jeff at 6'11" tall & 242 lbs while listing Austin at 6'10" & 242 lbs.

Is that one inch in height that much differance? I've seen them often right next to each other & Foster is taller, but not by more than an inch.

There must be something to Austin because Carlisle is not the first coach to bench him. So I'm willing to say there has to be something there.

But I'll be hones I just don't see it. If it were me I'd start Austin & bring Jeff off of the bench. Or at the very least Austin would get every single min. that Foster doesn't get.

Ok, bash away.


I am going to make this short and sweet because we have argued about this for a couple of seasons.

Did you not see the two Spurs games and see the fantastic job Foster did on Duncan. Tim even admitted it after the second game.

Peck, obviously the Pacers coaching staff disagrees with you, they have said many many times how good a defender Jeff is and they always oput Jeff on the best inside scorer.

Rebounding is a debatable point, but the defense is not even comparable.

Jeff is an extremely talented defensive player beyond his hustle and effort. He has extremely quick feet which enables him to have great footwork, he has extremely quick hands.

I am really surprised this is even a discussion point after the defense Jeff has played this season.

The team defense, IMO, makes up for any shortcomings our center position has. No matter who is playing the spot.

Jeff plays decent defense, no more no less.

Did he do good vs. Duncan? Yip. But I also think that Tim had an off game, but that takes nothing away from the job Jeff did.

Let me ask this because I'm not 100% sure what your thoughts on this.

Do you think Austin is horrid on defense? If yes, how bad.

Of course in this day & age Jeff is good enough to defend the center spot. To me though that just speaks to the quality of the center spot of today.

Well I guess on the bright side you are not telling me how much better Foster is as a rebounder.

Unclebuck
02-01-2004, 10:07 AM
Let me ask this because I'm not 100% sure what your thoughts on this.

Do you think Austin is horrid on defense? If yes, how bad.

Of course in this day & age Jeff is good enough to defend the center spot. To me though that just speaks to the quality of the center spot of today.




"Is Austin horrid on defense".

I would say no he is not horrid on defense because he tries and he follows the game plan.

Peck, you always say that Croshere is a good low post defender and he is to some degree, I have admitted Cro is pretty good at using his body to keep bigger and taller offensive players from getting deep in the lane.

And I have also said that Croshere blocks out better than anyone on the team in rebounding situations.

However, Croshere has very slow feet, he does not move laterally well at all. I will say that Croshere is a bad defender away from the basket, an offensive player with any quickness at all, can go right around Croshere without any problem.

Peck, Croshere maximizes his defensive talent and I respect that, but his defensive talent is not at a high level.

debohstheman
02-01-2004, 10:51 AM
i'm not much of an IT fan as a coach,but i'll agree,"cro does 0".many of our players could stand stationary at the top of the key and fire 3s.he does very very little else.give any of our guards open shots [ which is the defense fault ] and let them fire up 5-3s and most will make 3 of them.when you don't do much but that,should be rather easy.


WHAT?/???????? Croshere is very aggressive on the offensive end when given consistent minutes....too aggressive sometimes in fact, in driving to thehoop.....


he only shoots a lot of threes when he plays like 5 minuts a game, because he is only put in there to stretch the floor..thats his role....

when he plays more minutes he gives a very balanced offensive contribtuion....

I like the guy....ithink he is a very solid contributor to this team

Ragnar
02-01-2004, 10:54 AM
If anything Jeff is underated for his rebounding and D.

He is getting 7 rebounds a game in 20 minutes a game. If you watch him you will see that he tips the ball to another Pacer as often as he pulls it in with his own hands. Those rebounds are not credited to him.

Also he plays the passing lanes and plays great D. If anything he should play more not less.

Alabama-Redneck
02-01-2004, 11:13 AM
One of the biggest problems I see with Croshere is his decision making on offense.

Unless he is wide open for a 3 or being guarded by a much smaller player, he seems very unsure as to what he wants to do and generally does nothing.

When he does drive to the basket, he hesitates before he goes and when he does go, the defense is waiting.

That is the main flaw I see besides his lack of real athletic movements.

:cool:

Arcadian
02-01-2004, 01:10 PM
When Cro is playing at a high level it is hard to argue that Cro isn't better than Foster.

But for some reason even when he's getting the minutes Cro doesn't play that way all the time. Cro is just too streaky in his play for me to want him as a major contributor. At least with Foster you know what you are going to get.

I'd vote "Foster is clearly the better defender " on the poll.

Anthem
02-02-2004, 12:21 AM
Personnaly I hate it. I can't stand salary dumps but in this case I guess it might make some sense from both the team & the players point of view.

I might not do the trade straight up for the capspace, but I'd do it in a heartbeat if they'd throw in a decent prospect.

Just think.... more POTENTIAL!!! :devil:

Seriously, without major injuries or player moves, Austin will be a 3rd-string player on this team at best. A 3rd-stringer should be either a young player that the team is developing or an older player that's a lockerroom guy and a practice warrior. Austin is not a player to have on your third string.

Peck
02-02-2004, 05:27 AM
Let me ask this because I'm not 100% sure what your thoughts on this.

Do you think Austin is horrid on defense? If yes, how bad.

Of course in this day & age Jeff is good enough to defend the center spot. To me though that just speaks to the quality of the center spot of today.




"Is Austin horrid on defense".

I would say no he is not horrid on defense because he tries and he follows the game plan.

Peck, you always say that Croshere is a good low post defender and he is to some degree, I have admitted Cro is pretty good at using his body to keep bigger and taller offensive players from getting deep in the lane.

And I have also said that Croshere blocks out better than anyone on the team in rebounding situations.

However, Croshere has very slow feet, he does not move laterally well at all. I will say that Croshere is a bad defender away from the basket, an offensive player with any quickness at all, can go right around Croshere without any problem.

Peck, Croshere maximizes his defensive talent and I respect that, but his defensive talent is not at a high level.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong with my working assumption then.

You feel that Austin is a decent but unspectacular defender in the post & you feel he is a liability on the wings. Is that about right?

If that is the case I won't try & state otherwise because I tend to agree with that assesment. He will never be good vs. Garnett but would be ok vs. Olawakandi (at least that is what I think).

So overall Jeff Foster has an advantage vs. Croshere on the defensive end. But it's not worlds apart correct? I mean were not talking Ben Wallace vs. Glen Robinson differance are we? Personnaly I don't think so.

Now let's juxstapose this a little.

Is Jeff Foster in the same league with Austin Croshere on the offensive end?

My guess is that you would have to admit that he is not. Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

But even still he is not nearly as good as Austin. We are talking T.R. Dunn vs. George Gervin differance here, IMO.

You have admitted that the rebounding is debatable. Which is shocking, I admit. But since you have admitted that, isn't that the one big thing that Foster is supposed to bring to the deck?

I guess what I'm getting at is this.

If Foster is only slightly better as a defender (worse in the post, better on the wings = slightly better to me)
Has no real great rebounding advantage.
Is about = in passing (althought I think Cro is better but I'll conced they are = for this argument)
Is far & away worse on the offensive end.

Why should Jeff Foster get all of the min. at the center spot again? I don't get it.

What one thing makes it that Cro couldn't do at least as good a job, if not better, than Foster?

I am not 100% saying Cro should start over Foster but IMO Austin should never get a DNP-CD again & IMO should get some of Fosters min.

BigMac
02-02-2004, 07:55 AM
I am going to make this short and sweet because we have argued about this for a couple of seasons.

Did you not see the two Spurs games and see the fantastic job Foster did on Duncan. Tim even admitted it after the second game.

Peck, obviously the Pacers coaching staff disagrees with you, they have said many many times how good a defender Jeff is and they always oput Jeff on the best inside scorer.

Rebounding is a debatable point, but the defense is not even comparable.

Jeff is an extremely talented defensive player beyond his hustle and effort. He has extremely quick feet which enables him to have great footwork, he has extremely quick hands.

I am really surprised this is even a discussion point after the defense Jeff has played this season.


The Jeff vs. Dunan thing is a good point but in fairness it must be pointed out that Duncan and Foster work out and play against each other all summer. And because of that, Foster is more self-confident against Duncan AND most importantly, knows his moves. I, too, was frustrated with how easily Blount backed him up on that last shot.

sixthman
02-02-2004, 08:07 AM
If Bird talks Ainge into Croshere and his contract for an expiring contract, Bird deserves the GM of the decade award.

Unclebuck
02-02-2004, 08:16 AM
I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong with my working assumption then.

You feel that Austin is a decent but unspectacular defender in the post & you feel he is a liability on the wings. Is that about right?

If that is the case I won't try & state otherwise because I tend to agree with that assesment. He will never be good vs. Garnett but would be ok vs. Olawakandi (at least that is what I think).

So overall Jeff Foster has an advantage vs. Croshere on the defensive end. But it's not worlds apart correct? I mean were not talking Ben Wallace vs. Glen Robinson differance are we? Personnaly I don't think so.

Now let's juxstapose this a little.

Is Jeff Foster in the same league with Austin Croshere on the offensive end?

My guess is that you would have to admit that he is not. Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

But even still he is not nearly as good as Austin. We are talking T.R. Dunn vs. George Gervin differance here, IMO.

You have admitted that the rebounding is debatable. Which is shocking, I admit. But since you have admitted that, isn't that the one big thing that Foster is supposed to bring to the deck?

I guess what I'm getting at is this.

If Foster is only slightly better as a defender (worse in the post, better on the wings = slightly better to me)
Has no real great rebounding advantage.

Is about = in passing (althought I think Cro is better but I'll conced they are = for this argument)
Is far & away worse on the offensive end.

Why should Jeff Foster get all of the min. at the center spot again? I don't get it.

What one thing makes it that Cro couldn't do at least as good a job, if not better, than Foster?

I am not 100% saying Cro should start over Foster but IMO Austin should never get a DNP-CD again & IMO should get some of Fosters min.


Peck, I have to give you a lot of credit. Anyone who can work T.R. Dunn into a post deserves a couple of :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

If you go back and read my most recent post, you'll notice I never said that I thought Croshere was as good a low post defender even against the big strong offensive players, I said that Croshere is good at using his body, but I still think Foster is better in those situations.

Offensively, Croshere is better than Foster, no argument there, but I don't like a front line of J.O, Artest and Cro, all three want the ball and I just like the balance of Foster with J.O and Ron.

Really nothing else to say on this topic, I just think Foster makes the Pacers a better team than Croshere does.

Peck
02-02-2004, 08:27 AM
I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong with my working assumption then.

You feel that Austin is a decent but unspectacular defender in the post & you feel he is a liability on the wings. Is that about right?

If that is the case I won't try & state otherwise because I tend to agree with that assesment. He will never be good vs. Garnett but would be ok vs. Olawakandi (at least that is what I think).

So overall Jeff Foster has an advantage vs. Croshere on the defensive end. But it's not worlds apart correct? I mean were not talking Ben Wallace vs. Glen Robinson differance are we? Personnaly I don't think so.

Now let's juxstapose this a little.

Is Jeff Foster in the same league with Austin Croshere on the offensive end?

My guess is that you would have to admit that he is not. Jeff has gotten at least to the point where we don't cringe whenever he gets the ball. Actually he is developing a decent jumper from the wing, not Brad Miller good, but decent none-the-less.

But even still he is not nearly as good as Austin. We are talking T.R. Dunn vs. George Gervin differance here, IMO.

You have admitted that the rebounding is debatable. Which is shocking, I admit. But since you have admitted that, isn't that the one big thing that Foster is supposed to bring to the deck?

I guess what I'm getting at is this.

If Foster is only slightly better as a defender (worse in the post, better on the wings = slightly better to me)
Has no real great rebounding advantage.

Is about = in passing (althought I think Cro is better but I'll conced they are = for this argument)
Is far & away worse on the offensive end.

Why should Jeff Foster get all of the min. at the center spot again? I don't get it.

What one thing makes it that Cro couldn't do at least as good a job, if not better, than Foster?

I am not 100% saying Cro should start over Foster but IMO Austin should never get a DNP-CD again & IMO should get some of Fosters min.


Peck, I have to give you a lot of credit. Anyone who can work T.R. Dunn into a post deserves a couple of :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

If you go back and read my most recent post, you'll notice I never said that I thought Croshere was as good a low post defender even against the big strong offensive players, I said that Croshere is good at using his body, but I still think Foster is better in those situations.

Offensively, Croshere is better than Foster, no argument there, but I don't like a front line of J.O, Artest and Cro, all three want the ball and I just like the balance of Foster with J.O and Ron.

Really nothing else to say on this topic, I just think Foster makes the Pacers a better team than Croshere does.

I've got the answer. Since J.O., Artest & Cro all want the ball let's eliminate Artest. ;)

I think you are underestimating Austins ability to be a team player. I think if Carlisle told Austin to go out there & do nothing but rebound & defend he would put 100% into trying to do it.

I'll be fair though & say the same thing about Jeff. If Carlisle wanted him to go out & shoot the three he would try his darndest to do it.

We'll just agree to disagree on this, but in fairness again, both sets of coaching staffs have agree with you.

But you were still wrong about Brad Miller. :arrgh:

Suaveness
02-02-2004, 06:38 PM
All these things in which everyone says Foster is better, I still the Cro is pretty good at. He really does try hard when he is playing, and rebounds pretty well. Whenever he is on the floor, I always see him going after the ball, and he boxes out real well. Foster might be slightly better in this and in D, but honestly, Cro isn't all that bad.

When Cro has been in, he has been productive. Since this is the case, why shouldn't we give him more minutes? I really think we should. I think Artest gets too many minutes, and JO could lose 1 or 2. Foster as well. That should open up maybe 10-15 min per for him to work with, which is better than what he is getting now. He could be a solid contributer, and should be.

Peck
02-02-2004, 07:34 PM
All these things in which everyone says Foster is better, I still the Cro is pretty good at. He really does try hard when he is playing, and rebounds pretty well. Whenever he is on the floor, I always see him going after the ball, and he boxes out real well. Foster might be slightly better in this and in D, but honestly, Cro isn't all that bad.

When Cro has been in, he has been productive. Since this is the case, why shouldn't we give him more minutes? I really think we should. I think Artest gets too many minutes, and JO could lose 1 or 2. Foster as well. That should open up maybe 10-15 min per for him to work with, which is better than what he is getting now. He could be a solid contributer, and should be.

These are my thoughts exactly, but I'm alway afraid that Uncle Buck will :soundoff: on us if somebody mentions that Ron can play one less min. a game than he gets now. :dance2:

I agree with the 10-15 min. every game theory.

wintermute
02-02-2004, 10:20 PM
imo, the argument should be croshere vs pollard and not croshere vs foster. both croshere and foster have been effective when given minutes. pollard, well... :unimpressed: you can easily get cro's 10-15 min from pollard. still not enough, really, but there just are not enough minutes to go around.