PDA

View Full Version : The Indiana Pacers' search for a point guard continues - Indystar - Wells



bellisimo
06-25-2010, 03:52 AM
<!--Saxotech Paragraph Count: 20
-->The Indiana Pacers' search for a point guard continues.
<!--RELATED POSTS-->




Unable to trade their No. 10 pick in the NBA draft Thursday night, the Pacers went with the next best option: Paul George, a 6-9 sophomore wing player from Fresno State.


Multiple media outlets reported the Pacers offered Danny Granger to New Jersey for a package that included All-Star point guard Devin Harris.
Not so, said Pacers president Larry Bird.


"It's a rumor," Bird said. "His name comes up all the time. . . . It's going to take more than Devin Harris. Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back, especially throwing No. 10 in there."


In drafting George, the Pacers added a deep threat to their wing rotation.
"I've liked this kid for a month now," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said. "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot. He almost shot 40 percent from the 3-point line in college."
The Pacers selected Cincinnati shooting guard Lance Stephenson with the No. 40 pick and Florida State forward Ryan Reid with the No. 57 pick. They then shipped Reid and some cash to Oklahoma City for forward Magnum Rolle, the No. 51 pick.


George will make about $4 million with his two-year guaranteed contract. The Pacers have a team option on the third and fourth years.
O'Brien said he became a fan of George after watching him work out in Chicago.


"I was just observing the players and after I got done seeing him, I just went, 'Who is this kid Paul George?' Everybody said he can play and it was very apparent when I watched tape and we had him in here.
"He's a guy that is the type of athlete, with his size and scoring ability inside and out, which I think is very, very key in this league."


The Pacers spent months looking for a point guard, but they deemed the No. 10 pick too high to take Kentucky's Eric Bledsoe and Texas' Avery Bradley. Oklahoma City drafted Bledsoe with the 18th pick. Boston took Bradley at No. 19.


The Pacers also had talks with Oklahoma City and New Orleans. They will resume their quest to find a starting point guard once the free agency period begins July 1.


George, who entered the draft after just two years at Fresno State, said he was motivated during his draft workouts because he wasn't as well-known as some of the other lottery picks.
He averaged 16.8 points and 7.2 rebounds last season with the Bulldogs of the Western Athletic Conference.


George has been working out in Los Angeles with Granger. They share the same agent.


"I think I can help with consistency," George said. "Being 6-9, I can do pretty much a lot of things on the court and I want to take this summer leading up to the NBA season to really work on my game to make sure I'm ready. I definitely don't want to come into a situation where a team that's on the verge of winning and be a slacker."


George and Stephenson will join Granger, Mike Dunleavy, Dahntay Jones and Brandon Rush on the wing. He is added insurance in case the Pacers trade somebody at that position. Dunleavy is headed into the final year of his contract.


"You know how much I love the ability to play small and the more 3-point shooters I have available to me that are skilled and athletic, the more I can play the type of game to give us the best chance to win next year," O'Brien said about George.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100625/SPORTS04/6250329/1088/SPORTS04/Pacers-point-guard-search-fails-so-they-pick-George

Is it just me that cringes whenever JOB makes comments? Its like he is a parody of himself really....:rolleyes:

Day-V
06-25-2010, 03:54 AM
Next year, can we draft a coach? Please?

d_c
06-25-2010, 03:59 AM
If anything, the Pacers situation this draft shows just how hard it is to consummate a trade. I mean from the sounds of it, Bird talked to every team in the league.

Wasn't too long ago when everyone thought it was a foregone conclusion that the Pacers would be trading the pick. It was all but done. Now it seems everyone likes Paul George and they will be keeping the pick.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 03:59 AM
"I think I can help with consistency," George said. "Being 6-9, I can do pretty much a lot of things on the court and I want to take this summer leading up to the NBA season to really work on my game to make sure I'm ready. I definitely don't want to come into a situation where a team that's on the verge of winning and be a slacker."

I love it.

Heisenberg
06-25-2010, 03:59 AM
Leave it to JO'B to destroy whatever excitement I had after tonight.

tmhall11
06-25-2010, 04:33 AM
I wish JOB would use this team's assets to their best abilities and stop being such a crappy coach. His schemes suck so much. They aren't basketball related. You can't just throw 5 random guys on the court and tell them to just throw up as many threes as possible... you won't win...

I just hope he doesn't screw up the chemistry between PG, DG, and Hibbert before JOB gets booted for another crappy season. What we need to do is hire Butler's coach, stevens.... I think he's a great player's coach and the team would respond to him in a similar way that OKC's young team has responded to their coach.

indygeezer
06-25-2010, 07:31 AM
"You know how much I love the ability to play small and the more 3-point shooters I have available to me that are skilled and athletic, the more I can play the type of game to give us the best chance to win next year," O'Brien said about George.

:picard:

I expect to hear that JOB's contract has been extended anytime now.

Mourning
06-25-2010, 07:33 AM
I expect to hear that JOB's contract has been extended anytime now.

My Pacers "fandom" would be put in serious geopardy if a move that retarded would be made now :).

indygeezer
06-25-2010, 07:41 AM
and I have ZERO confidence in the ability of our FRONT OFFICE to do anything more than walk and chew bubblegum.

OakMoses
06-25-2010, 08:01 AM
People seem to be all up in arms about Rush's harmless tweeting last night. However, I found Wells to be much more annoying.


Pacers take Lance Stephenson with the No. 40 pick. They're starting lineup is going to consist of five wing players.

Need a wing player? The Pacers have plenty of them to choose from. Dunleavy, Rush, Granger, D. Jones, George, Stephenson

He's a bit snide and condescending.

bellisimo
06-25-2010, 08:05 AM
People seem to be all up in arms about Rush's harmless tweeting last night. However, I found Wells to be much more annoying.



He's a bit snide and condescending.

yes...his usage of "They're" instead of "Their" is really annoying!

Justin Tyme
06-25-2010, 08:27 AM
and I have ZERO confidence in the ability of our FRONT OFFICE to do anything more than walk and chew bubblegum.


Does that mean you don't think they can rub their stomach as well? :D

indygeezer
06-25-2010, 08:33 AM
Does that mean you don't think they can rub their stomach as well? :D

Three things at once? That's a stretch.

indygeezer
06-25-2010, 08:35 AM
People seem to be all up in arms about Rush's harmless tweeting last night. However, I found Wells to be much more annoying.



He's a bit snide and condescending.

I haven't seen Rush's comments...but can you blame him? They just drafted a Top 10 player to take his job. Wouldn't that upset you?

tadscout
06-25-2010, 08:49 AM
People seem to be all up in arms about Rush's harmless tweeting last night. However, I found Wells to be much more annoying.



He's a bit snide and condescending.

Calling the draft **** last night to me sure sounded like like he was pissed to be getting new competition... that just rubs me wrong... for once in your life have confidence in your self! (then again if he ever did would we be so elated with drafting so many wings?:-p)

OakMoses
06-25-2010, 08:49 AM
I haven't seen Rush's comments...but can you blame him? They just drafted a Top 10 player to take his job. Wouldn't that upset you?

Of course. The thing is that the comments aren't even remotely incendiary.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 08:52 AM
Of course. The thing is that the comments aren't even remotely incendiary.

Calling the draft **** sure sounds like he was upset with what was going on... then claiming someone has to be going?
:hmm:


Maybe it's just me...

bellisimo
06-25-2010, 08:53 AM
unfortunately not everyone is PR savvy...Twitter definitely proves that.

Brad8888
06-25-2010, 08:53 AM
Three things at once? That's a stretch.

Well, isn't that why they have Jim Morris, David Morway, and Larry Bird?

Each of them probably have an assigned task of one of the three things, and sometimes they might each be doing their own task at the same time the other two are doing theirs.

ChristianDudley
06-25-2010, 09:04 AM
Calling the draft **** sure sounds like he was upset with what was going on... then claiming someone has to be going?
:hmm:


Maybe it's just me...

in Brandon's defense, he does "talk" like that all the time on Twitter...don't really think he was calling the draft ****, just how he talks on there.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 09:12 AM
in Brandon's defense, he does "talk" like that all the time on Twitter...don't really think he was calling the draft ****, just how he talks on there.

Like I said... It could just be me... his attitude could be just wearing and rubbing me the wrong way finally.

Unclebuck
06-25-2010, 09:15 AM
Leave it to JO'B to destroy whatever excitement I had after tonight.

what? you don't like the part where he said he can create his own shot, "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot"

Amazing how people read what they want to read. No one noticed that part, only focused on the three point shot and spacing the court comments

bellisimo
06-25-2010, 09:17 AM
what? you don't like the part where he said he can create his own shot, "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot"

Amazing how people read what they want to read

The way its written is like as if he can create his own 3 point shot which he shoots 40%...

Unclebuck
06-25-2010, 09:24 AM
The way its written is like as if he can create his own 3 point shot which he shoots 40%...

No, one sentence was he can create his own shot which Jim puts a great premuim on. Next sentence, he shoots almost 40% from three point range.

Putting those two sentences through logic it makes no sense for him to be excited about Paul creating his own 3 point shot - I mean what does that even mean. How many players can create their own three-point shot - I'm not even sure I have ever heard that discussed.

OK, so obviously - it was two separate sentence and two separate thoughts. Paul is capable of creating his own shot - something the pacers really need. Also as a bonus Paul is an excellent long-range shooter as evidenced by his almost 40% 3-pt. shooting.

Of course the ability to shoot the three can help a player create his own shot by forciing the defender to play up and allowing the offensive player to get around the defndder for an open look inside the arc

Kegboy
06-25-2010, 09:42 AM
what? you don't like the part where he said he can create his own shot, "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot"

Amazing how people read what they want to read. No one noticed that part, only focused on the three point shot and spacing the court comments

His talking about George's shooting ability isn't an issue for me. The small lineup talk sure is.

:disappoin

Somebody wake me up when it's next summer.

PacerGuy
06-25-2010, 09:45 AM
People seem to be all up in arms about Rush's harmless tweeting last night.
Have not read them yet, but personally I don't care. Kid played more min's l/y then anyone on the team, largely out of necessity, not choice. Don't get me wrong, I like BR, but I love the BR who played the lase 30 games of his rookie season w/ a purpose, & that BR was awal l/y. IMO a little compotition will do the kid some good.
Another few things BR should think about is 1) Granger likely plays a lot of 4 w/ George @ the 3 & him @ 2, so nothing really changes for him. 2) Dun expires after t/w, plus he was not so good l/y. George is as much of a future need/dept as he is immediate competition. [/quote]


However, I found Wells to be much more annoying.

Not a Well's fan. He whites like thinks he could bo better. No wonder why we don't get good insight into the team from the Star, the guy is a turd, & if I'm the Pacers I don't hive him ******.

PacerGuy
06-25-2010, 09:48 AM
The way its written is like as if he can create his own 3 point shot which he shoots 40%...

Because it's Mike Wells - he is bias & he is not that good.

Infinite MAN_force
06-25-2010, 09:58 AM
I'll cosign on not being a big fan of Wells. I've never been too impressed with his writing or his insight. Kravits may be an ignoramous, but at least he entertains me.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 09:59 AM
Yep not a Wells fan either...

pizza guy
06-25-2010, 10:09 AM
Yeah, Wells is less than stellar.

The comment from Obie that was bothersome was the "small lineup" comment. Like the signature a couple posts ahead of mine says, "no one ever wins with small ball."

Even if we don't get a good point guard in the next decade, simply seeing JOB leave will be enough to get me really excited. Sooner than later would be nice. If we don't get rid of him, hopefully we can pull the Collison/Okafor deal and Obie might stay away from small ball a little bit.

--pizza

Bball
06-25-2010, 10:11 AM
"You know how much I love the ability to play small and the more 3-point shooters I have available to me that are skilled and athletic, the more I can play the type of game to give us the best chance to win next year," O'Brien said about George.

Blah Blah Blah

I hate the thought of another game with this clown... let alone another season. That's why I won't be attending any games and my television viewing of Pacer games will be extremely limited.

Watching the team get beat in transition defense and taking hurried and bad shots from the 3 point line as the point spread grows is not my idea of good basketball. But apparently it is Jim O'Brien's. But that's why I have no interest in watching O'Brien coach this team.

I'd rather have have Isiah back... and I think Isiah is an awful coach.

Brad8888
06-25-2010, 10:36 AM
what? you don't like the part where he said he can create his own shot, "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot"

Amazing how people read what they want to read. No one noticed that part, only focused on the three point shot and spacing the court comments

Like Kegboy said, the issue is the fact that O'B is happy that the Pacers will be able to play more small ball, and that he feels small ball is the best chance to win.

So, we should look forward to seeing Isiah's "Quick" finally come to fruition in its entirety with all of its unintended iso's and lack of ball movement due to the lack of structure. Also, who will play defense as a starter?

Should be able to have, assuming healthy status and no trades

pg: Ford / ? (Watson if we re-sign him)
sg: George / Rush
sf: Dunleavy / Granger
pf: Granger / Hansbrough (if he is healthy)
c: Murphy / Hibbert

For somebody who claims to like a power game in the post, it is difficult to see why you would be happy with O'B's comments at this point.

Unclebuck
06-25-2010, 10:42 AM
Like Kegboy said, the issue is the fact that O'B is happy that the Pacers will be able to play more small ball, and that he feels small ball is the best chance to win.



I am not going to get into a discussion of the virtues and evils of small ball.

I will say that if Granger and George are on the court together at the 2 and the 3 - that is not small ball, infact at least those two positions that is long ball - two very long players which is very beneficial to any defense.

bellisimo
06-25-2010, 10:46 AM
I am not going to get into a discussion of the virtues and evils of small ball.

I will say that if Granger and George are on the court together at the 2 and the 3 - that is not small ball, infact at least those two positions that is long ball - two very long players which is very beneficial to any defense.

at 2 and 3? yes...but with JOB it will be 3 and 4 with Murphy playing the 5...

Slick Pinkham
06-25-2010, 10:54 AM
at 2 and 3? yes...but with JOB it will be 3 and 4 with Murphy playing the 5...

yes, that is the logical assumption as to what "small ball" means, since otherwise we have a very big 2-guard.

Unclebuck
06-25-2010, 10:58 AM
at 2 and 3? yes...but with JOB it will be 3 and 4 with Murphy playing the 5...

Maybe at times. But the fact of the matter is with Rush, George, Dunleavy, Granger, the pacers have very long 3's and 2's - so if on occasion they move one to the 4 to provide a different look - OK.


I will say one thing about small ball though. If you are coaching the Pacers and you want to get the best players on the floor at the same time, yes that means sometimes you have to go small. It isn't as though O'Brien is benching Dwight Howard, Kevin garnett and Pau Gasol in order to play small.

Slick Pinkham
06-25-2010, 11:12 AM
With regard to where the long-term solution as a starting PG comes from, I hate to deliver a dose of reality like a cold bucket of water in the face, but all signs point to the PG of the future coming from next year's lottery pick, or the year after that, or (far less likely, IMO) the use of an expiring contract as a trade asset.

indygeezer
06-25-2010, 11:14 AM
In drafting George, the Pacers added a deep threat to their wing rotation.
"I've liked this kid for a month now," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said. "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot. He almost shot 40 percent from the 3-point line in college."

All you know about the kid you've learned in the last month? Two words....Jonathan Bender.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 11:17 AM
In drafting George, the Pacers added a deep threat to their wing rotation.
"I've liked this kid for a month now," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said. "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot. He almost shot 40 percent from the 3-point line in college."

All you know about the kid you've learned in the last month? Two words....Jonathan Bender.

No... that the coach isn't a part of the scouting process till combine... simple as that...

Skaut_Ech
06-25-2010, 11:28 AM
Blah Blah Blah

I hate the thought of another game with this clown... let alone another season. That's why I won't be attending any games and my television viewing of Pacer games will be extremely limited.

Watching the team get beat in transition defense and taking hurried and bad shots from the 3 point line as the point spread grows is not my idea of good basketball. But apparently it is Jim O'Brien's. But that's why I have no interest in watching O'Brien coach this team.



Like Kegboy said, the issue is the fact that O'B is happy that the Pacers will be able to play more small ball, and that he feels small ball is the best chance to win.

So, we should look forward to seeing Isiah's "Quick" finally come to fruition in its entirety with all of its unintended iso's and lack of ball movement due to the lack of structure. Also, who will play defense as a starter?
.

Yoiks!! :eek:

This small ball mentality, coupled with O'Brien's coaching style both have REALLY sucked my enjoyment from this team.

I'm not going to get into the merits of small ball, as UB has wisely decided to do also, :) other than to say, the playoffs, inho, showed how effective small ball can be vs pounding the crap out of your opponent in the post both offensively and defensively.

I will say this, small ball, with accompanying three point shooting, as I see it, that was effective in the playoffs came from teams with a low post BEAST. Suns play small ball as a way to clear space for Amare.

Orlando plays small ball to clear space for Howard.

We play small ball as way to clear space for ???

That's the rub for me.

Golden state is in the same position we are in lacking a low post beast, yet trying to play small ball. We saw how THAT worked out for them.

Knicks have been trying to play small ball. Coming up aces for them.

I think the Celtics and Lakers have, yet again, shown the model for winning a title: Low post beef, coupled with a dynamic scorer on the wing.

I just really, really, really don't care for the direction O'Brien is taking us. There's this little voice in the back of my head that makes me think he's trying to rebuild his ECF team from 2002, with Pierce, Antoine Walker, Kenny Anderson. I know there's a bunch of other factors at play with building our roster, but stylistically, I hear whispers of the Celts squad with Danny serving as Piece and Murphy serving as Antoine.

Not to go off on a tangent, but it makes me think of our, or I should say, you guys discussion of player X in the low post.

My own particular issues with O'Brien notwithstanding, I simply think small ball and a glee in being able to implement it, is a bad direction and goal to work towards and simple sets up some entertaining basketball to watch in terms of scoring and appeasing the casual fan, but in the grand scheme, is NOT the way to go.

Unclebuck
06-25-2010, 11:37 AM
Yoiks!! :eek:

This small ball mentality, coupled with O'Brien's coaching style both have REALLY sucked my enjoyment from this team.

I'm not going to get into the merits of small ball, as UB has wisely decided to do also, :) other than to say, the playoffs, inho, showed how effective small ball can be vs pounding the crap out of your opponent in the post both offensively and defensively.



OK. I told myself to stay away. Not sure which playoff series you are talking about, but if you are talking about the finals - true the Celtics and Lakers didn't go small. But if you have either of their rosters there is no reason to go small and I would suggest that if O'Brien were coaching either of those two teams he wouldn't go small either.

My general point on small ball is some teams have to do so out of weakness, but it isn't the small ball itself that hurts teams it is the fact that they either have terrible big guys or lack big guys alltogether. Playing the classic lineup of a 7 footer, a 6'10", 6'8" 6'5" and a 6'3" point is the perfect scenerio, but you have to have good players at each of those heights and they must fit together, otherwise you are better off going with more talented players whether they are smaller or not

If O'Brien were benching players like Gasol, KG and Howard in order to play small I'd be the first to criticize him, but the players the pacers have at the 4 and 5 are no where near as good as any of the playoff teams.

ChicagoJ
06-25-2010, 11:42 AM
If O'Brien was playing against the Midvale School of the Vertically Challenged, he'd counter with five Smurfs on the court just to be smaller.

HC
06-25-2010, 11:43 AM
In drafting George, the Pacers added a deep threat to their wing rotation.
"I've liked this kid for a month now," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said. "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot. He almost shot 40 percent from the 3-point line in college."

All you know about the kid you've learned in the last month? Two words....Jonathan Bender.

Jonathon's inability to succeed in the NBA had nothing to do with a lack of talent.

ChicagoJ
06-25-2010, 11:45 AM
I'd rather have have Isiah back... and I think Isiah is an awful coach.

I watched O'Brien thoroughly outcoach Isiah in the 2003 playoffs, and that statement just scares the Hell out of me.

The 2000's-era Pacers tagline seems to be, "If you thought Irvine and Versace in the 80's were bad... wait 'till you see Zeke and O'Brien!"

imawhat
06-25-2010, 12:03 PM
OK. I told myself to stay away.

Everybody knew you weren't staying away....

dal9
06-25-2010, 12:51 PM
what? you don't like the part where he said he can create his own shot, "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot"

Amazing how people read what they want to read. No one noticed that part, only focused on the three point shot and spacing the court comments


:D that is the exact part I didn't like! When I heard that, I'm like yes, the reason we put such a premium on ability to create your own shot is because we don't run any kind of offense, other than "stand around" "shoot a three" or "take your man off the dribble!"

Tom White
06-25-2010, 01:11 PM
yes...his usage of "They're" instead of "Their" is really annoying!

It is, however, grammatically correct. They're being a contraction of they are, while their is possessive.

Granville
06-25-2010, 01:23 PM
It is, however, grammatically correct. They're being a contraction of they are, while their is possessive.

I think you misread the quote. Wells said, "they're starting lineup..." It should be their and not they are (or they're).

indyaway
06-25-2010, 02:56 PM
what? you don't like the part where he said he can create his own shot, "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot"

That's the worst of all. Player creating his own shot = bailout for poor coaching because he can't create an offense where points come through the system. Think Kobe in game 5 against the Celtics versus how the Lakers played as a team in game 6 and 7.

Tom White
06-25-2010, 03:58 PM
I think you misread the quote. Wells said, "they're starting lineup..." It should be their and not they are (or they're).

You are correct!

I gotta get my glasses changed. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

OakMoses
06-25-2010, 04:07 PM
:D that is the exact part I didn't like! When I heard that, I'm like yes, the reason we put such a premium on ability to create your own shot is because we don't run any kind of offense, other than "stand around" "shoot a three" or "take your man off the dribble!"

This is patently incorrect. The Pacers run a motion offense, which, when it's being run correctly, involves far less standing around and far fewer isolation plays than most NBA offenses.

UB,

Keep fighting the good fight.

Everyone else,

Please go read Count55's post in the small ball thread.

On Wells:

I don't really understand how the guy has a job. He produces far less content and gives out far less insight than a number of the posters on this board, yet he supposedly covers the Pacers as his full-time job.

For all you small-ball haters, with our current roster, it comes down to one question: Who would you rather see on the court Troy Murphy or one of our wing players?

90'sNBARocked
06-25-2010, 04:39 PM
Maybe at times. But the fact of the matter is with Rush, George, Dunleavy, Granger, the pacers have very long 3's and 2's - so if on occasion they move one to the 4 to provide a different look - OK.


I will say one thing about small ball though. If you are coaching the Pacers and you want to get the best players on the floor at the same time, yes that means sometimes you have to go small. It isn't as though O'Brien is benching Dwight Howard, Kevin garnett and Pau Gasol in order to play small.

UB,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wern't we playing "small ball" when we went on the infamous "5 game winning streak" last year?

;);)

Anthem
06-25-2010, 05:04 PM
UB,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wern't we playing "small ball" when we went on the infamous "5 game winning streak" last year?
Depends on what you mean by smallball. Go read the other thread.

Brad8888
06-25-2010, 05:29 PM
This is patently incorrect. The Pacers run a motion offense, which, when it's being run correctly, involves far less standing around and far fewer isolation plays than most NBA offenses.

UB,

Keep fighting the good fight.

Everyone else,

Please go read Count55's post in the small ball thread.

On Wells:

I don't really understand how the guy has a job. He produces far less content and gives out far less insight than a number of the posters on this board, yet he supposedly covers the Pacers as his full-time job.

For all you small-ball haters, with our current roster, it comes down to one question: Who would you rather see on the court Troy Murphy or one of our wing players?

You are right about the isos. They are actually called plays where spacing is created by orchestrated player positioning that leaves the offensive player and his defender in a near one on one situation. Our players simply drive into traffic to take contested shots unless they are left at the arc for catch and shoot 3's as a primary offensive philosophy.

When Dunleavy plays and has his head in the game (which he plainly didn't after the first week or so back from the surgery), yes, we can be said to have a motion offense because other players recognize that Dunleavy will find them frequently instead of just taking the shot himself.

Otherwise, our motion has little purpose other than to free up shooters for 3's or to open a seam for a wing to drive to the basket, as opposed to having the purpose of shifting the defense out of position to create multiple opportunities and thereby limiting mistakes and turnovers and causing the opposing players to expend more energy on defense.

Skaut_Ech
06-25-2010, 05:39 PM
Otherwise, our motion has little purpose other than to free up shooters for 3's or to open a seam for a wing to drive to the basket, as opposed to having the purpose of shifting the defense out of position to create multiple opportunities and thereby limiting mistakes and turnovers and causing the opposing players to expend more energy on defense.

QFT!! Man! That is it in a nutshell!

NapTonius Monk
06-25-2010, 05:53 PM
In drafting George, the Pacers added a deep threat to their wing rotation.
"I've liked this kid for a month now," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said. "What I like about Paul is, I put a tremendous premium on the ability to create your own shot. He almost shot 40 percent from the 3-point line in college."

All you know about the kid you've learned in the last month? Two words....Jonathan Bender.
If he pans out to be the non-injured version who fulfills his potential, I'm fine with that.

indygeezer
06-25-2010, 06:19 PM
If he pans out to be the non-injured version who fulfills his potential, I'm fine with that.

IF....look I have nothing against the kid. I hope he comes in a tears up the league. I have no use for JOB, period (I give him great props as a humanitarian tho). I have no use for a FO that gives up their leverage before negotiations begin and box themselves into a corner where they can't make a trade or make even the smallest reach for someone to fill a need other than another freaking wingman. Now with 6 wingmen they are boxed in again with no leverage because everyone knows exactly what chips we have/don't have and what we can and cannot do to get what we need. Unfortunately that can cause us to either overpay or settle for less than we really want.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 06:43 PM
IF....look I have nothing against the kid. I hope he comes in a tears up the league. I have no use for JOB, period (I give him great props as a humanitarian tho). I have no use for a FO that gives up their leverage before negotiations begin and box themselves into a corner where they can't make a trade or make even the smallest reach for someone to fill a need other than another freaking wingman. Now with 6 wingmen they are boxed in again with no leverage because everyone knows exactly what chips we have/don't have and what we can and cannot do to get what we need. Unfortunately that can cause us to either overpay or settle for less than we really want.

I'm sorry... I really don't get your leverage statement... every GM in the league can look at other teams rosters and see were they are week and need to improve... so any front office person admitting a weakness that everyone already knows about hurts what???

While rebuilding you get as much talent as possible and deal from strengths (young wing like Rush) and assets (Expiring contracts)...

You have no leverage when you have no assets/ players of value to trade...

indyaway
06-25-2010, 08:09 PM
Otherwise, our motion has little purpose other than to free up shooters for 3's or to open a seam for a wing to drive to the basket, as opposed to having the purpose of shifting the defense out of position to create multiple opportunities and thereby limiting mistakes and turnovers and causing the opposing players to expend more energy on defense.

THIS.

Obie gets his version of the motion offense from Japanese game shows. A lot of people moving around, but you can't figure out what is really getting done.

Granville
06-25-2010, 08:39 PM
You are correct!

I gotta get my glasses changed. At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Works for me!

Day-V
06-25-2010, 10:48 PM
This is patently incorrect. The Pacers run a motion offense

This is news to me. What I mostly saw was our PG's getting their Travis Best on for 20 seconds before finally passing to someone camped in the corner for a jumper. The only "motion" I saw this past season was the opposing team rebounding a clanked 3-pointer and "motioning" on down the court for an easy transition bucket.


For all you small-ball haters, with our current roster, it comes down to one question: Who would you rather see on the court Troy Murphy or one of our wing players?
McRoberts? Hansborough? Anything is better than having a 6'8, 220 lb Danny Granger trying to defend the PF position.*

I just don't see how small ball is effective. When's the last time a team won a Conference Title, let alone a Championship, playing small ball?


*Murphy excluded

dal9
06-25-2010, 11:04 PM
This is patently incorrect. The Pacers run a motion offense, which, when it's being run correctly, involves far less standing around and far fewer isolation plays than most NBA offenses.

UB,

Keep fighting the good fight.

Everyone else,

Please go read Count55's post in the small ball thread.

On Wells:

I don't really understand how the guy has a job. He produces far less content and gives out far less insight than a number of the posters on this board, yet he supposedly covers the Pacers as his full-time job.

For all you small-ball haters, with our current roster, it comes down to one question: Who would you rather see on the court Troy Murphy or one of our wing players?


If we were running the motion offense "correctly," would JOB be so stoked on players who create their own shot?



I'm not saying the post isos to JO were much better...but what about a few baseline screens to free up a three point shooter...a pick and roll, etc...

DGPR
06-25-2010, 11:14 PM
What about Scottie Reynolds? Is he just chopped liver or something? I don't know a whole lot about him but he was an All-American for some reason right?

D-BONE
06-25-2010, 11:27 PM
This is patently incorrect. The Pacers run a motion offense, which, when it's being run correctly, involves far less standing around and far fewer isolation plays than most NBA offenses.

UB,

Keep fighting the good fight.

Everyone else,

Please go read Count55's post in the small ball thread.

On Wells:

I don't really understand how the guy has a job. He produces far less content and gives out far less insight than a number of the posters on this board, yet he supposedly covers the Pacers as his full-time job.

For all you small-ball haters, with our current roster, it comes down to one question: Who would you rather see on the court Troy Murphy or one of our wing players?

There's no problem with "smallball" as long as the lineup is talented enough regardless of composition and the "small" part is reasonabel proportional to the specific competition on a nightly basis. I don't like some of the smallball lineups JOB employed at times last season, but I can't blame him for trying to employ smallball given what we've got to work with. IMO Granger at the 4 when the matchup is appropriate, which is more often that one might imagine-at least in the EC last season-can be successful.

Anthem
06-26-2010, 07:22 AM
McRoberts? Hansborough? Anything is better than having a 6'8, 220 lb Danny Granger trying to defend the PF position.*
Danny doesn't bother me so much. It was Dunleavy and D.Jones playing there that made me pull out my hair.

indygeezer
06-26-2010, 08:41 AM
I'm sorry... I really don't get your leverage statement... every GM in the league can look at other teams rosters and see were they are week and need to improve... so any front office person admitting a weakness that everyone already knows about hurts what???

While rebuilding you get as much talent as possible and deal from strengths (young wing like Rush) and assets (Expiring contracts)...

You have no leverage when you have no assets/ players of value to trade...

To a degree you are right, but I cannot see blabbing about it all over the papers etc. It leaves NO possiblity that you have a hole card in the minds of the other GMs. It points out that you are overstocked here and understaffed there. It re-iterates your position at a time when you want to be appearing stronger than you are. Do they know you are bluffing? Sure, but you gotta leave just a little room in their minds for doubt.