PDA

View Full Version : Pacers' Hibbert Wants To Be Go-To Guy



MillerTime
04-01-2009, 07:55 AM
Rookie center Roy Hibbert has struggled at times this season, but wants to develop into a go-to player for the Pacers.

"We have great shooters on this team from Danny (Granger) and (Troy) Murphy all the way down," Hibbert told the Indianapolis Star. "They're able to hit shots, but if they're not hitting from the outside, I want to be that presence that they can throw the ball down to."

Indiana, even when they had a hobbled Jermaine O'Neal, has lacked a viable interior threat recently.

"I think that's the next step for us, honestly," Granger said. "You have to have a good low-post presence. You can have good wings and good point guard play, but if you don't have a low-post presence, it's hard to be a contender in the league. Roy is going to help us a lot."

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090331/SPORTS04/903310348/1062/SPORTS04

IndyStar.com


By Mike Wells

Kstat
04-01-2009, 07:58 AM
I thought this was an april fool's joke all the way...

bmac
04-01-2009, 08:06 AM
Roy has been less than impressive this year. I'll be honest and say I haven't seen any reason to keep him around after his rookie contract expires. Footwork is terrible, can't shoot the midrange, can't dunk under pressure, has little confidence against even mediocre centers.

On a postive note, he does have good soft hands, he can catch the ball in traffic. I sure hope he starts to develop in the next year, but his rookie season has been rough.

Kemo
04-01-2009, 08:13 AM
Roy has been less than impressive this year. I'll be honest and say I haven't seen any reason to keep him around after his rookie contract expires. Footwork is terrible, can't shoot the midrange, can't dunk under pressure, has little confidence against even mediocre centers.

On a postive note, he does have good soft hands, he can catch the ball in traffic. I sure hope he starts to develop in the next year, but his rookie season has been rough.


This HAS to be the april fools post .. lol

thefeistyone
04-01-2009, 08:16 AM
This HAS to be the april fools post .. lol

You beat me to it...

NapTonius Monk
04-01-2009, 08:18 AM
Roy has been less than impressive this year. I'll be honest and say I haven't seen any reason to keep him around after his rookie contract expires. Footwork is terrible, can't shoot the midrange, can't dunk under pressure, has little confidence against even mediocre centers.

On a postive note, he does have good soft hands, he can catch the ball in traffic. I sure hope he starts to develop in the next year, but his rookie season has been rough.

:rolleyes: Based off the first 3/4 of his rookie season? C'mon! It takes big men longer to develop in the NBA.

MillerTime
04-01-2009, 08:24 AM
:rolleyes: Based off the first 3/4 of his rookie season? C'mon! It takes big men longer to develop in the NBA.

Exactly...youre going to have to give ROy at least another season or 2 to make a conclusion like that.

count55
04-01-2009, 08:29 AM
I'm perfectly happy with Roy's development at this point, and I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be a viable post option for whom plays are run. The term "go-to guy" forces visions of a player you ride down the stretch. I do not believe that is what Roy is saying. What he is saying is that he wants to be someone who you can, for stretches of time, run the offense through. He has certainly shown sufficient ability to score in the post.

He does need to get stronger, and stop making stupid fouls, but I think he's demonstrated the capability to be a good, solid scorer in this league.

Major Cold
04-01-2009, 08:43 AM
YEah I agree yet again with count. go-to guys are Lebron and Kobe type players. Our go to guys last night were Ford and Granger.

What Roy was suggesting is that he develops into an interior threat that alleviates pressure off of Danny and company. Roy would have to start by not fouling as much to be considered a GO-TO GUY.

DrFife
04-01-2009, 08:56 AM
I'm perfectly happy with Roy's development at this point, and I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be a viable post option for whom plays are run. The term "go-to guy" forces visions of a player you ride down the stretch. I do not believe that is what Roy is saying. What he is saying is that he wants to be someone who you can, for stretches of time, run the offense through. He has certainly shown sufficient ability to score in the post.

He does need to get stronger, and stop making stupid fouls, but I think he's demonstrated the capability to be a good, solid scorer in this league.

Count, can I nudge you to do one more PER analysis on Hibby & Rush for us ... when you're doing that insane commute to/from TH? Pretty please?? (I'll respond with my all-league report after the season ends.)

Hicks
04-01-2009, 09:10 AM
The title was "Hibberts hopes to be a go-to guy". This thread's title leaves it open to interpretation that he is demanding to be THE go-to guy. I hope only a few make that mistake.

Major Cold
04-01-2009, 09:32 AM
my question is...Why do I read the comments at the end of IndyStar articles?

BKK
04-01-2009, 09:40 AM
besides picking fool too esaily I don't see any major flaw in Hibbert's game that could hinder him from being a solid contributor inside. Footwork, body strength and rebound positionning can easily be improved, I don't worry about that. With the pace he's developed at in his first season and one summer league + training camp I'm sure he'll be right there before we realize it

clownskull
04-01-2009, 11:26 AM
yeh, he isn't saying he should be the guy, he just wants to develop into a guy they can count on in the post and i think that's great. he does need to get stronger. when i watch him move, it really looks like he is currently too underpowered to move around adequately and his leaping ability isn't as good as i think it could be. he needs to work on building about 15-20 lbs more of quality muscle on that big frame of his and i think he will be ready to bang around with anyone.
he already has great size and interesting potential and i think if over the summer, he just works with some people on getting stronger it will help him in many ways including his rebounding. of course he should also work on refining his offense too but anyways, yeh , i think we got ourselves a center worth keeping.

Kid Minneapolis
04-01-2009, 01:33 PM
I wonder if bulking up won't impact his knees and feet... it usually does on big guys. It's not like he's "small". I almost would rather he worked on technique and build strength/stamina without bulking up too much. JO bulked up for us and really became less effective and more injury-prone.

Hibbert does have a very nice touch around the rim, really seems to have a knack for finding the hoop from awkward positions, especially for a big guy. I think he could really be a tough player to defend once he refines his offensive game a bit.

clownskull
04-01-2009, 01:44 PM
thing is though, j.o. always had a thin, wispy type of build that couldn't handle his added weight. he tried to become the other oneal when he had a k.g. type body that couldn't handle it. i think roy's body could handle it. although if not throw on 15-20 lbs more weight, he still needs to get stronger which will inevitably add more weight.

Hicks
04-01-2009, 01:47 PM
Hibbert doesn't need more pounds, he just needs to improve his strength. They don't always go hand in hand. I think more weight is just going to bring faster chronic leg issues.

dohman
04-01-2009, 02:02 PM
He could EASILY handle another 10 pounds of LEAN MUSCLE. Another 1/2 inch on his arms and shoulders would benefit him a lot playing in the post. He would be a much stronger rebounder and would be able to control a lot more when people are swatting at it. He does not have a POWER game he plays with finess so bulking up would not benefit that portion of his game. Only repetition on bigger centers will.

naptownmenace
04-01-2009, 04:07 PM
He could EASILY handle another 10 pounds of LEAN MUSCLE. Another 1/2 inch on his arms and shoulders would benefit him a lot playing in the post. He would be a much stronger rebounder and would be able to control a lot more when people are swatting at it. He does not have a POWER game he plays with finess so bulking up would not benefit that portion of his game. Only repetition on bigger centers will.

:ditto: What he said.

I've probably said something similar about 150 times during this season.

Trophy
04-01-2009, 04:11 PM
He still has a while to go

Pacersfan46
04-01-2009, 04:21 PM
My only issues with Hibbert are his foul trouble, and he shot much better the first half of the year than he has the 2nd half. Maybe rookie wall or something though. It's not a big concern to me yet.

-- Steve --

Haggard
04-01-2009, 08:31 PM
My only issues with Hibbert are his foul trouble, and he shot much better the first half of the year than he has the 2nd half. Maybe rookie wall or something though. It's not a big concern to me yet.

-- Steve --

i think that in time Hibbert will learn how to stay out of foul trouble.

Naptown_Seth
04-01-2009, 08:36 PM
I'm perfectly happy with Roy's development at this point, and I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be a viable post option for whom plays are run. The term "go-to guy" forces visions of a player you ride down the stretch. I do not believe that is what Roy is saying. What he is saying is that he wants to be someone who you can, for stretches of time, run the offense through. He has certainly shown sufficient ability to score in the post.

He does need to get stronger, and stop making stupid fouls, but I think he's demonstrated the capability to be a good, solid scorer in this league.
He's a 17th pick that I thought was way to slow/awkward to make in the league even though I started last year as a fan and excited for his senior year.

I'd call his rookie year a huge success. I mean I realize most bigs drafted after 15th go on to greatness but maybe its going to take Roy longer than all those other greats on that list.


Roy doesn't need weight at all, he's not getting really muscled. He just doesn't have the full low post scoring finesse yet, and a big reason for that was that G'town didn't ask him to work the low post as much as the high post. Jabbar in his final years wasn't any more athletic than Roy is now, he just had that nice set of go-to moves that he could work to perfection. Smits was similar in finding exactly which shots he could and couldn't get regularly and then going to them.


You know hops and quickness aren't the only attributes that impact how good a player can become. Too often IQ is overlooked with some assumption that all players can be taught the same. That's crazy. A brighter player will learn more, and not just from coaching but from experience. You need smarts to maximize potential. So Roy might not be as athletic, but he's more likely to tweak out every ounce of potential which should be enough to keep up with some of the better athletes who never really make good on their promise.

JonnyB83
04-01-2009, 09:15 PM
my question is...Why do I read the comments at the end of IndyStar articles?

I only do that if i wanna be mad for a while. That being said, I think Roy's had a pretty decent year. If we can get him to stay outta foul trouble he'll improve that much more.

LoneGranger33
04-01-2009, 11:24 PM
He's too soft right now. He needs to be stronger. Strong like bull. Or at least strong like Barac.

NashvilleKat
04-02-2009, 10:46 AM
Roy has been less than impressive this year. I'll be honest and say I haven't seen any reason to keep him around after his rookie contract expires. Footwork is terrible, can't shoot the midrange, can't dunk under pressure, has little confidence against even mediocre centers.

On a postive note, he does have good soft hands, he can catch the ball in traffic. I sure hope he starts to develop in the next year, but his rookie season has been rough.


Both Chicago Bulls games on League Pass were covered by the Bulls announcers and they kept commenting over and over how weak Hibbert is. I hadn't specifically noticed it until they kept commenting on it...but he was getting his shot blocked by guards and small forwards, and consistently has the ball hanked out of his hands by little guys when attempting rebounds.

His #1 priority over the summer is in the weight room, gaining strength. He needs to work with a top flight big man on how to guard without fouling, and he needs to move quicker to the basket when they throw the ball in to him in the post. He's very slow developing his move to the basket. giving defenders a chance to gang up on him.

Hopefully this is all rookie stuff that will come as he grows into his body and learns rhe pro game. Didn't Kareem Jabbar, Rik Smits, and other long gangly centers have similar problems their first few years?

Hicks
04-02-2009, 10:51 AM
No one should be too down on Hibbert only 1 year in.

PacerGuy
04-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Hibby is still redefining his body. I have been pleased with his progression & his effort in this regard, as well as his determination to get better overall. That said, I too am in the court of wanting to see Hib add 10-15 lb's & work on his streangth, not his bulk. As his confidence grows & his footwork improves, I think you will see his quickness improve. He will never be cat-like, but I think he can (& will) become less plotting in his movements in the future. To me, Hibby looks athletic out there, unlike many big men. He is not, nor will he ever be a Howard/ Stodamire, but hes not a Dampier/ "Big Z" either. Give him time to grow into his NBA body, & when he does, I think we will all like what we see!

Kid Minneapolis
04-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Lol... it's not correct to say that someone should gain 15 lbs without adding bulk. That's a scientific impossibility. That 15 lbs has to go somewhere.

Hibbert is a big dude, he's already pushing 300 lbs, and most of it is muscle... he is bigger, taller, stronger than a large percentage of NBA players. I don't think it's his size that's limiting him, whether it's his height, weight, or strength. He's not getting pushed around that much. He's not a particularly fast fellow, and he needs all he can get... adding more weight is not going to make him faster. He doesn't have much "ups", and adding more weight is also not going to help that. He needs to strengthen the muscle he already has, rather than add more of it.

He just needs to perfect his technique, get down a nice arsenal of offensive post moves, which he will because he's only a rookie. He's on a nice path. In a few years, he's going to be a nice post option, someone who is very hard to defend.

naptownmenace
04-02-2009, 02:33 PM
Hopefully this is all rookie stuff that will come as he grows into his body and learns rhe pro game. Didn't Kareem Jabbar, Rik Smits, and other long gangly centers have similar problems their first few years?

Kareem? No. Smits? Yes.

He had a very weak upper body but he had better hands, footwork, and was more agressive taking it to the basket. He was way ahead of Roy offensively. Smits was a foul magnet during his rookie season but overall his defensive was slightly better.

Smits rounded averages during his rookie season were 12 points on 52% shooting, 6 rebounds, 2 blks, and 4 fouls in 25 minutes a game. Nothing earth-shattering but that's still more productive than Roy (Roy has the benefit of playing on an up tempo wide open style of offense too).

Roy has promise though and after a summer of working on his footwork, conditioning, strength, and timing he'll probably be a much better player next year.

PacerGuy
04-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Lol... it's not correct to say that someone should gain 15 lbs without adding bulk. That's a scientific impossibility. That 15 lbs has to go somewhere.

-Being that muscle weighs more then fat, & being that muscle can be added to the legs, chest, arms,..., it is quite possible to get stronger & add weight w/o adding "bulk". Bulk inplies mass (size). There are also ways for one to lift weights that focus more on building mass, & ways to focus on streangth. Stronger muscles weigh more then under-developed muscles, as they are more dense. Roy's body is not even remotely fully developed, & as he conditions, eats properly, & matures in time, the 10-15 lbs will happen. It's not an "if", as much as a "when". - and "when" that happens, Roy (& the Pacers) will be the benificery(s) of that.


adding more weight is not going to make him faster.
-I never said "faster", I said "quicker". There is a difference - a big difference - & conditioning ones body, & playing on "instinct" w/o thinking can definately affect ones "quickness". Reactions & reflexes have nothing to do w/ how "fast" someone is, & both can be developed on. It if his quickness that I talked about him improving. Something I think he can & will improve on.

Kid Minneapolis
04-02-2009, 03:51 PM
-Being that muscle weighs more then fat, & being that muscle can be added to the legs, chest, arms,..., it is quite possible to get stronger & add weight w/o adding "bulk". Bulk inplies mass (size). There are also ways for one to lift weights that focus more on building mass, & ways to focus on streangth. Stronger muscles weigh more then under-developed muscles, as they are more dense. Roy's body is not even remotely fully developed, & as he conditions, eats properly, & matures in time, the 10-15 lbs will happen. It's not an "if", as much as a "when". - and "when" that happens, Roy (& the Pacers) will be the benificery(s) of that.

Lol... here's a little basic high school science lesson for ya...

You just equated bulk to mass. I'm tellin' ya --- weight and mass (bulk, as you described it) are directly related. Weight = gravity * mass... it's a simple mathematical situation --- you cannot increase mass without increasing weight, it's scientifically impossible. The definition of weight is mass X the force of gravity, and gravity in our perspective remains mostly constant. If you weigh more, it's because you are scientifically more "massive" (bulky, in your words).

Therefore, it is scientifically impossible to gain 15 lbs and not be more "massive". That was my entire point.

However, I understand the point you're trying to make.

You might be better off referring to "density" and "volume", since muscle is more "dense" than fat, which is why if you have 2 units of the same volume of fat and muscle, the muscle will weigh more than the fat. It's more dense. If you cut a stone to the size of a loaf of bread, and then weighed the stone vs the loaf of bread, they're not gonna weigh the same. They're the same size, but the stone weighs a lot more. Same principle.

However, my WHOLE point is this: Roy doesn't have a lot of fat on him. It'd be different if you indicated that Glen "Big Baby" Davis converted his considerable fat reservoirs to muscle --- he could remain the same weight, and actually look considerably slimmer if he replaced fat with muscle.

Roy doesn't have much fat to replace. He's a pretty lean dude.

For Roy to get stronger, he likely will put on weight by adding muscle mass. And some of us are saying, getting bigger (bulkier) will be detrimental to his game, because he'll weigh more, putting more stress on his knees and feet, and likely making him more injury prone, and additionaly, it will probly decrease his speed and vertical, which is already on the low end of the spectrum. He's a strong fellow as it is; where his improvements lie are in his technique and execution.

On a somewhat related topic, I'll go on record now as saying I predict Hibbert will have a frustratingly high number of shots blocked in his career, because he has a poor vertical... he's tall, but those lean jumpers in the league will have a hey-day swatting his nearly flat-footed shots. He's gonna hafta learn to be crafty in his shot position and release to make it harder for those guys to get in position to block it.

Putnam
04-02-2009, 04:04 PM
"Calling Since86!"

Since86
04-02-2009, 04:19 PM
Eh.....

Hibbert can get stronger without adding much weight, if at all, but it depends on his workout load already.

If you or even I were to start moderate lifting, our strength would increase dramatically because our bodies would start getting effiecent at the required work. That's why most people give up on lifting, because they lift for vanity reasons and they know they're getting stronger, but aren't getting any bigger. Depending on his workout schedule, it could happen.

Knowing what I know about Hibbert, based on pure observation, I think he could safely add weight, if it's done properly.

The thing with JO is he got too top heavy. I continually use a comercial (I forget which product) but it was the "too much of a good thing" slogan where they show a huge bodybuilder waist up and pencil skinny legs. His, JO, bottom half just couldn't sustain the added pressure.

If you add muscle to your lower extremities it takes a lot of the pressure off the joints and will actually strengthen them as well. It's just finding that happy medium.

If I were to make a workout for him, it would be a lot of legs, core (squats, and a LOT of them), and shoulder lifts. I personally think he's too skinny. He needs a good base to work off of. I haven't been able to watch a whole lot this year (had to pick up a second job) but from what I have seen, it looks like he gets his hips pushed out from under him and he gets moved off his spot. He needs to get some more core strength to help him fight through those little, legal, nudges from defenders.

McKeyFan
04-02-2009, 09:34 PM
Kareem? No. Smits? Yes.

He had a very weak upper body but he had better hands, footwork, and was more agressive taking it to the basket. He was way ahead of Roy offensively. Smits was a foul magnet during his rookie season but overall his defensive was slightly better.

Smits rounded averages during his rookie season were 12 points on 52% shooting, 6 rebounds, 2 blks, and 4 fouls in 25 minutes a game. Nothing earth-shattering but that's still more productive than Roy (Roy has the benefit of playing on an up tempo wide open style of offense too).

Roy has promise though and after a summer of working on his footwork, conditioning, strength, and timing he'll probably be a much better player next year.

Would be helpful to know the minutes per game for Roy and Smits. That might explain Rik's higher point average.

count55
04-02-2009, 10:15 PM
Would be helpful to know the minutes per game for Roy and Smits. That might explain Rik's higher point average.

Per 36 minute numbers (scroll to right to see ppg):


Rk Player From To G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Roy Hibbert 2009 2009 63 35 861 7.1 15.1 .475 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.4 .651 4.0 4.3 8.4 1.7 0.8 2.7 2.1 8.0 17.2
2 Rik Smits 1989 1989 82 71 2041 6.8 13.2 .517 0.0 0.0 .000 3.2 4.5 .722 3.3 5.6 8.8 1.2 0.7 2.7 2.3 5.5 16.9

As you can see, they are very comparable, with Smits being a better (more efficient) shooter. The big difference is in minutes played and, as you can see, Roy is far more foul prone.

However, Rik was the #2 pick in the draft playing on a team whose starting C (Steve Stipanovich) was suffering from what turned out to be a career ending injury. Roy is the #17 pick. At this point, you can see the reasons for the differences.

However, Roy certainly has some very nice skills, and there's reason to believe that he can be a productive player in the league. A Smits-like career, however, should be considered closer to a best-case scenario than a likelihood.

MillerTime
04-02-2009, 10:33 PM
Per 36 minute numbers (scroll to right to see ppg):


Rk Player From To G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Roy Hibbert 2009 2009 63 35 861 7.1 15.1 .475 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.4 .651 4.0 4.3 8.4 1.7 0.8 2.7 2.1 8.0 17.2
2 Rik Smits 1989 1989 82 71 2041 6.8 13.2 .517 0.0 0.0 .000 3.2 4.5 .722 3.3 5.6 8.8 1.2 0.7 2.7 2.3 5.5 16.9

As you can see, they are very comparable, with Smits being a better (more efficient) shooter. The big difference is in minutes played and, as you can see, Roy is far more foul prone.

However, Rik was the #2 pick in the draft playing on a team whose starting C (Steve Stipanovich) was suffering from what turned out to be a career ending injury. Roy is the #17 pick. At this point, you can see the reasons for the differences.

However, Roy certainly has some very nice skills, and there's reason to believe that he can be a productive player in the league. A Smits-like career, however, should be considered closer to a best-case scenario than a likelihood.

Great comparison. Though Smits looks slightly better (not by too much), pretty much had the same rookie season. With the only major difference is that Roy's fouling toooo much

OTD
04-02-2009, 10:48 PM
All experts in this room don't you realize that it takes around 3 years for a big man to come into his own. Give the kid a break.

BlueNGold
04-02-2009, 10:55 PM
However, Roy certainly has some very nice skills, and there's reason to believe that he can be a productive player in the league. A Smits-like career, however, should be considered closer to a best-case scenario than a likelihood.

If he is 80% the player Smits was, we have an important piece to a contending team. I think he has a good chance of reaching that level. We should learn a lot about his ceiling over the next 2 years.

Actually, I don't expect him to be as good as Smits. I have seen too many other busts in the recent past (e.g. Diogu, Harrison, etc.) to get my hopes up.

Pacersfan46
04-02-2009, 10:56 PM
I'm sad to see his rebounding totals comparable to Rik. I certainly hope for him to be a better rebounder. Blocks being the same doesn't concern me, Rik was a much better shot blocker earlier in his career.

-- Steve --

count55
04-02-2009, 10:59 PM
If he is 80% the player Smits was, we have an important piece to a contending team. I think he has a good chance of reaching that level. We should learn a lot about his ceiling over the next 2 years.

Actually, I don't expect him to be as good as Smits. I have seen too many other busts in the recent past (e.g. Diogu, Harrison, etc.) to get my hopes up.

I believe Hibbert has already surpassed both Diogu and Harrison.

clownskull
04-02-2009, 11:36 PM
oh i agree roy needs time. i am not one of those 'i want to see immediate results yesterday' types. i have been pleased with how roy has done so far overall. i am just in the crowd of those that believe one of roys biggest weaknesses is his current lack of physical strength. i agree with those who believe that he really needs to work on strengthening his core will help significantly. having stronger legs would not hurt his weak vertical- it would only help it.
(i am not making a direct comparison here) but when shaq was drafted, he was 303 lbs. and as he matured along with hitting the weights, he hit his prime condition at around the 325-330 lbs. mark after a couple of years. not that shaq was at all underpowered like i see with roy or that roy needs to be like shaq but, i believe that with enough work- i can see roy hitting the mark in his 290's or so.

like i said in my 1st post in this thread, i see a guy with great size who currently looks too underpowered to move around and jump as well as he could. i also realize this isn't something that can happen overnight either. i have patience.

Bball
04-03-2009, 12:10 AM
When I've seen Roy running down the court I've thought he looked fairly quick for his size. As long as he can get down the court quickly, I don't think he has to be a gazelle to effectively play offense or defense. He just needs to work on his reaction time more than anything there...

OTOH... I am a little concerned in his lift. I don't know whether it's him being tentative or if he simply has an "Evansville Vertical" (meaning he can't jump over the Evansville phone book), but this is the one aspect of his game that has concerned me some.

Or maybe it's a combination of things including his lack of playing time and me just not seeing enough game action with Hibbert to get a more accurate view.

-Bball

Midcoasted
04-03-2009, 12:51 AM
When I've seen Roy running down the court I've thought he looked fairly quick for his size. As long as he can get down the court quickly, I don't think he has to be a gazelle to effectively play offense or defense. He just needs to work on his reaction time more than anything there...

OTOH... I am a little concerned in his lift. I don't know whether it's him being tentative or if he simply has an "Evansville Vertical" (meaning he can't jump over the Evansville phone book), but this is the one aspect of his game that has concerned me some.

Or maybe it's a combination of things including his lack of playing time and me just not seeing enough game action with Hibbert to get a more accurate view.

-Bball

I'm from Evansville and I've never head that, LOL.

Roy is the future, simple and plain. The day will come when we look back and realize 2008 was the best draft we've ever had, because of Rush and Hibbert. The trades weren't so bad either. Good work Larry.

Infinite MAN_force
04-03-2009, 01:07 AM
I'm from Evansville and I've never head that, LOL.

Roy is the future, simple and plain. The day will come when we look back and realize 2008 was the best draft we've ever had, because of Rush and Hibbert. The trades weren't so bad either. Good work Larry.

As long as we are all sunshine and rainbows Im gonna throw in that I think Mcroberts will be better than most people currently realize. I also want full credit for calling it now, though I might reluctantly be forced to share some credit with Naptown Seth.

thefeistyone
04-03-2009, 01:53 AM
I don't know about the "go to guy". He is a pretty good passer for a big man and our only post player that has any skills with his back to the basket. Seems like a pretty good idea to get him the ball down the stretch.

Personally I think he's doing great for his first season. To get a guy like that with the 17th pick is an absolute steal. I think he's every bit as good a Thabeet (sp) and he's going to go top 5 this year.

clownskull
04-03-2009, 02:28 AM
As long as we are all sunshine and rainbows Im gonna throw in that I think Mcroberts will be better than most people currently realize. I also want full credit for calling it now, though I might reluctantly be forced to share some credit with Naptown Seth.

i'm with ya on mcbob. i think over time with refining his game for this level, he will prove to be better than most people think he can be.

Pacersfan46
04-03-2009, 02:44 AM
Personally I think he's doing great for his first season. To get a guy like that with the 17th pick is an absolute steal. I think he's every bit as good a Thabeet (sp) and he's going to go top 5 this year.

This years draft does look kindy stinkery. That might have more to do with it than anything.

-- Steve --

Kemo
04-03-2009, 05:14 PM
As long as we are all sunshine and rainbows Im gonna throw in that I think Mcroberts will be better than most people currently realize. I also want full credit for calling it now, though I might reluctantly be forced to share some credit with Naptown Seth.


HEY NOW .. I been on the J-Mac train for awhile now too...

:dance:

BlueNGold
04-03-2009, 09:04 PM
I believe Hibbert has already surpassed both Diogu and Harrison.

Yes, he is better than Ike and DH already. Let's hope he moves even further up the chain...

PacersRule
04-03-2009, 10:02 PM
LONG way to go...gotta solve that fouling problem!!

Naptown_Seth
04-03-2009, 10:43 PM
As long as we are all sunshine and rainbows Im gonna throw in that I think Mcroberts will be better than most people currently realize. I also want full credit for calling it now, though I might reluctantly be forced to share some credit with Naptown Seth.
I'm starting to notice some real awareness mistakes, but I'm hoping that the added PT will start to fix that. Athletically he's got tons of talent, way more than other bigs that played lots of minutes for the Pacers. I love his game, but I do agree with other posters that this bandwagon is carrying more than just the two of us. There has been quite a clamor to see more of his energy and ability out there.



With Hibbert, my 2008 prospect thread comments were always "too slow". It's not his vert that hurts him, it's his awkwardly slow movements. I'm happier with his game now than I was pre-draft, but I hate to say that I still fear that I was more right than I want to be.

I'm hoping that as he learns the game and gets some instinct to some of his moves that they will be quick enough to be effective without getting spiked into the floor by Thomas. Right now he's so slow and plodding that it allows help defenders to load up on him.


I remain hopeful that this changes and he finds a game of fundamentals. You see him next to Duncan and that's the only difference, brisk, smooth motion from Tim vs. awkward, gangly motion from Roy.

BillS
04-03-2009, 10:43 PM
Having another year in the league solves about a foul a game.

I never thought DH was going to get it. I don't worry about Roy.

MillerTime
04-05-2009, 10:19 AM
I was just thinking this...just before the trade deadline, Bird was trying to make an offer for Chandler but the Thunder had a better offer for the Hornets. With this in mind, it seems that Bird isnt confident that Hibbert will be our C for the future. Theres no point is trying to trade for Chandler if we're bringing him off the bench behind Hibbert.

Therefore my conclusion is that Hibbert will be our backup C in the future. Bird doesnt seem content with Hibbert's progress and feels that Hibbert is better suited to come off the bench. What do you guys feel about this?

count55
04-05-2009, 10:26 AM
I was just thinking this...just before the trade deadline, Bird was trying to make an offer for Chandler but the Thunder had a better offer for the Hornets. With this in mind, it seems that Bird isnt confident that Hibbert will be our C for the future. Theres no point is trying to trade for Chandler if we're bringing him off the bench behind Hibbert.

Therefore my conclusion is that Hibbert will be our backup C in the future. Bird doesnt seem content with Hibbert's progress and feels that Hibbert is better suited to come off the bench. What do you guys feel about this?

I don't buy your conclusion. I believe that Chandler would have played next to Hibbert, not in front of him, at least long term.

MillerTime
04-05-2009, 10:33 AM
I don't buy your conclusion. I believe that Chandler would have played next to Hibbert, not in front of him, at least long term.

I shouldnt have stated that as a conclusion, it was a mere thought. A lineup of Hibbert and Chandler would have been HUGE, literally. But I dont know how effective that would have been. Neither is really very talented offensively.

DrFife
04-05-2009, 11:15 AM
I don't buy your conclusion. I believe that Chandler would have played next to Hibbert, not in front of him, at least long term.

I 2nd that motion. Given Hibbert at C, a description of the ideal PF, IMO, would put a premium on defensive help-side athleticism. Better still would be to have a PF/C (or C/PF) who can exhibit some post-up offense when paired with Murphy. The combination of Chandler & Hibbert (or perhaps Thabeet & Hibbert) doesn't present a problem like the one of Murphy & Hibbert does. JOB's surprising candor seemed to point to this (although, regarding improving the defense, he'd probably also like T-Bird's (and others') request to acquire Trevor Ariza).

BTW, acquiring Chandler may not be a dead issue, as rumors persist that the Hornets will be looking to shed salary this summer.

MillerTime
04-05-2009, 11:24 AM
I 2nd that motion. Given Hibbert at C, a description of the ideal PF, IMO, would put a premium on defensive help-side athleticism. Better still would be to have a PF/C (or C/PF) who can exhibit some post-up offense when paired with Murphy. The combination of Chandler & Hibbert (or perhaps Thabeet & Hibbert) doesn't present a problem like the one of Murphy & Hibbert does. JOB's surprising candor seemed to point to this (although, regarding improving the defense, he'd probably also like T-Bird's (and others') request to acquire Trevor Ariza).

BTW, acquiring Chandler may not be a dead issue, as rumors persist that the Hornets will be looking to shed salary this summer.

We probably wont be able to acquire Chandler now. We dont have any major expirers now. Rasho and Quis (unless his option is picked up) are good as gone. Unless we pickup Quis' option, Chandler isnt going to be a Pacers

Mr. Sobchak
04-05-2009, 12:43 PM
Neither is really very talented offensively.


Post offense is Hibbert's best attribute. He might only average like 6 ppg but at least the potential is there. He is too slow to be a great on ball defender and can't jump high enough to be a great rebounder. What else is he particularly better than average at?

MillerTime
04-06-2009, 05:17 AM
Post offense is Hibbert's best attribute. He might only average like 6 ppg but at least the potential is there. He is too slow to be a great on ball defender and can't jump high enough to be a great rebounder. What else is he particularly better than average at?

Not much. He does have a lot of potential though. As mentioned many times, its going to take Hibbert a while to develop his game in the NBA.