PDA

View Full Version : New member... please don't hate me!



Coopia
01-10-2010, 12:49 PM
Well, I guess it had to happen at some point. I have been lurking here for about a year now, and didn't get motivated to post until just recently. I wanted to start off by saying thanks to everyone running the site, and to all the frequent posters for the great insight.

My reason for finally deciding to show up is a disturbing trend on here that seems to be infecting more and more members everyday. I refer to it as "DMH"... Delusional McRoberts Homerism. When game recap threads started including his lack of minutes in the title I figured it had gone too far. You would think the guy was putting up double doubles every time he got a chance to step on the court. He is in fact a great athlete with a solid shooting stroke, but those alone have never made anyone a great basketball player.

I would like to first point out that I hold most of the opinions and basketball knowledge here in high regard. That is why I find this so baffling. The continued McRoberts focus on this board seems to take away from much of the legitimate basketball discussion here. I am of the opinion (and I realize it is just that) that if McRoberts weren't an Indiana native, and if he didn't have a minimum contract, he wouldn't be here at all. Actually, I don't think that he would ever be more than a 12th man anywhere in the league. The feeling around here by some that he should get a chance to start is (to me) comparable to a Knick fan complaining that Darko needs 30 minutes a game.

In the last month (the 7 games that he got some time in due to injuries) His averages were as follows:
18 min
5.6 pts
4.4 boards
1.3 assts
0.6 stls
0.6 blks
Yes, he manages to shoot 55%, but that is really the only redeeming factor here. Sad thing is, during this stretch he didn't have to defer to any stars on the court so this may be the biggest chance he ever gets. The bottom line is, he got a chance for some playing time, and did little to nothing with it. He is basically the exact same player as Solomon Jones plus the ability to shoot from long range. As far as I am concerned he has been given a very small opportunity (as much as most 12th men get) to prove he can make an impact, and he failed. Before we claim that it is an O'Brien conspiracy to keep his value down we should take a look at his time with Portland. The whole league must be in on it. In fact it must just be a Duke deal, because Shavlik "McRoberts Lite" Randolph is getting the same treatment from all the incompetent coaches in the league.

I would actually prefer Solomon to get all of his minutes, because he hasn't been playing basketball very long and probably has more room to improve. With McRoberts... we know what we have.

I think it would be much more credible to put D. Jones minutes in the thread titles, because his lack of minutes seems like more of an injustice than anything else. I still haven't heard any good reasons why his time has been almost eliminated, and I don't really expect to hear any legit reasons from the our coach.

Wow, I haven't written that much at once in a long time. I guess I can sit back and let my fingers rest while I prepare for all the flaming I am going to get from the McRoberts Army. I just hope everyone knows that it was done out of love. I have been a Pacers fan for going on 20 years now, and will continue to support the team through the tough years. I would just hope that despite everyone's desperation we would continue to look at things like the educated fans that we are, and not Pacers/Duke Bluedevil fanboys.

I will now run away from my computer and prepare for mass chaos.

Thanks,

Coop

Hicks
01-10-2010, 12:53 PM
You do realize I included that in the post-MIN game thread title because he played well enough to keep playing and I was bothered that Jim benched him in favor of small-ball, and not because I think he's the next big thing for us, right?

the jaddler
01-10-2010, 12:56 PM
you have seen the pacers play right?

how is mcbob suppose to get better if he doesnt get the the chance to play????

but i do commend you for post what you have and not saying tj ford, dunlevey or murphy anywhere in there!!!

I SAY WELCOME COOP!

MillerTime
01-10-2010, 12:56 PM
You cant really look at McRoberts numbers and say if he had a good game or not. Hes not one to put up great numbers, but he will being a lot of energy, athleticism (which this team lacks), and defense (another thing this team lacks).

I dont think Bird was interested in McRoberts because hes a Indy native, I think it has to do more with the fact that McRoberts had a great college career. It seems that Bird is obsessed with players that had a great college career (Hansbrough, Price, Rush, Dunleavy, Murphy, Hibbert, McRoberts...)

Hicks
01-10-2010, 12:59 PM
As for Josh's offense, I don't put much stock into it.

I like him when we think we can punish lazy defenses and when we think we'll be running a lot. Too little data to know if we could count on his seemingly developed jump shot, and his post moves are insignificant. Yes he shot 55% but that's what happens when teams allow you to cut for alley-oop dunks (Love wasn't having that, but then he's smarter than others).

I think his strength is being a cog in the machine on offense (because he can make good/quick passes and his athleticism partially keeps the D honest when he's weakside), playing decent D, and sometimes he can board for you. If he's playing 15 or so minutes, I would include his energy as well.

Too young to close the book on him.

owl
01-10-2010, 01:00 PM
I believe you are over reading what the majority of people feel about McBob.
He deserves some minutes. NO ONE feels he is a savior for this team. Welcome
to the board by the way.

Coopia
01-10-2010, 01:00 PM
You do realize I included that in the post-MIN game thread title because he played well enough to keep playing and I was bothered that Jim benched him in favor of small-ball, and not because I think he's the next big thing for us, right?

I really didn't think a whole lot of it in the first recap title. It was the second one in a row (after we started to get guys back from injury) that caught me as a bit funny. Since Murphy and Granger have been back I find it odd that anyone would still expect him to get minutes. I'm no big Murphy fan, but with most of our guys healthy I just dont' see any justification for him taking minutes away from anyone in front of him.

Coop

Brad8888
01-10-2010, 01:02 PM
Welcome to the board, Coopia.

An initial detailed and coherent post of an opinion that you realize is not universally popular with everyone here gives hope to the idea that you will be a meaningful contributor to the board, and fresh viewpoints are the lifeblood of any board and are well respected here, in my relatively short tenure here.

McRoberts is better than the way he has been utilized by the coaching staff in several of our opinions, and it has been underscored recently, which has only served to revive the issue in our minds.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 01:03 PM
I really didn't think a whole lot of it in the first recap title. It was the second one in a row (after we started to get guys back from injury) that caught me as a bit funny. Since Murphy and Granger have been back I find it odd that anyone would still expect him to get minutes. I'm no big Murphy fan, but with most of our guys healthy I just dont' see any justification for him taking minutes away from anyone in front of him.

Coop

Well, I don't recall who did it the second time (wasn't me), but when I did it Murphy came back that game, and your theory would be fine had we been playing Murphy at the 4, but we were also giving him significant time at the 5 and opting for Mike Dunleavy at the 4 (/vomit).

Coopia
01-10-2010, 01:06 PM
you have seen the pacers play right?

how is mcbob suppose to get better if he doesnt get the the chance to play????

but i do commend you for post what you have and not saying tj ford, dunlevey or murphy anywhere in there!!!

I SAY WELCOME COOP!

That's just the thing... I don't expect him to get any better. I have never really seen anything in his play that screams upside.

I am going to have to apologize on the second point though, because I typed one of those forbidden names in my second post... I just wanted to fit in.

Coop

sportfireman
01-10-2010, 01:06 PM
welcome


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g66ll9hoTHY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g66ll9hoTHY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

the jaddler
01-10-2010, 01:13 PM
welcome


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g66ll9hoTHY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g66ll9hoTHY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

really?????really?????

Coopia
01-10-2010, 01:13 PM
You cant really look at McRoberts numbers and say if he had a good game or not. Hes not one to put up great numbers, but he will being a lot of energy, athleticism (which this team lacks), and defense (another thing this team lacks).

I dont think Bird was interested in McRoberts because hes a Indy native, I think it has to do more with the fact that McRoberts had a great college career. It seems that Bird is obsessed with players that had a great college career (Hansbrough, Price, Rush, Dunleavy, Murphy, Hibbert, McRoberts...)

That is the thing... all those other players had great college careers and played 4 years. McRoberts left (really prematurely in my eyes) after his 2nd year, and put up 13 and 8 his best year at Duke. Far from a great college career. If he had stayed in college he would have had all the playing time he could have handled and would have had more time to develop his game. I just don't think it is fair to expect NBA execs and coaches to let a mediocre player do that on the clock. No one owes him the minutes. He has to earn it in practice. He didn't seem to do it in Portland, and he hasn't done it here. I understand that he has been given some praise for his progression, but that is usually given out to all but the worst screw-ups.

Coop

the jaddler
01-10-2010, 01:15 PM
That's just the thing... I don't expect him to get any better. I have never really seen anything in his play that screams upside.

I am going to have to apologize on the second point though, because I typed one of those forbidden names in my second post... I just wanted to fit in.

Coop

well you could be right to an extent....but by playing him we are not hurting anything in my opionion.....im not sure what his numbers are on turnovers, but i think we might just be better off if we give him more minutes.....unless he proves other wise. we arent winning games now.....so why not let him get some minutes and see what happens...

sportfireman
01-10-2010, 01:19 PM
really?????really?????
yep:D

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 01:22 PM
That's just the thing... I don't expect him to get any better. I have never really seen anything in his play that screams upside.


Coop

Why do you think this? Is there any legitimate reasoning or is it just a reverse of the same bias you claim we use when speaking of him?

He's the best athlete on the team. He's significantly stronger just this season than he was last. He plays hard every time he's been given a shot. His shot has seemed to improve leaps and bounds from a year ago. His interior defense is arguably the best on the team (when Foster is hurt there's no doubt). He looks to be close to a legit 7' footer with longish arms. He's a good lateral mover, which is no small thing for a big man. He consistently keeps plays alive on the offensive end. He's the best passing big on the team. He's got the best handles of the bigs on the team. And perhaps most importantly, he's the youngest player on the team.

I don't think McRoberts is world beater. I don't think he should be a starter on a good NBA team. But he has a spot in this league. He could make every team, even the good ones. We are not a good team. He needs to play. A lot. Every game. And he's going to be back in a suit behind the bench soon. Which makes no sense. No matter what you may think.

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 01:26 PM
That is the thing... all those other players had great college careers and played 4 years. McRoberts left (really prematurely in my eyes) after his 2nd year, and put up 13 and 8 his best year at Duke. Far from a great college career. If he had stayed in college he would have had all the playing time he could have handled and would have had more time to develop his game. I just don't think it is fair to expect NBA execs and coaches to let a mediocre player do that on the clock. No one owes him the minutes. He has to earn it in practice. He didn't seem to do it in Portland, and he hasn't done it here. I understand that he has been given some praise for his progression, but that is usually given out to all but the worst screw-ups.

Coop

That's ludicrous. I don't care what he or any other NBA player did in college. At all. He was a 20 year old rookie in Portland who had one of the best front lines in the league. He didn't have a chance. What is relevant is what he's done for the Pacers. And that has been undeniably positive when he's been given his few opportunities. You claim we were biased because he's from Indiana. It sounds like you're just as biased to me.

Coopia
01-10-2010, 01:26 PM
well you could be right to an extent....but by playing him we are not hurting anything in my opionion.....im not sure what his numbers are on turnovers, but i think we might just be better off if we give him more minutes.....unless he proves other wise. we arent winning games now.....so why not let him get some minutes and see what happens...

He definitely doesn't turn the ball over a lot. I'm not saying he hurts the team, I just don't think he helps too much. I also agree with the point that we aren't winning games, so we should figure out what we have in some guys. I'm not worried about winning at all right now, so I would like to see AJ, Tyler, Roy, and B Rush play as much as possible despite their growing pains. For whatever reason, I have such a low opinion of McRoberts future in this league I just see it as wasted time on trying to develop him. Others obviously have drastically different opinions. I just keep coming back to the reasoning that if he deserved consistent minutes, he would have found a way to get them at some point thus far (here or in Portland).

Coop

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 01:30 PM
He definitely doesn't turn the ball over a lot. I'm not saying he hurts the team, I just don't think he helps too much. I also agree with the point that we aren't winning games, so we should figure out what we have in some guys. I'm not worried about winning at all right now, so I would like to see AJ, Tyler, Roy, and B Rush play as much as possible despite their growing pains. For whatever reason, I have such a low opinion of McRoberts future in this league I just see it as wasted time on trying to develop him. Others obviously have drastically different opinions. I just keep coming back to the reasoning that if he deserved consistent minutes, he would have found a way to get them at some point thus far (here or in Portland).

Coop

McRoberts is younger than all 4 of those guys. Even if he never panned out to be anything more than he is right now, which I doubt, it wouldn't be wasted time except that we might win a few more games which would set us back in the lottery.

Coopia
01-10-2010, 01:40 PM
That's ludicrous. I don't care what he or any other NBA player did in college. At all. He was a 20 year old rookie in Portland who had one of the best front lines in the league. He didn't have a chance. What is relevant is what he's done for the Pacers. And that has been undeniably positive when he's been given his few opportunities. You claim we were biased because he's from Indiana. It sounds like you're just as biased to me.

That's just the thing, I don't see this at all. He seems like a complete non factor whenever I see him. I feel like people get caught up in his occasional spectacular dunks. During one of the games he was playing recently, I noticed a few times that he stayed under our goal after the other team got a defensive board trying to come up with a steal during the outlet pass. The other team got a couple of easy layups because he (along with others on our team) didn't try to get back on D. Those steal attempts when converted make a player look like a big time difference maker. But the majority of the time, they just lead to numbers going the other way. If certain other white PF/Cs on the team made the same play they would get crucified on here for it. He seems like someone who doesn't consistently help his team, but instead just waits on an opportunity for his monster dunk/block. All flash no substance is the term I guess I am leaning towards.

I had absolutely no opinion on him good or bad before he got here. I would be his biggest fan if I thought he could help us in the future. I understand that many people here just think he should be given some minutes (rational thinking, I have no problem with), but whenever I see someone projecting him in our starting lineup as a "imagine how good this would be" deal it makes me a little sick inside. If anything I think the over the top love here has soured me on him more.

Coop

Coopia
01-10-2010, 01:56 PM
That's ludicrous. I don't care what he or any other NBA player did in college. At all. He was a 20 year old rookie in Portland who had one of the best front lines in the league.

This just isn't true at all. The frontcourt he was dealing with included:

Oden - out for the season
Aldridge - very good player in his 2nd year
Frye - 3rd year player impressing no one... averaged 7pts/4boards a game
Przybilla - rebounding and defensive role player
Lafrentz - career was basically over... 39 games, 7 minutes average

There is no reason that he would have only made it into 8 games that season behind that team, other than the coaches not thinking he was good enough to cut it. Aldridge was the only front court player that year with any offensive potential skill. You would think that if he showed anything at all he could have carved out some decent minutes behind those guys.

Coop

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 02:03 PM
This just isn't true at all. The frontcourt he was dealing with included:

Oden - out for the season
Aldridge - very good player in his 2nd year
Frye - 3rd year player impressing no one... averaged 7pts/4boards a game
Przybilla - rebounding and defensive role player
Lafrentz - career was basically over... 39 games, 7 minutes average

There is no reason that he would have only made it into 8 games that season behind that team, other than the coaches not thinking he was good enough to cut it. Aldridge was the only front court player that year with any offensive potential skill. You would think that if he showed anything at all he could have carved out some decent minutes behind those guys.

Coop

You're forgetting Travis Outlaw who's played primarily the 4. But that's neither here nor there. I don't care about Portland. I care about Indiana. And I've seen more than enough from him to warrant play. Despite what you might say, he's been a positive player on a team who has few. And he's our youngest player. Your argument that he has no potential is extremely flawed.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 02:07 PM
Outlaw primarily a 4? What did I miss? I thought he was always considered a SF and might occasionally play 4 in small ball?

Brad8888
01-10-2010, 02:08 PM
That's just the thing, I don't see this at all. He seems like a complete non factor whenever I see him. I feel like people get caught up in his occasional spectacular dunks. During one of the games he was playing recently, I noticed a few times that he stayed under our goal after the other team got a defensive board trying to come up with a steal during the outlet pass. The other team got a couple of easy layups because he (along with others on our team) didn't try to get back on D. Those steal attempts when converted make a player look like a big time difference maker. But the majority of the time, they just lead to numbers going the other way. If certain other white PF/Cs on the team made the same play they would get crucified on here for it. He seems like someone who doesn't consistently help his team, but instead just waits on an opportunity for his monster dunk/block. All flash no substance is the term I guess I am leaning towards.

I had absolutely no opinion on him good or bad before he got here. I would be his biggest fan if I thought he could help us in the future. I understand that many people here just think he should be given some minutes (rational thinking, I have no problem with), but whenever I see someone projecting him in our starting lineup as a "imagine how good this would be" deal it makes me a little sick inside. If anything I think the over the top love here has soured me on him more.

Coop

His dunks, while fun, aren't the basis for what we see in him, any more than homerism is. I could not care less where he is from, whether he is from Indiana or Pago Pago.

We recognize basketball instincts and athleticism in him, regardless of what stats may or may not show, and we see the team generally improves its play (not always, but more often than not) when he is inserted during meaningful time due to his hustle and energy and instinctive play, whether the coaching staff does or not. Many of us who do like him have watched basketball for many years, and I suspect that we see a little bit of an old school style of player in him and would love to see that developed, especially during this lost season.

So, great, you can't stand McRoberts.

Who else do you like or dislike and why? What do you think of our coaching staff? What do you think of Bird and Morway? Do you think the Simon family will keep the team here? It will be interesting to get to know you.

Welcome, again.

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 02:09 PM
Outlaw primarily a 4? What did I miss? I thought he was always considered a SF and might occasionally play 4 in small ball?

He is a 3 who played primarily the 4 that season. Just as he would have this season had he not been injured. Similar to Gerald Wallace's situation this year.

Squirrelz
01-10-2010, 02:12 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a week now, thank you coop, but I didn't want my stock on the board to go down.. lol

Everyone here loves McBob more than I could have imagined. He's a hustle player, yes. But he's no Andy Varejao, he's no Joakim Noah, heck he's not even a Walter McCarty. Sure he puts his all into every game, I wish every player in the league played with his intensity.

I just don't get the big deal when he sees no minutes. He's lucky to be in the league.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 02:12 PM
He is a 3 who played primarily the 4 that season. Just as he would have this season had he not been injured. Similar to Gerald Wallace's situation this year.

Alright. Now that makes it look better for Josh how, exactly? He couldn't get any PT at the 4 when some of that time wasn't even going to an actual big, but rather a wing?

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 02:16 PM
Alright. Now that makes it look better for Josh how, exactly? He couldn't get any PT at the 4 when some of that time wasn't even going to an actual big, but rather a wing?

It's no different that Granger playing the 4 for us. Does that make Hansbrough look bad? I'm not trying to make him look better. Frankly, I just don't care about Portland. Just as I don't give any credence to what the players have done in college, I don't care about what they do for other teams. I care about what they've done for Indiana. And to say McRoberts hasn't made positive impacts in the vast majority of his appearances is completely ignorant.

Coopia
01-10-2010, 02:21 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a week now, thank you coop, but I didn't want my stock on the board to go down.. lol

Everyone here loves McBob more than I could have imagined. He's a hustle player, yes. But he's no Andy Varejao, he's no Joakim Noah, heck he's not even a Walter McCarty. Sure he puts his all into every game, I wish every player in the league played with his intensity.

I just don't get the big deal when he sees no minutes. He's lucky to be in the league.

I'm glad to take the bullet for you... I guess. I have no stock to lose, so there is nowhere to go but up. I figured there was a chance someone agreed with me, I just didn't expect it to come up until page 5 of this thread.

In response to the Outlaw thing, I know he played some PF, but at best I think he split time between SF and PF. And I don't know if you should respond that you don't care about McRoberts time there, when you are the one that brought up why he didn't get any PT there. I was simply replying to your comment.

Coop

the jaddler
01-10-2010, 02:22 PM
Ok so here is the bottom line with McBob, he is hungry to play!!! when he is out there he is hungry to play!!! He tries....doesnt complain or ever give up!!!!

Naptown_Seth
01-10-2010, 02:23 PM
I just don't think it is fair to expect NBA execs and coaches to let a mediocre player do that on the clock. No one owes him the minutes
Just like no one owes a seed water and sunlight.

Of course if you like not starving to death then maybe it's in your own interest to grow that seed into food.

How do you know he's mediocre, when have you even seen him play? If you are using his total PT as proof of his upper limit then guess what, Tyler has proven that he sucks horribly on offense and will never shoot more than 37%.

I mean he's got more PT and that's what he's done and by your own admission he's older and spent 4 years in college improving his game. So he's done, he's much more "finished" at his top end than McRoberts. So I guess pack Tyler off as a mediocre player not worth playing time.


The next time Josh gets 18+ minutes and stinks it up will the first. I'm not still waiting on him to prove he can play, I'm still waiting to see some proof that he can't.

What did he so wrong in any of his recent "big" minute games that suggested he shouldn't be out there? Was the rebounds, blocks, defensive switching, ability to defend quicker or bigger players, his ability to dribble up his own defensive rebound...

Which one of those abilities said to you "OMG this guy must never waste our time again?"


Plus what fires me up more than anything is I've been saying the same thing for Hibbert, Rush and Price, and was last year for Roy and Rush. Hmm, funny that when they get to play they start getting better, have a good game or two and suddenly they are a "discovery".

They aren't. They are just getting to play. Price wasn't suddenly better last game, he was just on the f***** floor.


Right now Solo is a much more problematic player than McBob. Not enough that I wouldn't use Solo, but if I needed to shift some of Solo's overall talent from shot blocking to offense or picks or a jumper or switching to smaller guys, then I'd take him out and use McBob for a bit.


Why am I jocking McBob? The same reason I rip on Ford or Troy or the JOB chuckfest offense. I want the team to freaking win and play GOOD basketball to get those wins (ie, bombing 3s and getting hot from time to time doesn't cut it).


And if you think it's about dunks then you just aren't reading very deeply around here. I gave a long list of all the plays he made in his first game of his "big" minutes stretch in the post-game thread. I even mentioned that what was good about the 2 dunks was that they were CREATED by him. Forget the dunk, I'm talking about reading a backdoor cut opportunity from the high post, making the move and on the 2nd one being talented enough to make the play despite having to go slightly reverse for the catch at the rim.

I'm talking about getting switched onto a SF who just burned Brandon Rush with an upfake and when seeing the identical upfake he stays on his feet, forces the player to drive, cuts that off, forces him into a jumper at the sideline and then stuffs it back down his throat. To that I had one member say "sure, but that didn't help because it went out of bounds" despite the block being made about 2 feet from the sideline on a jump shooter.

The very next trip the same SF was out in transition, Josh keeps pace with him, rides him along his lane right toward the baseline which leads to Roy being able to catch up and block the shot. If it's Troy or even Solo that SF gets ahead of him, turns the corner and gets the layup and maybe the And 1.

If all you see is dunks then look closer. Sheesh.


I didn't even know about McRoberts till I saw him play in Indy. I don't care about HS ball and back then I didn't follow any prospects. I like what he does right now on the court, and his stat line and output is a damn sight better than "a couple of dunks".

Again, Josh was the throw-in guy. You stole him from Portland.


Plus the whole "but in Portland..." angle in a city that stole JO from them and he "magically" made a big improvement just by playing more and putting up the exact same per minute numbers he was in Portland. Yes, no history with Portland and unappreciated PFs.

Coopia
01-10-2010, 02:23 PM
And to say McRoberts hasn't made positive impacts in the vast majority of his appearances is completely ignorant.

Color me ignorant then. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. It's just a matter of opinion.

PacerDude
01-10-2010, 02:33 PM
............. If certain other white PF/Cs on the team ........
:picard:

Squirrelz
01-10-2010, 02:34 PM
From the sounds of it, you guys are a fan of his unselfish play, and his ability to see the entire court, and know how/when to make plays.

Which is great, it really is. But outside of his vision, and limited athleticism, he offers little more upside besides his good attitude and willingness to leave it all on the floor. It's just a bummer he isn't Travis Diener size, suited to play PG. Because that's what it sounds like he should be suited to play. He makes some heroic blocks every now and again, and he rebounds at a good rate, but I don't think he's good enough to warrant more than 10-15 minutes a game. Sure 0 minutes is very uncalled for, especially after he helped carry this team while our main guys were out, but he certainly isn't a big part of our future, in Bird's eyes or JOB's, that I'm almost sure of.

Squirrelz
01-10-2010, 02:36 PM
Color me ignorant then. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. It's just a matter of opinion.
McBob has improved a lot. He looks like he isn't even nervous out there anymore and pretty much knows where to be on both ends of the floor.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 02:36 PM
The question I have for all sides of this: Would you be upset if he averaged 10-15 minutes per game?

Coopia
01-10-2010, 02:39 PM
Seth,

As I said in my first post, I have been reading and lurking here for quite some time. When it comes to basketball analysis you seem to have a ton of skill, but one of the most glaring things I have noticed while here is your Duke bias. From your avatar, to your praise of all players Duke, to your distaste of all players UNC. I just can't look objectively at any of your comments on McRoberts or Hansborough anymore.

I do however look forward to reading all of your scouting reports on players, because it is obvious that you watch far more college hoops than me, and know much more about the game. I only pay attention to pro hoops, which makes me some kind of an outcast to all of my friends.

I have watched most of the games he has played in (Pro, saw some college games but not many), and I pointed out a couple reasons why I'm not a big fan of his in a previous post. Beyond that it is obviously a matter of opinion that I dislike his game or his promise. I'm not going to debate it with you because even if I had some revolutionary statistical formula that proved he isn't very good it wouldn't change anything.

Coop

Squirrelz
01-10-2010, 02:39 PM
The question I have for all sides of this: Would you be upset if he averaged 10-15 minutes per game?
Absolutely not. He should be entitled to those minutes with his productivity I would think.

But again, the big uproar shouldn't be over McBob... It should be over Dahntay Jones getting so little PT, and Dunleavy getting so much. The uproar should be over Danny granger's 10 terrible 3 point attempts a game.

Coopia
01-10-2010, 02:41 PM
:picard:

Sorry about that, but I already brought up that other guy's name once, and was hoping to set a record for most posts to start a career without going down that road.

Coop

the jaddler
01-10-2010, 02:42 PM
The question I have for all sides of this: Would you be upset if he averaged 10-15 minutes per game?

not at all, as long as his play and desire stay the same or improve! But if he starts to decline then his minutes need to be reevaluated. And I dont mean take his minutes away if he has one bad game or makes a few mistakes!

Right now the Pacers seem to just be one big mistake!

Coopia
01-10-2010, 02:45 PM
Absolutely not. He should be entitled to those minutes with his productivity I would think.

But again, the big uproar shouldn't be over McBob... It should be over Dahntay Jones getting so little PT, and Dunleavy getting so much. The uproar should be over Danny granger's 10 terrible 3 point attempts a game.

Agreed. I really don't care if he does get some minutes, but to think our organization is being negligent for leaving him on the bench is silly. We have so many problems on this team right now that the continued focus (on the board) I see on him just seems unrealistic.

Coop

Major Cold
01-10-2010, 02:48 PM
While I agree the homerism can go far. I am at the point to try anything but we has already brought us failure. McRoberts stats were not popping, but there was times when the opposing teams adjusted to his presence.

I believe it is time to nurture that in both McBob and Tyler.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 02:55 PM
I suspect despite the variety of opinions on McRoberts, the vast majority would be cool with him getting 10-15mpg. I think that bears noting and remembering. Particularly in the face of believing one side thinks he's garbage and the other thinks he's our next starting PF.

BornReady
01-10-2010, 02:56 PM
coop does make a good point in that we probably make too big of a deal about mcbob, but at the same time, its not unwarranted. mcbob does play with a lot of hustle and energy, and is far more than just a spectacular dunker. his overall skills are pretty decent, from playing effective defense, to passing, to his court vision. and yes, he is still EXTREMELY young, and (hopefully) has a lot more development on the way. will he ever be a nba starter? probably not, but he can definitely be an effective spark off the bench.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 02:57 PM
Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle on Josh. I see some things I like, but I'm also not convinced he'll be much more than I've already seen him be. You never know for sure until it plays out, and that's why he should see some time right now.

CableKC
01-10-2010, 03:10 PM
The question I have for all sides of this: Would you be upset if he averaged 10-15 minutes per game?
Assuming that we ever get back a healthy Frontcourt again, I'd be happy with McRoberts averaging a minimum of 10-15 mpg.
It's simplistic....but the way that I look at players like Hansbrough and McRoberts is to compare them to Foster. Hansbrough is a scoring version of Foster.....specifically an energy, stronger, rebounding Big Man that has some scoring ability. Whereas McRoberts is a more atheltic version of Foster that can probably block a few more shots...without as much of an offensive game but with more hops and therefore the ability to block some shots.

I don't think that McRoberts is the answer to our weaknesses in our Frontcourt, but he has done and shown me enough to warrant being included in the PF/C rotation. We need a Frontcourt Player that is athletic to pair up with Hibbert. Murphy isn't that answer nor benching him in favor of a Frontcourt Player that is more athletic ( like McRoberts ) is the answer. IMHO.....minimizing the # of minutes that Murphy plays with Hibbert and making the conscious effort to not play Murphy at the Center spot is the answer....specifically minimizing the # of unathletic Player that we have on the floor at the same time. a One of the ways to do this is to increase the # of minutes that McRoberts plays ( therefore creating a more athletic Frontcourt ) by either pair Murphy with a more athletic lineup ( specifically not playing him with Hibbert and Dunleavy at the same tim ) or by simply reducing the # of minutes that Murphy plays ( and therefore giving McRoberts, Solo and Hansbrough more minutes ).

Squirrelz
01-10-2010, 03:22 PM
Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle on Josh. I see some things I like, but I'm also not convinced he'll be much more than I've already seen him be. You never know for sure until it plays out, and that's why he should see some time right now.
This is the exact same way I feel about him.

He's an Austin Croshere-like fan favorite, yes. But I'm not sure if he'll ever be any better than he is now.

BRushWithDeath
01-10-2010, 03:27 PM
This is the exact same way I feel about him.

He's an Austin Croshere-like fan favorite, yes. But I'm not sure if he'll ever be any better than he is now.

I have no problem with this. I personally do think he'll continue to improve with more playing time. But even if he does not, what he does now helps us win more games than the alternative. Hence, my anger with his subsequent, though expected, benching.

CableKC
01-10-2010, 04:06 PM
If what we see now is the "ceiling" for McRoberts....I'm okay with it. After seeing his contributions over the last season and a half....I see him as a Big Man that can rebound, provide energy and and athleticsm off the bench.....simply put...a Role Playing Big Man that can come in to "change things" up for short periods of time on a regular basis and ( if needed ) fill in as the "1st Bg Man off the bench" due to injuries. Despite the preference to play Hansbrough behind the likes of Hibbert/Murphy/Foster.....that type of RolePlayer warrants a minimum # of consistent minutes in the rotation ( which translates into 10-15 minutes a game ).

The dilemma is when we do finally get a healthy Frontcourt with Hibbert, Murphy, Hansbrough, Foster, McRoberts and Solo are all healthy. I still think that it's possible to give ( at most ) 5 of these players ( for now.....IMHO Solo being the odd man out ) a minimal # of minutes. To me, it comes down to how many minutes the Murphy and Foster gets that determines how many minutes that Hansbrough and McRoberts get. IMHO....any minutes that both of them gets should come out of Murphy ( only cuz I want to minimize the # of minutes that an unathletic Player gets ) and Foster's minutes ( only cuz I think he's only as effective with limited #s ).

Bball
01-10-2010, 04:07 PM
Coop reminds me of someone...

Coopia
01-10-2010, 04:11 PM
Coop reminds me of someone...

Uh-oh, I'm assuming that isn't good at this point.

gummy
01-10-2010, 04:12 PM
Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle on Josh. I see some things I like, but I'm also not convinced he'll be much more than I've already seen him be. You never know for sure until it plays out, and that's why he should see some time right now.

I think this pretty much sums it up for those of us who'd like to see Josh get some playing time. I have never seen anyone call for him to start, not even Seth who is arguably McRoberts' biggest booster. A segment of the board who thinks Josh is or even will be an All-Star or a starter or anything like that simply does not exist right now.

Stats tell part of the story, but not all of it. McRoberts has some clear chemistry with guys like Price, Watson, Rush and Hibbert. When he is out there he has enough athleticism and makes enough smart basketball decisions for me to wonder what else he could be. Seth has documented that kind of thing extensively and accurately in my opinion.

I don't know whether or not Seth has some sort of Duke/UNC thing going on but I do know that I have found his analysis of McRoberts and Rush to be spot on.

Also, even though I think he has some potential I probably wouldn't make much noise about Josh getting zero playing time if Foster and Hans were ready to go. But since they are not and we are going nowhere fast as a team I see no reason not to give him some small amount of minutes consistently to see where it takes us.

Peck
01-10-2010, 04:40 PM
We don't really have to analyze this or beat it to death. The answer is actually pretty simple.

Josh is a young exciting player who plays above the rim.

Solomon Jones can also play above the rim but does not have the flash that Josh does.

We are a dull boring jump shooting losing basketball team.

Now you can be a dull boring jump shooting basketball team if you are winning and not many people will complain.

You can even be that and be a mediocre team and still people will not question to much the decision to not play an entertaining player.

However when you are a losing team, and take my word for it we are a losing team, fans are well within their rights to ask to at least be entertained.

Josh is entertaining.

Now believe me this is dumbing this argument down, way down in fact. But there certainly is an element to what I am saying.

Now before Seth jumps on here to tell me that Josh is also a good player or Uncle Buck jumps on here to chastise me for wanting low brow NBA basketball please understand I am not saying this is what I want.

In fact I do think Josh is good enough to play in the NBA, not start and probably not even be the first big off of the bench, but he should play.

While I am all for the grind it out drudgery of 90's basketball I am not opposed to big dunks or big block either.

At the end of the day NBA basketball is three things.

1. Business
2. Athletic competition
3. Entertainment

All three are connected.

So I guess what I'm saying is if you are going to lose, at least be entertaining.

Now having said that I will say this, playing the younger players to me is not attempting to lose. My belief is that they are the better players right now and you have a better chance to win with them (including Josh).

Will Galen
01-10-2010, 06:05 PM
:picard:
Everyone knows he was talking about Murphy, and I agree with him.

cordobes
01-10-2010, 06:23 PM
McRoberts is fun to watch, his hustle, athleticism and rawness are refreshing. But he also looks a little jumbled out there. If he can keep on hitting the jump-shot consistently, he can crave a niche in the league. Early to tell though.

judicata
01-10-2010, 06:45 PM
The McRoberts love is one of the more amusing and perplexing things about some of the posters here. He's made people believe in him, and good for him.

I really don't think anything gets Seth as lathered as talking about Tyler and Josh. A conversation about one is necessarily a conversation about both there. I think if they ever see time on the floor together he's going to need a Red Bull and a Xanax, and possibly a towel. ;)

McKeyFan
01-10-2010, 06:51 PM
However when you are a losing team, and take my word for it we are a losing team,

I appreciate the help.

On this board, it becomes difficult to determine which games we win and which ones we lose.

cinotimz
01-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Agreed. I really don't care if he does get some minutes, but to think our organization is being negligent for leaving him on the bench is silly. We have so many problems on this team right now that the continued focus (on the board) I see on him just seems unrealistic.

Coop

Hmmm.

There are two teams in the whole league with worse records than the Pacers.

2.

We are obviously rebuilding. Its publicly been stated many times by management the need to develop our young players as they are the future of this team.

But not playing the youngest player on the team who happens to be a 7footer that possesses what appears to be above average athleticism and certain raw basketball skills on both ends of the floor-thats not negligence?

Seems thats exactly what it is given the supposed direction of the team. They are neglecting to develop the youngest player on the team. Then the question becomes why.

And thats where things become quite mirky. Could it be because we have a coach that tends to favor playing more veteran players? Or more to the point, do we have a coach that doesnt necessarily want to develop players and thereby suffer whatever shortterm consequences that comes with doing so? He certainly wouldnt be the first coach to go that direction.

Heres the bottom line. The coach has-when given a choice- shown a fairly strong tendency to prefer to play Foster and Murphy much more than Hibbert, Handsbro, McRoberts and S. Jones.

For a team whose future seems dependent on developing young players, that seems to be incredibly flawed. There is ultimately no substitute for experience and you dont get that experience sitting on the bench or in practice.

DaveP63
01-10-2010, 07:14 PM
We like Josh...We want Josh to get some minutes...Because he's something different. He brings a different attitude to the floor. He brings energy. He brings athleticism. He knows how to play the game. He could be from mars and I don't think anyone would care. Right now he's a beam of light in a dark tunnel.

duke dynamite
01-11-2010, 12:14 AM
We like Josh...We want Josh to get some minutes...Because he's something different. He brings a different attitude to the floor. He brings energy. He brings athleticism. He knows how to play the game. He could be from mars and I don't think anyone would care. Right now he's a beam of light in a dark tunnel.
"We"?

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2010, 01:07 AM
I like Josh a lot, its like Seth says, he just has a knack for "seeing the play". He always seems to make timely steals, blocks, passes, rebounds... his instincts are very good... I am sometimes amazed at the way people fail to see this. "Sure he dunks and has energy, but there's not much else there" You aren't paying attention.

A world beater he is not, but a valuable player who brings defense and intangibles is something every team wants. Guys who do the "little things" guys like Dale Davis and Jeff Foster... I think some people only see the dunks and miss out on the subtle things he brings to the table.

If we only had a coach that valued those things....

Speed
01-11-2010, 11:38 AM
The whole board never thinks anything, which is why it's such a good message board.

I will echo what some others have said, though. Either give me wins or give me hope. If they're gonna lose, play the youngsters, that simple to me. I think it's a very good point and I agree that I don't think this has a negative impact on the W/L anyway with this group anyway.

Otherwise, personally, I am higher on all of the other youngens than Josh, nothing for or against Josh. I just see things in the other players I like better.

For me, wanting to see Josh play is about the name on the front of the Jersey, not the back.

If any young Pacer can play and get better and it makes the team better down the line, I'm for it. Not just Josh, not except Josh, but including Josh.

No hidden agendas here, just looking for something to tie that hope to.

CableKC
01-11-2010, 12:14 PM
In fact I do think Josh is good enough to play in the NBA, not start and probably not even be the first big off of the bench, but he should play.
This is exactly where I stand on McRoberts. He's not good enough to start nor be the 1st Big Man off the Bench ( on a regular and consistent basis )....but he is good enough to be a quick "stop gap" solution to step up to start or fill the 1st Big Man off the bench if there is an injury that occurs. At the very least....he can come in an do what he has always done ( when given the opportunity )....be that "energy" Big Man that can contribute for short periods of time whose sole purpose is to give the primary "Bigs" ( Hibbert/Foster/Murphy ) a rest while certainly "changing things" up for the opposing Team.

As mentioned before....he's a 4th/5th rotational Big Man that has done enough to show me that he can do a good impression of Jeff Foster that has more "hops" and can block a few more shots....which IMHO translates into a well-deserved 10-15 mpg. Although 10-15 mpg doesn't seem like much...it means that much more rest for players like Murphy and Foster...both Players that I think are become less effective as they spend more minutes on the floor.

graphic-er
01-11-2010, 02:30 PM
Most likely he will be included as chump change in an upcoming trade. Then he will make the Pacers pay in the next couple of year.