PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Graham



pianoman
03-22-2009, 09:24 PM
Is it just me, or does JOB use Graham more than he should? I mean, I really like him and his aggressiveness, but sometimes, he tries to take over on offense and he hurts the flow of our game. His contract is up at the end of the year. Should we look to keep him for a minimum price, or let him walk and give a rookie an opportunity?

MillerTime
03-22-2009, 09:28 PM
Considering we don't have Dun and Granger just got back we had to use him. I think we should resign him for thr min

Kemo
03-22-2009, 09:37 PM
I mean, I really like him and his aggressiveness, but sometimes, he tries to take over on offense and he hurts the flow of our game.


LMAO sorry pianoman , but if you didn't have the name Stephen Graham in the thread title , I would have SWORE this thread was about TJ by reading this.. haha

sorry carry on ...

Infinite MAN_force
03-22-2009, 10:03 PM
Now that Jack is playing more PG and with no dunleavy or marquis, He pretty much has to play graham.

d_c
03-23-2009, 02:38 AM
Is it just me, or does JOB use Graham more than he should? I mean, I really like him and his aggressiveness, but sometimes, he tries to take over on offense and he hurts the flow of our game. His contract is up at the end of the year. Should we look to keep him for a minimum price, or let him walk and give a rookie an opportunity?

Last year, Graham was playing in very limited spurts. And in those limited spurs he played pretty decently, causing people to ask "why doesn't JOB play Stephen Graham more?" Well now this year due to some injuries, Graham is playing more.....and showing why JOB never played him much last season when there wasn't an injury problem.

The next time someone asks "why doesn't coach play Player X more because Player X rips it up everytime he comes in for 4 minutes at a time", remember that coaches will sometimes play certain guys limited minutes in select matchups, because he knows the more he sees the floor the more his limitations are going to be exposed.

Justin Tyme
03-23-2009, 09:41 AM
His contract is up at the end of the year. Should we look to keep him for a minimum price, or let him walk and give a rookie an opportunity?


Ist where are you going to get a player with 4 years experience that has played in O'Brien's system for 2 years at the salary he'll get with the Pacers in economic straits? It's a no brainer you keep him if he wants to stay.

As for a rookie SG? I didn't realize the Pacers needs in the draft included a rookie SG. I was under the assumption that the teams needs for the future were PF & PG. Why draft another SG when you drafted Rush last year? Unless you are saying he's not the future SG or that NBA ready player isn't panning out as Bird had anticipated. The chance of another Bayless dropping in the Pacers lap again at their drafting spot isn't highly likely, and the Pacers have more important needs to fill than at SG. I can't see where a rookie SG would be getting much PT to develop under JO'B next year. JO'B willl stay even more so with playing vets next year in order to win in his last year of his contract.

I've stated recently I don't feel the Pacers roster next season will have the quality of players, the depth, nor the experience this years team does. Add Dunleavy's injury and Quis' team option not being picked up so another rookie at SG isn't the answer. You keep Graham for the price and experience. JMOAA

Naptown_Seth
03-23-2009, 10:02 AM
Last year, Graham was playing in very limited spurts. And in those limited spurs he played pretty decently, causing people to ask "why doesn't JOB play Stephen Graham more?" Well now this year due to some injuries, Graham is playing more.....and showing why JOB never played him much last season when there wasn't an injury problem.

The next time someone asks "why doesn't coach play Player X more because Player X rips it up everytime he comes in for 4 minutes at a time", remember that coaches will sometimes play certain guys limited minutes in select matchups, because he knows the more he sees the floor the more his limitations are going to be exposed.
I didn't ask this because Graham has never shown any defense.

Graham can score and if you need scoring then he's fine to play. However if his jumper is off you might as well pull him out right then.

He's also perhaps the best dunker the NBA Pacers have ever had, other than perhaps Kenny Williams. Hmm, interesting comparison actually. I say cut bait this year, he's not part of a long term plan IMO.

Where will you find a replacement? Um, anywhere. Why not get something a bit more useful if you are going to have a guy with gaping holes in his game.


Contrast that with McRoberts who plays well in a variety of matchups and is not particularly weak at either end of the court. Instead he appears to be a guy that is finally living up to the expectations that were on him when he went to Duke. It makes sense that he is playing better, just like it made sense when an undrafted Brad Miller got motivated and showed a "surprising" all-star caliber game.

Not every guy not playing should be deep on the bench. I agree that for every scrub there will be 2-3 posters begging for them to play. But with McRoberts it's more than just 1-2 guys.

pwee31
03-23-2009, 10:07 AM
I wouldn't resign him. I'd give a rookie a shot

pacergod2
03-23-2009, 10:28 AM
If we get him for a minimum deal then I think you have to keep him here. He is a good scorer and we don't have enough of that from our bench. He is a specialist. Just like a lot of players can only shoot the three or rebound or play defense. Its the nature of how they made it to the NBA. He is a solid player, and for the sake of keeping a few more familiar faces around I think you have to keep him over some undrafted rookie. But I think he still is our fourth wing player. Perfect for a minimum salary. If he wants more than that he will find his way to Europe.

Unclebuck
03-23-2009, 10:36 AM
Last year, Graham was playing in very limited spurts. And in those limited spurs he played pretty decently, causing people to ask "why doesn't JOB play Stephen Graham more?" Well now this year due to some injuries, Graham is playing more.....and showing why JOB never played him much last season when there wasn't an injury problem.

The next time someone asks "why doesn't coach play Player X more because Player X rips it up everytime he comes in for 4 minutes at a time", remember that coaches will sometimes play certain guys limited minutes in select matchups, because he knows the more he sees the floor the more his limitations are going to be exposed.

We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.

Kid Minneapolis
03-23-2009, 10:51 AM
He's also perhaps the best dunker the NBA Pacers have ever had, other than perhaps Kenny Williams.

There was this one dude, named Fred Jones, he won an NBA Dunk Contest as a Pacer... he mighta been "ok" at dunking. ;)

Justin Tyme
03-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Where will you find a replacement? Um, anywhere.


Not every guy not playing should be deep on the bench. I agree that for every scrub there will be 2-3 posters begging for them to play. But with McRoberts it's more than just 1-2 guys.



If they were so easy to find anywhere, why do teams like the Bucks have such poor benchs? They aren't anywhere/everywhere like you propose. Those bench players that can produce when called upon in this economic enviroment are going to be the type of players teams will be looking to get or to keep.


You really have a short memory. Last year this board, other boards as well, was clamoring for JO'B to give Graham more PT. He was producing when he got minutes. It is the same clamoring this year with McBob. Chances are if McBob is still a Pacers next year it will be the same as like Graham this year. The only difference is McBob has more possible upside than Graham, but he'll never be close to the PF the Pacers need. He's nothing more than an energy player with some athleticism at best. A David Lee is something he's never going to be, but I'd settle for McBob being a Chris "Birdman" Anderson w/o the baggage. IMO, he'll never be that either. I don't see McBob being this important rotational player others seem to feel he will be. JMOAA

OakMoses
03-23-2009, 11:43 AM
I'm fine with keeping Graham. He's as good of a 3rd string SG as you'll find.

I think there are a couple reasons JO'B plays Graham. The first is that I'd guess he practices just as hard or harder than any guy on the team. O'Brien has to reward that. It seems to me that each uptick in Graham's minutes has been accompanied by a "You have to play the guys that work hard in practice comment."

Also, I think JO'B uses Graham to prove things to Rush. It's something like "See how aggressive this guy is? You know you're a better player than him, right?"

Justin Tyme
03-23-2009, 11:48 AM
We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.


I wish I could believe in that optimistic philosophy about coaches, but then Nellie immediately comes to mind.

pwee31
03-23-2009, 12:30 PM
We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.

UB you're talking about Practice, Practice... not a game... not a game, but Practice! You're talking about Practice! :fro:

WetBob
03-23-2009, 12:35 PM
You really have a short memory. Last year this board, other boards as well, was clamoring for JO'B to give Graham more PT. He was producing when he got minutes. It is the same clamoring this year with McBob. Chances are if McBob is still a Pacers next year it will be the same as like Graham this year. The only difference is McBob has more possible upside than Graham, but he'll never be close to the PF the Pacers need. He's nothing more than an energy player with some athleticism at best. A David Lee is something he's never going to be, but I'd settle for McBob being a Chris "Birdman" Anderson w/o the baggage. IMO, he'll never be that either. I don't see McBob being this important rotational player others seem to feel he will be. JMOAA

What have you seen that makes you so sure that is his upside?

ABADays
03-23-2009, 12:43 PM
There was this one dude, named Fred Jones, he won an NBA Dunk Contest as a Pacer... he mighta been "ok" at dunking. ;)

As was Terrence Stansbury and Darnell didn't get the name Dr. Dunk for nothing. :D

Since86
03-23-2009, 12:46 PM
We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.

That argument went out the window the day we were told JO wasn't practicing with the team, eventhough when JOb was hired he said if you didn't practice, you didn't play.

Every time a thread pops up asking what people don't like about JOb, that's part of my gripe.

He came in talking a big game about what his expectations were from players, and how everyone, including the star players, had to earn their playing time.

Well, JO didn't practice but played just the same amount as he would if he did.

JOb is going to give the established player, even if they're washed up like Rasho, the nod before any end of the bench player.

Justin Tyme
03-23-2009, 03:51 PM
JOb is going to give the established player, even if they're washed up like
Rasho, the nod before any end of the bench player.



You think it's bad this year wait until next year when he has Hibbert, Rush, McBob(if he's still here), and 2 rookies from the up coming draft. That's 5 out of 15 young players on the roster. Just how much you think those new draft picks are going to be playing in Obie's contract year?

That leaves

Ford
Granger
Murphy
Foster
Diener
Jack... if he's here.
Graham... if he's here.
Dunleavy... misses a hunk of the season if not all of it.
Tinsley.. if he hasn't been bought out.

That leaves 1 roster spot to be filled if Graham and Jack are back and if Tinsley isn't bought out. If Graham isn't on the roster like some propose, that is 2 spots that will have to be filled with those easy to find "anywhere players" with valuable experience who can be gotten cheap that can be role players that produce. Possibly 3 if Tinsley is waived or bought out.

Lets say that Jack and Graham are back, and Dun is injured. That means the Pacers have 7 players with numerous years experience plus this years rookies Hibbert and Rush. Those 7 vets and Hibbert and Rush will get be getting the minutes. The rest will only get blowout, mop up, injury, or players in foul minutes.

Bird will be lucky to be able to bring in some new KRush, Diener, Flip Murray type players to fill out the roster and stay out of LT Land unless he can make a trade that includes one or more of Ford, Murphy, Dunleavy, or "Tinsley" and the chances of that happening is slim and next to none.

Add this to if Granger, Murphy, and Jack don't have the seasons they have had this season, it's going to make for a loooooong season next year. Just be prepared. JMOAA

Justin Tyme
03-23-2009, 03:54 PM
What have you seen that makes you so sure that is his upside?

Not sure about what you are asking. Are up asking what makes me think McBob upside is his energy and athleticism? Or something else?

Trophy
03-23-2009, 04:38 PM
I think we shouldn't resign him hoping Brandon is with us next season will fill Stephen's place. Stephen has it games here and there. He's definitly better this season than last season

BlueNGold
03-23-2009, 07:37 PM
We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.

That's part of the story. As usual in our society and particularly in the NBA, the other part has to do with money.

With Jeff Foster and Troy Murphy, we have two pretty decent PF's with a lot of NBA experience. Nothing flashy, but both players are arguably starters on scrub teams in the NBA. Troy has the highest salary on the team. Jeff has the 5th highest of active players and soon to be the 3rd highest of active players if Quis and Rasho go bye bye. That's getting pretty close to 20 million tied up on two very average NBA starters...and a significant percentage of our cap.

What happens if JOb plays Josh and sits Troy and Jeff? Well, that may result in a number of bad things. First, it can only hurt Troy and Jeff's trade value. That's not good when you have 20 million tied up. Second, it makes the owners look foolish for over-paying bench warmers. It's not good to make your bosses look too foolish. Third, it has the potential to cause problems in the locker room. Not too likely with these players, but just another risk. Also, it will raise Josh's market value if he plays well. That means we contend with other teams when we look to re-sign him. It is just a lose-lose situation when you have highly paid vets who are not obviously inferior players than the rookie.

There may very well be other weightier reasons for not playing McBob, but these are enough to keep him glued to the bench too.

Edit: Wow. Josh is paid only 7% of what Troy is paid.

Infinite MAN_force
03-23-2009, 08:22 PM
I don't think this Graham Mcbob comparison holds any water.

In limited minutes last year, Graham showed that he could score, now in some more extended oppurtunities, he has also shown he can't do anything else. People wondered if he might be a player, we knew he could score, we knew he was agressive... I was curious myself, but he has been exposed at this point.

In limited minutes this year, Josh has shown he can do a LOT of things. I have seen him block shots, play really good man defense, pull down tough rebounds, take a guy off the dribble and dunk, hit a long jump shot, pass at a high level... guy has size, guy has the hops.

Josh Mcroberts was once one of the top high school recruits in the country, Stephan Graham is Joey Grahams twin brother.

Josh is really raw, came out of college too early, had a bit of a bad rep attitudewise, but I try not to factor this stuff into my analysis. I just try to analyze what I have seen when he has been on the court, he is a guy who can DO a lot of stuff. I am quite intrigued by this. reputations aside. If you have seen him play you cannot deny the upside there. Not superstar upside, but "end of bench guy" doesn't really tell the whole story. The guy has barely gotten a chance to play and its only his second year.

People sometimes talk about Mcroberts like he is this "known commidity" ...When in reality he is younger than our two prized rookies Hibbert and Rush. Youngest guy on the team. With a coach that favors vets and is already being pressured to play two rookies, it isn't really surprising to me that he isn't finding Josh any minutes this season. You know he isn't getting on the court till he has mastered Obrien's damn "defensive system" that doesen't seem to work anyway.

WetBob
03-24-2009, 08:21 AM
Not sure about what you are asking. Are up asking what makes me think McBob upside is his energy and athleticism? Or something else?

You said it was likely he would be the equivalent of a Stephen Graham if given time, and that his upside would hopefully result in Chris Anderson but that seems unlikely.

I'm curious, what you have seen that would lead you to believe this.

OakMoses
03-24-2009, 08:41 AM
I think we shouldn't resign him hoping Brandon is with us next season will fill Stephen's place.

Stephen's place is the end of the bench. I'm expecting a lot more than that from Brandon next year.

Jonathan
03-24-2009, 11:23 AM
The only way you can compare Graham with Mc Roberts is who dunks the ball better? They play different positions.

RaptorsFan
03-24-2009, 11:30 AM
both graham's are quality 6th or 7th men off the bench, nothing more, and the ceiling is prob a good 6th man, i would keep him around if i were you guys, both of them are flat out freakishly strong and deceptively agile players and both can be really streaky and if not accounted for can go off for 15-20 on some nights, not bad for a decent $.

Justin Tyme
03-24-2009, 11:58 AM
You said it was likely he would be the equivalent of a Stephen Graham if given time, and that his upside would hopefully result in Chris Anderson but that seems unlikely.

I'm curious, what you have seen that would lead you to believe this.


WOW! I had to go back and re-read my post to see what you are trying to say. I'd suggest you do the same.

I NEVER said McBob would be the equivalent to Graham if given time in regards to play. What I did say was that you could compare them in regards to posters clamoring for more PT for them. Graham last year and McBob this year. Next year if McBob gets the extra playing time, that some want, he could be like how others felt about Graham by showing his faults that wasn't obvious until he got that extra PT.

IMO, I feel posters are over rating McBob's abilities. I don't feel he has the capabilities nor the toughness of being a Chris Anderson, but would be extrtemely pleased if he was. What happens is when a player puts on a Pacers uni that player immediately becomes the next "whatever" the Pacers need by the fans. How many times has this happened?

O. Greene the "D" specialist for the PG. Where is he now?

James "Flight" White... a waste that couldn't even make the team.

Shawne Williams... another overrated waste.

Al Harrington the savior that many thought was the answer the 2nd time.

Sarunas the European answer to the PG situation. Where's he now?

Ike D. the crown jewel of the GS trade. What's he with now his 4th team?


Hopefully you get the drift of what I'm saying. Pacer fans get too biased/hyped about a players ability once they don a Pacers uni. I don't see McBob being anything different. I was an advocate of Graham getting playing time, and I have to admit I am disappointed in what he has done with it. At the same time, I think he brings enough to the table to be offered a contract, but if he isn't I won't lose any sleep over it. Nor will I if McBob isn't a Pacer next year.

pacergod2
03-24-2009, 12:10 PM
What coaches and FO's look for in bench/ role players is to fill a void the team has. They look for those players to be able to either score, defend, or spread the floor by shooting the three. Those are the type of players you try to fill out a bench with. Stephen Graham is young and strong and athletic. He can get to the rim and score. That's perfect for a guy that can come in for 10 minutes and put up 6 or 8 points against the oppositions bench. That's all we ask for out of a guy that gets paid under $1m in the NBA. That's what we need him for. Its not about him developing into a great player. We hope he develops into a great role player. Smart and doesn't make mistakes. He isn't there yet. He has done anything but work his *** off to get better at this point and you keep guys like that. He can develop into a great role player. I hate hate hate hate hate hate the Lakers. But Derek Fisher is one of my absolute favorite players. He has developed a long career out of working his *** off and getting better. The guy starts for a great team and puts in about 20-30 minutes a night and doesn't make mistakes. He plays within himself and plays good defense for aguy who has always been told he is undersized. That is the type of career you pray for out of a guy like Stephen Graham. To halt his development would be dumb, because if you let him go, you start all over with a guy with similar potential and is only three years behind and you are guessing about his work ethic. I just don't get why people don't understand his realistic value.

McRoberts is still an "upside" player in the eyes of management. There should be greener pastures that people see. He needs to develop more. That's obvious. He needs more minutes. Thats obvious. This is the NBA. He needs to work harder to earn the playing time. I have to absolutely agree with JOB on that front. If the guy doesn't work hard, peace out. If the guy is working hard he should be given the opportunity right now though because of our playoff status. Its a fine line the coaches/management are running. They should in the interest of resting our starters give more minutes to the young guys as long as they are working hard. Maybe McRoberts hits the bong too hard and doesn't work as hard as he should during weight room sessions and practicing individual and team drills. We don't know because we aren't there. I have to agree with UB.

PS - I am still trying to figure out Justin, if you are an eternal pessimist or a devils advocate type.

Justin Tyme
03-24-2009, 03:05 PM
What coaches and FO's look for in bench/ role players is to fill a void the team has. They look for those players to be able to either score, defend, or spread the floor by shooting the three. Those are the type of players you try to fill out a bench with. Stephen Graham is young and strong and athletic. He can get to the rim and score. That's perfect for a guy that can come in for 10 minutes and put up 6 or 8 points against the oppositions bench. That's all we ask for out of a guy that gets paid under $1m in the NBA. That's what we need him for. Its not about him developing into a great player. We hope he develops into a great role player. Smart and doesn't make mistakes. He isn't there yet. He has done anything but work his *** off to get better at this point and you keep guys like that. He can develop into a great role player. I hate hate hate hate hate hate the Lakers. But Derek Fisher is one of my absolute favorite players. He has developed a long career out of working his *** off and getting better. The guy starts for a great team and puts in about 20-30 minutes a night and doesn't make mistakes. He plays within himself and plays good defense for aguy who has always been told he is undersized. That is the type of career you pray for out of a guy like Stephen Graham. To halt his development would be dumb, because if you let him go, you start all over with a guy with similar potential and is only three years behind and you are guessing about his work ethic. I just don't get why people don't understand his realistic value.


Very eloquently said!!!! This post should be kept for all to have referrence to in the future.

Since86
03-24-2009, 03:44 PM
People understand his realistic value.

What we also understand, is that he is absolutely dreadful on defense. If he gets 6-8 pts, he gives up just as many because he can't see to understand the simple concept of ball-you-man.

His head is constantly on a swivel, which allows him to get beat back door, because he gets caught peaking at the ball instead of seeing both.

There are a lot of players in the league that can score 6pts very quickly in spot minutes. Graham is not the end all player, and to compare him to a starter like Fisher is just silly.

You can find a replacement for Graham just about anywhere you look, and most of them are going to better on the other side of the ball as well.

The real question about Graham is, why does he deserve such a long rant about the type of player he is? He's the 10-12th man on the roster. He's not going to make or break a team. He's very replaceable and not nearly worth this much effort.

Justin Tyme
03-24-2009, 05:53 PM
He's the 10-12th man on the roster. He's not going to make or break a team. He's very replaceable and not nearly worth this much effort.



The exact samething can be said concerning McBob, and he's the 12-15 player. They are what they are, serviceable bench players that have experience in JO'B's system, are cheap, good team players who aren't causing problems, and deserve to be re-signed. JMOAA

D-BONE
03-24-2009, 07:05 PM
There was this one dude, named Fred Jones, he won an NBA Dunk Contest as a Pacer... he mighta been "ok" at dunking. ;)

Graham, Williams, Jones?

What about Terrance Stansbury. That statue of liberty in the contest was classic.

D-BONE
03-24-2009, 07:06 PM
As was Terrence Stansbury and Darnell didn't get the name Dr. Dunk for nothing. :D

Didn't get this far! Second all of the above!

EDIT: Well, except the orginal comment did specify in the NBA so...sorry Darnell.

Since86
03-25-2009, 11:56 AM
The exact samething can be said concerning McBob, and he's the 12-15 player. They are what they are, serviceable bench players that have experience in JO'B's system, are cheap, good team players who aren't causing problems, and deserve to be re-signed. JMOAA


Most of us think that McRoberts can be Foster's replacement, which is a
lot better than the end of the bench player.

That's what this WHOLE thread is about. So unless you view Foster a 12-15 player then that's totally false.