PDA

View Full Version : Mike is good to go



Trophy
09-30-2010, 07:37 AM
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100930/SPORTS04/9300450/Dunleavy-out-to-reclaim-place-in-starting-lineup


You also need to say:

By Mike Wells
IndyStar


Swingman Mike Dunleavy doesn't have to be reminded about the uncertainty related to his role with the Indiana Pacers.

There are eager, young teammates ready to take his minutes.

There are questions whether he will get back to being the player who averaged 19.1 points a game three seasons ago.

And there's free agency awaiting Dunleavy after the season.

He prepared himself all summer, ready to prove the skeptics wrong and let his younger teammates know they will have a fight on their hands if they expect to take his minutes.

"I'm ready," Dunleavy said. "I had a good summer. I don't have any predictions or anything like that, but I'm ready to play."

The reason Dunleavy is feeling good is he experienced a summer of basketball without any rehabilitation work required on his right knee for the first time since 2007.

Dunleavy would rather erase the past two years from his memory.

Knee problems, which eventually led to major surgery, limited him to 18 games two seasons ago, and he was never comfortable last season when he averaged 9.9 points, his lowest since his rookie season.

He said last season felt similar to his rookie year with Golden State.

"Last year, I don't think he had the strength in his legs or the confidence or a combination of both," Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said. "We missed a guy with a basketball IQ that's off the charts. I missed his scoring off slashes to the basket and his ability to stretch the court."

A couple of days into training camp and Dunleavy is already showing signs of his former self.

His jumper is fluid. He has been giving rookie Paul George a tutorial on moving without the ball in the half court. He showed how quickly he can get up the court when he took a pass from point guard Darren Collison, split the defense and made a left-handed layup while being fouled in a scrimmage Wednesday.

"You can definitely see that he's getting back to the way he was before he got hurt, and we've missed the old Mike," forward Danny Granger said. "He makes everything easier for everybody out there."

The wing is the Pacers' deepest position. Dunleavy is competing with Granger, George, James Posey, Brandon Rush, Dahntay Jones and even Lance Stephenson.

"When I'm healthy, I'm pretty good," said Dunleavy, who also is playing for his next contract. "That's one of the advantages. The other thing is I'm pretty versatile. I can play a lot of positions, probably four positions. Hopefully we'll have some minutes for me."

O'Brien has Dunleavy working with the first team in practice because Rush, penciled in as the starter, is suspended the first five games of the season after failing the league's mandatory drug test for the third time.

Dunleavy wants to show enough that O'Brien will have a difficult decision on who will start at shooting guard when Rush returns.

"Every coach likes to know who he can rely on," O'Brien said. "We know what we're going to get out of Mike. He's going to give you great help-side defense. He's going to really execute what we're trying to do offensively, because he knows it allows him to be his best. Mike is very reliable for us."

The wing is the Pacers' deepest position. Dunleavy is competing with Granger, George, James Posey, Brandon Rush, Dahntay Jones and even Lance Stephenson.

"When I'm healthy, I'm pretty good," said Dunleavy, who also is playing for his next contract. "That's one of the advantages. The other thing is I'm pretty versatile. I can play a lot of positions, probably four positions. Hopefully we'll have some minutes for me."

O'Brien has Dunleavy working with the first team in practice because Rush, penciled in as the starter, is suspended the first five games of the season after failing the league's mandatory drug test for the third time.

Dunleavy wants to show enough that O'Brien will have a difficult decision on who will start at shooting guard when Rush returns.

"Every coach likes to know who he can rely on," O'Brien said. "We know what we're going to get out of Mike. He's going to give you great help-side defense. He's going to really execute what we're trying to do offensively, because he knows it allows him to be his best. Mike is very reliable for us."

MillerTime
09-30-2010, 07:59 AM
Good to go as in Good to go to another team???????

J/k

With all the young talent we have now at the Swingmen positions, I would like to see those mins for the young guys to help their development

vnzla81
09-30-2010, 08:07 AM
Were have I seen this before? JO maybe? How about Bender? I'm sorry but he hasn't done anything in three years, why take playing time from the young guys when we know that Mike is not part of the future anymore, to play to win the game?, for all I know they haven't win anything forever.

xtacy
09-30-2010, 08:41 AM
yes he's good to go to somewhere else.

Trophy
09-30-2010, 08:43 AM
For the first few months depending on how we're doing and how he's doing, I think Mike should be starting and getting a good amount time as Paul adjusts to our system as well as the SG position.

QuickRelease
09-30-2010, 08:55 AM
Were have I seen this before? JO maybe? How about Bender? I'm sorry but he hasn't done anything in three years, why take playing time from the young guys when we know that Mike is not part of the future anymore, to play to win the game?, for all I know they haven't win anything forever.I don't think you can lump MD into the same category as JO and Bender. Wasn't this his first major medical issue? And there really was no precedent for the procedure he had, so there's nothing to compare it to. As far as last year, I'm thinking it just took more time to really rehab from that than expected. One year removed, this should be the real test if he's back, or not.

Putnam
09-30-2010, 08:59 AM
This is the first time in several years that the Pacers begin training camp all healthy. I don't see any reason to winge about it.

If Dunleavy is healthy, that is a good thing.

BillS
09-30-2010, 09:12 AM
I really don't understand the angst, and it all goes back to this idea that young players have to have major floor time to develop. It's like no player ever developed as a backup and moved into the starting lineup - they all have to be starters by their sophomore year in the league or they are somehow busts.

It may be a broken record, but I disagree with this. The best player should be the starter, even if he happens to be a ragged old man of 30. That instills in the young guy a drive to get on the floor and a confidence that when he is the best he isn't going to be benched purely due to age.

Now, if we get back to the argument that Paul, Lance, or someone else is actually better at the wing spot than Dunleavy, OK, that's valid. But saying "he's a vet and was injured, therefore he should be benched no matter how good he comes back as" seems silly.

MLB007
09-30-2010, 09:20 AM
Good to go as in Good to go to another team???????

J/k

With all the young talent we have now at the Swingmen positions, I would like to see those mins for the young guys to help their development

This is a WIN NOW season.
This is not a develop the young guys that aren't as good NOW season.
If he's the best, he needs to be on the floor.

MLB007
09-30-2010, 09:22 AM
Were have I seen this before? JO maybe? How about Bender? I'm sorry but he hasn't done anything in three years, why take playing time from the young guys when we know that Mike is not part of the future anymore, to play to win the game?, for all I know they haven't win anything forever.

Where is it written that he's not part of the future?
He's one of the top 3 or 4 players we have when he's healthy, if not 2nd.
you play the game to WIN, not to develop young players.

MLB007
09-30-2010, 09:25 AM
I really don't understand the angst, and it all goes back to this idea that young players have to have major floor time to develop. It's like no player ever developed as a backup and moved into the starting lineup - they all have to be starters by their sophomore year in the league or they are somehow busts.

It may be a broken record, but I disagree with this. The best player should be the starter, even if he happens to be a ragged old man of 30. That instills in the young guy a drive to get on the floor and a confidence that when he is the best he isn't going to be benched purely due to age.

Now, if we get back to the argument that Paul, Lance, or someone else is actually better at the wing spot than Dunleavy, OK, that's valid. But saying "he's a vet and was injured, therefore he should be benched no matter how good he comes back as" seems silly.


No "seems", it IS silly.
Time to change the thinking around here from "building at all costs" to winning basketball games now.
For the coaching staff, for the fans, maybe for the sake of the organization in Indy, this team will put everything it has into winning.
NOW.

vnzla81
09-30-2010, 09:26 AM
I don't think you can lump MD into the same category as JO and Bender. Wasn't this his first major medical issue? And there really was no precedent for the procedure he had, so there's nothing to compare it to. As far as last year, I'm thinking it just took more time to really rehab from that than expected. One year removed, this should be the real test if he's back, or not.

Mike is been dealing with that knee injury since he was in college(is not a new injury) and he had the procedure done two years ago not one.

Response to bill: I understand your point about playing the best player available the thing is that Dunleavy hasn't done anything in two years and now the Pacers are expecting him to be the starter? I know he was good three years ago(he was 27 and in his prime) in fact he was my favorite player at that time, but expect him to be the same player he was at that time while taking playing time from the players of the future seems foolish to me.

vnzla81
09-30-2010, 09:32 AM
No "seems", it IS silly.
Time to change the thinking around here from "building at all costs" to winning basketball games now.
For the coaching staff, for the fans, maybe for the sake of the organization in Indy, this team will put everything it has into winning.
NOW.

Well they been trying to "win now"for the past five years and I don't know if you know this but "They haven't win anything"

Putnam
09-30-2010, 09:32 AM
BillS is right. In addition to his point, we can see how it is good for Paul George and the other young guys to have Dunleavy on the court with them:



His jumper is fluid. He has been giving rookie Paul George a tutorial on moving without the ball in the half court. He showed how quickly he can get up the court when he took a pass from point guard Darren Collison, split the defense and made a left-handed layup while being fouled in a scrimmage Wednesday.


I'm sure there will be moments during the season when some of us will want to see one player or another get more minutes than he is doing. But it is kookoo to be complaining after the third day of training camp because Mike Dunleavy is healthy and Coach O'Brien values his skills and discipline.

bphil
09-30-2010, 09:45 AM
I like Duns as a player. I love what he does on the court. I honestly get chills thinking about what this team could do if he is genuinely back to his old self this year, and I think he will be.

Think about this... who do you want PG learning from, Duns or Brandon? I know what my answer is.

Personally I would much prefer to have Dunleavy win the starting SG job this season, resign him to a reasonable contract at the end of this year, and let Rush go. I think having a guy like Dunleavy on this team is hugely important (assuming he's fully healthy of course), and Brandon just drags the team down.

d_c
09-30-2010, 09:55 AM
I don't think you can lump MD into the same category as JO and Bender. Wasn't this his first major medical issue? And there really was no precedent for the procedure he had, so there's nothing to compare it to.

His knee has been an issue since his rookie year in GS. It just wasn't as big a problem in GS because he didn't play as much. Once he took on a heavier workload, that's when it became a problem.

Like Bender, his problems relate to problems stemming from a growth spurt. Bender's was in HS, Dunleavy's was in college. His wasn't as severe as Bender's, though.

bphil
09-30-2010, 09:58 AM
As an example of why I enjoy watching Duns play so much, watch what he does at the 1:57 mark of the Day 2 highlights. He catches the ball, drives right, crosses over, runs PG off a McBobs screen, and then, most importantly, as he comes off the screen he gives a quick glance to his right to see where PG and McBobs are on the roll before instantly assessing that his best option is to take the mid-range jumper, which he drains.

Mike's court awareness is incredible. He always knows what's going on around him, and he makes great decisions both with and without the ball. Rush, on the other hand, still plays like a deer in the headlights after two seasons in the NBA. He has great physical tools, but he appears to have no clue what it takes to succeed at this level.

BobbyMac
09-30-2010, 09:59 AM
For the first few months depending on how we're doing and how he's doing, I think Mike should be starting and getting a good amount time as Paul adjusts to our system as well as the SG position.

I agree, perhaps we can trade Rush and Ford for a draft choice.

pacergod2
09-30-2010, 10:11 AM
But it is kookoo to be complaining after the third day of training camp because Mike Dunleavy is healthy and Coach O'Brien values his skills and discipline.

... and his basketball IQ.

Dunleavy is one of the smartest players in the game. He positions himself correctly and takes advantage of other players being less intelligent. He makes the right reads, is a tremendous passer, and makes the other around him better either through spacing, his passing, hitting a 12 foot jumper to bail out TJ, or any of the other numerous things he does well.

I don't mind Dunleavy playing a decent amount of minutes, but I would hate for him to be playing 35 minutes per game and we split 13 minutes between George and Rush. I think Rush should be our starter because of his defense. I think Mike should be getting second unit burn and basically run the second team. He could do well with Price, Tyler, Dahntay/George, and Foster. That team is a solid mix of scoring and tough defense and I could guarantee that Dunleavy and Price would make great decisions to improve that unit. I have a feeling that our rotation will go 10 deep this year almost every single night.

Brad8888
09-30-2010, 10:12 AM
Were have I seen this before? JO maybe? How about Bender? I'm sorry but he hasn't done anything in three years, why take playing time from the young guys when we know that Mike is not part of the future anymore, to play to win the game?, for all I know they haven't win anything forever.

Of all things, I am going to reverse course, assuming that Dunleavy is healthy and focused like has been shown so far, and say that playing Dunleavy can help develop the young guys at a faster rate than if he doesn't play.

Anyone fortunate enough to be on the floor with the good Dunleavy will be rewarded for good movement without the ball, and be found in good shooting position more frequently due to the ball not needing to be delivered to them by the point guard as much. The likely improved play of the young guys who get to play at the same time good Dunleavy does will do more for their confidence and understanding of the game than being on the floor with other rookies or nearly any other player on the team, and their development would be faster despite not getting as many minutes due to the presence of Dunleavy in the lineup IMO.

Dunleavy is the exception, for me at least. Play him as much as possible if he can do it and be as effective as I believe he can be. Otherwise, play the younger guys who are the future of the franchise, especially this year, to see who we have and who we need to plan on keeping, and what positions truly need money thrown at them next summer to finalize them. Unless the franchise actually threatens to be highly competitive, I would even go as far as to reduce the minutes of Granger by about 5 or so per game to get the young guys on the floor more frequently, which flies in the face of conventional wisdom, unless Granger is absolutely on fire with respect to scoring the ball. Quite a few additional minutes should be available with what I anticipate being a significantly reduced role for Rush as well, and that should make the room for Dunleavy to start with.

For developmental purposes, it would be fascinating to see Stephenson, Dunleavy, George, Hansbrough, Rolle as a backup lineup in blowouts at times just to see how Dunleavy would run that squad. But, obviously only when the outcome of the game is not in doubt.

d_c
09-30-2010, 10:14 AM
For developmental purposes, it would be fascinating to see Stephenson, Dunleavy, George, Hansbrough, Rolle as a backup lineup in blowouts at times just to see how Dunleavy would run that squad. But, obviously only when the outcome of the game is not in doubt.

Very little is learned from garbage time minutes. That goes for fans, players and coaches. Garbage time really is garbage time in every sense.

count55
09-30-2010, 10:16 AM
Very little is learned from garbage time minutes. That goes for fans, players and coaches. Garbage time really is garbage time in every sense.

God bless you, sir.

beast23
09-30-2010, 10:30 AM
Very little is learned from garbage time minutes. That goes for fans, players and coaches. Garbage time really is garbage time in every sense.I think that depends on how it is played. If it is used as a learning opportunity, then I think it can be very beneficial.

In the example given that you responded to, I believe Brad8888 is hoping that the knowledge of movement and reading the court that he (and I as well) contributes to Dunleavy translates well to the other four players on the court.

But even without the learning opportunity, I totally disagree that garbage time is meaningless. If nothing else, it gives seldom used players an appreciation for the pace of the game that they cannot get in practice. And if they are successful, it can provide some confidence for seldom used players that they can carry into future games.

d_c
09-30-2010, 10:38 AM
I think that depends on how it is played. If it is used as a learning opportunity, then I think it can be very beneficial.

In the example given that you responded to, I believe Brad8888 is hoping that the knowledge of movement and reading the court that he (and I as well) contributes to Dunleavy translates well to the other four players on the court.

But even without the learning opportunity, I totally disagree that garbage time is meaningless. If nothing else, it gives seldom used players an appreciation for the pace of the game that they cannot get in practice. And if they are successful, it can provide some confidence for seldom used players that they can carry into future games.

Garbage time is usually played very sloppily. It's about as useful as watching a scrimmage or summer league. You learn about as much, which is to say, very little.

I suppose there's certain things you can tell: That guy is tall. That guy is short. That guy can jump.

Beyond that, you don't get a very good idea of how a garbage time superstar can play in real situations where the game matters. Go watch a guy like Marco Belinelli play garbage time. You'll think he can actually be a starter from watching him play at end of a 20 point blowout, but in reality he's just not very good.

Garbage time lacks structure and discipline. In fact, there are many instances where coaches AVOID putting young guys in garbage time because the chances of developing bad habits in such an environment are greater than when putting him in situations that actually matter.

vnzla81
09-30-2010, 10:39 AM
Very little is learned from garbage time minutes. That goes for fans, players and coaches. Garbage time really is garbage time in every sense.

Having Dunleavy in the starting line up is going to give a lot of garbage time to the young players(by getting blowout) so now that I think about is a win win situation(green)

Speed
09-30-2010, 10:44 AM
Just on a side note. I think Mike is the perfect guy for Paul George to play with, against, and observe. Mike has many of the tools Paul needs to apply his natural ability in offensive movement, team defense, experience, & B Ball IQ.

Mike lacks many of Pauls physical gifts, but has what he's missing in spades. Hopefully Mike will help Paul, not hinder him. Hopefully, the coach will let Paul get minutes to help figure this out, in meaningful minutes during meaningful points in the game.

dohman
09-30-2010, 10:46 AM
Mike is the type of player that has NO business being in the NBA.

By saying that I mean look at him. He has no athletic gift, He cannot outrun anyone in the nba other than maybe shaq, he has no lift and he certainly doesn't have the strength.

What he does have is a pedigree in basketball. His High IQ mixed with his effort continue to make him my favorite pacer. Him working with paul george is just what he needs. Coming out of fresno he is raw and should be like a sponge taking in everything mike has to say.

If mike had pauls body I honestly could say I think he would be first or second team nba. This could be very good for the team and paul george. Just like when ron artest took his time to work with granger.

I really hope Mike continues to be a pacer after this season. Of course he will have to take a huge pay cut which I know is going to happen anywhere. I just wonder how he would feel about staying in Indy or if he would like to contribute to someone like the heat.

Deadshot
09-30-2010, 10:47 AM
Having Dunleavy in the starting line up is going to give a lot of garbage time to the young players(by getting blowout) so now that I think about is a win win situation(green)

If our goal is to win games and make the playoffs, its a no-brainer to start Mike if he is indeed healthy. Who exactly are you trying to develop? If Mike doesn't start, JOB would start Rush, and I think most of us would agree that he's past the stage of development.

vnzla81
09-30-2010, 10:59 AM
Just on a side note. I think Mike is the perfect guy for Paul George to play with, against, and observe. Mike has many of the tools Paul needs to apply his natural ability in offensive movement, team defense, experience, & B Ball IQ.

Mike lacks many of Pauls physical gifts, but has what he's missing in spades. Hopefully Mike will help Paul, not hinder him. Hopefully, the coach will let Paul get minutes to help figure this out, in meaningful minutes during meaningful points in the game.

Speed I would agree with all this if you were talking about the Mike Dunleavy of three years ago, it seems like people forgot how he played last year and the year before, people keep talking about the improvement of the defense last year ignoring the fact that Brush was the main factor for that improvement.

Brad8888
09-30-2010, 11:08 AM
I think that depends on how it is played. If it is used as a learning opportunity, then I think it can be very beneficial.

In the example given that you responded to, I believe Brad8888 is hoping that the knowledge of movement and reading the court that he (and I as well) contributes to Dunleavy translates well to the other four players on the court.

But even without the learning opportunity, I totally disagree that garbage time is meaningless. If nothing else, it gives seldom used players an appreciation for the pace of the game that they cannot get in practice. And if they are successful, it can provide some confidence for seldom used players that they can carry into future games.

Well put beast23, that is exactly what I was referring to, and for those who appreciate the subtleties of the game, garbage time can even sometimes teach us some things as fans, too, if we choose to pay attention instead of either turning off the game or leaving the Fieldhouse, whichever is applicable.

If it weren't for the sake of structure and consistency, for those who hate garbage time, why shouldn't a "mercy rule" be initiated to do away with garbage time in its entirety? That way, when a team gets down by 30 in the first half, or by 20 at the start of the 4th, the remainder of the game would not need to be played and everybody could get on with their lives...:rolleyes:

And to Count, Tiny Tim Cratchit says (paraphrasing) "God bless us, everyone!" :flirt:

MillerTime
09-30-2010, 11:12 AM
This is a WIN NOW season.
This is not a develop the young guys that aren't as good NOW season.
If he's the best, he needs to be on the floor.

This is far from a WIN NOW season. If we're lucky, we'll make the playoffs. I see this as a rebuilding year. Dunleavy is not going to be a crucial part of our future. If anything, he'll get a role as a bench player at a small salary.

By no means do I see this as a WIN NOW season.

Strummer
09-30-2010, 11:15 AM
I remember when Dun first came to the Pacers he had 4 or 5 games where he scored 35(?) points. He kept landing on the same career high and couldn't go over it. I'm hoping to see him hit 40 at least once now that he's completely healthy...

bphil
09-30-2010, 11:52 AM
Speed I would agree with all this if you were talking about the Mike Dunleavy of three years ago, it seems like people forgot how he played last year and the year before, people keep talking about the improvement of the defense last year ignoring the fact that Brush was the main factor for that improvement.

Sometimes I think I'm watching completely different games than everyone else... :confused:

Justin Tyme
09-30-2010, 11:53 AM
My guess is if Dun is healthy and playing decently, Rush is going to have a very difficult winning his starter role back. Jimmy likes Dun and likes to rely on vets.

Speed
09-30-2010, 11:54 AM
My guess is if Dun is healthy and playing decently, Rush is going to have a very difficult winning his starter role back. Jimmy likes Dun and likes to rely on vets.

Obie said he's comfortable with someone like Mike, it goes back to what we always say, some players are like security blankets for coaches. Mike and Jeff are both like that, imo.

pacer4ever
09-30-2010, 11:55 AM
This is far from a WIN NOW season. If we're lucky, we'll make the playoffs. I see this as a rebuilding year. Dunleavy is not going to be a crucial part of our future. If anything, he'll get a role as a bench player at a small salary.

By now means do I see this as a WIN NOW season.

ya win now lol we need more talent 4 that we need a legit 4 first. Which we will get next year we are 2 yrs away from being a top 4 team in the east if everything goes right

ChicagoJ
09-30-2010, 12:16 PM
I really don't understand the angst, and it all goes back to this idea that young players have to have major floor time to develop. It's like no player ever developed as a backup and moved into the starting lineup - they all have to be starters by their sophomore year in the league or they are somehow busts.

It may be a broken record, but I disagree with this. The best player should be the starter, even if he happens to be a ragged old man of 30. That instills in the young guy a drive to get on the floor and a confidence that when he is the best he isn't going to be benched purely due to age.

Now, if we get back to the argument that Paul, Lance, or someone else is actually better at the wing spot than Dunleavy, OK, that's valid. But saying "he's a vet and was injured, therefore he should be benched no matter how good he comes back as" seems silly.

Well, I think you and a lot of others are missing something: over the past few years, we've drafted guys that are "NBA ready".

I've got a suspicion that Dunleavy is making George look like a fool when they are matched up head-to-head in practice right now.

I think George will be fine, somewhere down the road.

Not all rookies are the same. Rush and Hibbert needed to be thrown into the mix right away. George needs patience.

odeez
09-30-2010, 12:33 PM
I welcome Dun playing well, it will be good for the team either way. If he plays well his trade stock goes up, good! If we keep him and he's even 75% percent of what he was the year he averaged 19pts a game, then we will win more... not to mention creating better competition in practice, which is great for the younger players. It remains to be seen if he will start, but it seems like he will since Rush is out for 5 games. Again, either way it will be good for us if he plays well. I look forward to the season>>>

Peck
09-30-2010, 01:02 PM
IF Mike Dunleavy can offer his offensive gifts matched up with some form of defense then I have no problem if he earns the starting guard spot.

But if I have to see about excuses (read that as someone saying "but Mike is a good team defender") because on offense he does what O'Brien likes then I won't be to happy if he starts all season long.

Also could we please quite trying to insult Mike's athletic ability by just saying he has a high Bball IQ. Mike is fast, Mike can jump, Mike is average strength for someone of his height & build (in other words he is not week or strong).

I hate that people try and push up a player because he isn't an LBJ type athlete by downplaying their athletic ability and upping their I.Q.

Yes, Mike is a smart player but so is Danny Granger. Danny is athletic but so is Mike Dunleavy.

Just because he does not do 360 one handed dunks does not imply he is not athletic. BTW, Mike can dunk the ball. I've seen it.

Since86
09-30-2010, 01:14 PM
Well I would hope he could be able to dunk the ball, he is 6'9" after all.


I think if you were too measure his athleticism, you would find Mike is on the short end of the stick, compared to other NBA players.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mike-Dunleavy-2294/

29" for a max vertical isn't anything to be excited about, in fact it's probably in the bottom 10% of the league. He tied with Spencer Hawes......

d_c
09-30-2010, 01:25 PM
Mike is the type of player that has NO business being in the NBA.

By saying that I mean look at him. He has no athletic gift, He cannot outrun anyone in the nba other than maybe shaq, he has no lift and he certainly doesn't have the strength

Mike is in the league because he is 6'9" and relatively skilled/coordinated. If he was 6'3"- 6'5" with the same level of athleticism and quickness he has now, then yeah, he'd probably be right on the edge of not being in the league.

beast23
09-30-2010, 01:26 PM
Garbage time is usually played very sloppily. It's about as useful as watching a scrimmage or summer league. You learn about as much, which is to say, very little.

I suppose there's certain things you can tell: That guy is tall. That guy is short. That guy can jump.

Beyond that, you don't get a very good idea of how a garbage time superstar can play in real situations where the game matters. Go watch a guy like Marco Belinelli play garbage time. You'll think he can actually be a starter from watching him play at end of a 20 point blowout, but in reality he's just not very good.

Garbage time lacks structure and discipline. In fact, there are many instances where coaches AVOID putting young guys in garbage time because the chances of developing bad habits in such an environment are greater than when putting him in situations that actually matter.
I believe you are commenting on what "is" and not what "should be". The problem is not that garbage time is sloppy but rather it exhibits the team culture that is condoned by the coach.

We have a young team, one of the youngest in the league. Since there aren't all that many full speed practices run during the course of the season, it seems like a smart coach of a young team would leverage every opportunity that he has at getting practice for his seldom used players. If that practice can actually serve a meaningful purpose, such as teaching movement and vision, I think you are that much ahead of the curve.

But no matter how you cut it, if they want to play one-on-one slop ball during garbage time, that is the fault of the coach, not the players. All JOB has to do is to make it clear that any player effing around during "garbage time" will find himself as one of the three players in street clothes for the next five games.

If a coach established the culture under which his players are to play, and sets meaningful penalties for not doing so, then the his culture becomes the reality. Under those conditions, the opponent can do what they please, but if they choose to play sloppy, then more than likely they will be embarrassed. Since no player handles embarrassment very well, I think they might learn to play "garbage time" more staight up when playing the Pacers.

But at any rate, every minute of court time provides a learning opportunity, I think that most coaches are absolutely stupid if the choose to waste it.

Hicks
09-30-2010, 01:39 PM
I've got a suspicion that Dunleavy is making George look like a fool when they are matched up head-to-head in practice right now.

I've got a video showing me otherwise...

MLB007
09-30-2010, 01:46 PM
This is far from a WIN NOW season. If we're lucky, we'll make the playoffs. I see this as a rebuilding year. Dunleavy is not going to be a crucial part of our future. If anything, he'll get a role as a bench player at a small salary.

By no means do I see this as a WIN NOW season.

LOL, don't know where you've been living or what you've been (not) reading, but yes, everyones butt is on the line this season.
Making the playoffs is most definitely "winning now". :rolleyes:
It is most definitely a win now season for everyone involved.

MLB007
09-30-2010, 01:47 PM
Speed I would agree with all this if you were talking about the Mike Dunleavy of three years ago, it seems like people forgot how he played last year and the year before, people keep talking about the improvement of the defense last year ignoring the fact that Brush was the main factor for that improvement.

It seems like some people can't keep the concept of "playing injured" in the front of mind. ;)

MLB007
09-30-2010, 01:48 PM
Sometimes I think I'm watching completely different games than everyone else... :confused:

No, you're not. :buddies:

d_c
09-30-2010, 01:48 PM
I believe you are commenting on what "is" and not what "should be". The problem is not that garbage time is sloppy but rather it exhibits the team culture that is condoned by the coach.

We have a young team, one of the youngest in the league. Since there aren't all that many full speed practices run during the course of the season, it seems like a smart coach of a young team would leverage every opportunity that he has at getting practice for his seldom used players. If that practice can actually serve a meaningful purpose, such as teaching movement and vision, I think you are that much ahead of the curve.

But no matter how you cut it, if they want to play one-on-one slop ball during garbage time, that is the fault of the coach, not the players. All JOB has to do is to make it clear that any player effing around during "garbage time" will find himself as one of the three players in street clothes for the next five games.

If a coach established the culture under which his players are to play, and sets meaningful penalties for not doing so, then the his culture becomes the reality. Under those conditions, the opponent can do what they please, but if they choose to play sloppy, then more than likely they will be embarrassed. Since no player handles embarrassment very well, I think they might learn to play "garbage time" more staight up when playing the Pacers.

But at any rate, every minute of court time provides a learning opportunity, I think that most coaches are absolutely stupid if the choose to waste it.

I mean, that's a very idealistic way of thinking about it, but it's not reality. Yes, you're right. I tend to comment on reality more than I do the ideal. I'm a realistic person by nature.

Pro sports being played at its highest level in all sports is a big product of the situation and consequence. You may as well complain about how some players aren't as clutch in the 4th quarter as they are in the 1st or how regular season ball isn't as intense a playoff ball. The situations and the way the game is being played (and even reffed) are quite different.

A big reason discipline can't be enforced by coaches as much in garbage time is because the guys playing in garbage time aren't going to have guys backing them up. Coaches generally aren't going to sub one of their starters back in if one of their scrubs is playing poorly. If you're not going to get the hook for undisciplined play, you're less likely to play disciplined.

Go watch the last 5 minutes of any 20 point blowout. It's not a pretty sight and there's a reason most fans leave the building at this time. Whether it be the fault of the players, coaches, fans or even the refs (who won't use their whistle as much because they are tired and want to go home earlier), garbage time is purely unstructured, undisciplined ball and most player don't get better from it.

When you see a player get much better in his second season from his first, it's usually because of the work he put in during the offseason, not because the coach let him play some sporadic garbage time minutes the season before.

FTR, the Pacers aren't one of the youngest teams in the league. They are close to being average. I believe they are a bit younger than average, but there are several teams younger.

Since86
09-30-2010, 02:02 PM
FTR, the Pacers aren't one of the youngest teams in the league. They are close to being average. I believe they are a bit younger than average, but there are several teams younger.

I would have to say that has something to do with the fact that Rush, Hibbert, Hans, and AJ all played 4 years of college. A lot of rookies are 19-20yrs old. The Pacers get rooks that are 22-23 years old.

Young might not be the word, but low experience certainly is a better phrase.

MLB007
09-30-2010, 02:03 PM
IF Mike Dunleavy can offer his offensive gifts matched up with some form of defense then I have no problem if he earns the starting guard spot.

But if I have to see about excuses (read that as someone saying "but Mike is a good team defender") because on offense he does what O'Brien likes then I won't be to happy if he starts all season long.

Also could we please quite trying to insult Mike's athletic ability by just saying he has a high Bball IQ. Mike is fast, Mike can jump, Mike is average strength for someone of his height & build (in other words he is not week or strong).

I hate that people try and push up a player because he isn't an LBJ type athlete by downplaying their athletic ability and upping their I.Q.

Yes, Mike is a smart player but so is Danny Granger. Danny is athletic but so is Mike Dunleavy.

Just because he does not do 360 one handed dunks does not imply he is not athletic. BTW, Mike can dunk the ball. I've seen it.

If find it really (sadly?) intriguing how rampant reverse racism seems normal in NBA land.
Accepting that white guys are less athletic and have higher "basketball iq" is just plain silly.
Much less verbalizing such thoughts..........
Tyler tested in the above average in almost all the physical tests in the predraft camps. His reach is abnormally long (7') and his vertical is 34", right at or above the league average. His foot speed and lateral movement scores were very high.
Yet I regularly see him described as "can't jump", "slow", "not quick enough", etc etc
Same with Dunleavy.
Because they are white??????

Yet Stephenson, who EVERY draft report lists as below average quickness and footspeed for a TWO guard, and got torched by summer league pg's, is thought by many here athletic enough to play pg............

Why is this?
It's kind of funny.
But really its sad that it's so accepted.
I Don't mean this to be critical of anyone in particular, just interesting from a sociological perspective.

Since86
09-30-2010, 02:19 PM
You used two wrong examples.

Hans isn't athletic and he shows it. He has difficulty getting off "normal" shots. That was true even in college. He gets that label because he initiates contact and puts his body in weird spots. When you initiate contact it's hard to get maximum lift on your shot. People who normally initiate contact do so because they can't jump high enough to get their shot off cleanly and need a way to counter balance their lack of athleticism.

There were times watching Tyler at UNC he would come out of no where and make a very athletic play, then the next time he came down the court he would look like he was on par with Zoubek and barely get 3inches off the ground.

I've already given the measurements on Dunleavy, and he IS unathletic.

I agree there is a sigma attached to white players, but it's because most white players aren't as athletic as black players. Sure some exceptions to the rule come along, but those are just that, exceptions.

Peck
09-30-2010, 03:18 PM
You used two wrong examples.

Hans isn't athletic and he shows it. He has difficulty getting off "normal" shots. That was true even in college. He gets that label because he initiates contact and puts his body in weird spots. When you initiate contact it's hard to get maximum lift on your shot. People who normally initiate contact do so because they can't jump high enough to get their shot off cleanly and need a way to counter balance their lack of athleticism.

There were times watching Tyler at UNC he would come out of no where and make a very athletic play, then the next time he came down the court he would look like he was on par with Zoubek and barely get 3inches off the ground.

I've already given the measurements on Dunleavy, and he IS unathletic.

I agree there is a sigma attached to white players, but it's because most white players aren't as athletic as black players. Sure some exceptions to the rule come along, but those are just that, exceptions.

If the only definition of athletic is jumping, then maybe. But strength is not an athletic attribute?

Unathletic to describe a 6'9" player who plays the wing position in the NBA just does not make since to me.

He's so smart that other players are just dumbfounded by his mental ability to move without the ball that he can score at will?

Stamina is also part of being athletic and I have a feeling that if Mike were UNathletic he would not be able to constantly move without the ball.

No, Mike is not Dwayne Wade but he isn't Greg Ostertag either.

You can't play shooting guard or small forward in the NBA and be unathletic, it's just not possible. I don't care how smart you are you still have to be able to get your shot off and up and over defenders. You still have to at least pretend to move laterally on defense and you have to at least have some burst of speed to be able to get into position to draw a charge, if not people would just drive around you every time.

Trophy
09-30-2010, 03:25 PM
I think Mike is really good offensively and is a difference maker.

He has the characteristics a SG should have which is being able to make open shots, space the floor, and can make an open layup right off a pass.

He's not the strongest and most athletic guy out there and his defense isn't all that good, but he's really effective offensively.

I'm excited to see if the 07-08 Mike Dunleavy is back.

Trophy
09-30-2010, 03:30 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_100930.html

Here's the video speaking with Mike and Jim.

Putnam
09-30-2010, 03:35 PM
I agree there is a sigma attached to white players,

A sigma, huh? Well, the frat houses can let whoever they want to play on their intermural teams. There's an alpha attached to the black players, so it all works out for everybody.

Hicks
09-30-2010, 03:37 PM
Interesting to compare Mike and Tyler:

Height w/o shoes: 6'8" vs 6'8.25"
Height w/ shoes: Both 6'9.5"
Wingspan: 6'9" vs 6'11.5"
Standing reach: Both 8'10" (By the way, how is this possible given their height and wingspan differences?)
No Step Vertical: 24.5" vs 27.5"
Max Vertical: 29" vs 34"
Bench Press: 11 vs 18
Lane Agility: 11.55 seconds vs 11.12 seconds
3/4 Court sprint: 3.30 seconds vs 3.27 seconds

I'm fascinated that by most measurements listed, Tyler surpasses Mike, including areas you would think an NBA wing would be better than an NBA big. (Vertical, Lane Agility, 3/4 Court sprint)

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mike-Dunleavy-2294/
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyler-Hansbrough-288/

Since86
09-30-2010, 03:39 PM
A sigma, huh? Well, the frat houses can let whoever they want to play on their intermural teams. There's an alpha attached to the black players, so it all works out for everybody.

Sorry I forgot my "t."

And for the record, it's intramural.

Ozwalt72
09-30-2010, 04:00 PM
You can't play shooting guard or small forward in the NBA and be unathletic, it's just not possible. I don't care how smart you are you still have to be able to get your shot off and up and over defenders. You still have to at least pretend to move laterally on defense and you have to at least have some burst of speed to be able to get into position to draw a charge, if not people would just drive around you every time.

No ****. But when one refers to a player as an "athlete" they are implying that among his peers, he is above average. Ford is faster than most other PGs. Howard's quicker, stronger, and can jump higher than most other bigs.

When one says that a player is a bad athlete, like Mike Dunleavy, one is implying that he cannot jump, isn't as strong, or doesn't move as well as most other wings.

No one is trying to say that Mike Dunleavy is Jonah Hill on an NBA court.

xBulletproof
09-30-2010, 05:48 PM
Height w/o shoes: 6'8" vs 6'8.25"
Height w/ shoes: Both 6'9.5"
Wingspan: 6'9" vs 6'11.5"
Standing reach: Both 8'10" (By the way, how is this possible given their height and wingspan differences?)

Wingspan measures from fingertip to fingertip I believe. As we've seen Tyler has some pretty broad shoulders. So while his wingspan is longer, I'd guess that his actual arm length is shorter. If it were say, 1 inch shorter on each arm because of the width of his shoulders, it would make up that difference in wingspan, I believe.

Just a guess, but I think it's a pretty good one.

Dece
09-30-2010, 06:12 PM
I guess i'm not overly shocked by Dun's vert number, I knew he wasn't that athletic, but it feels nice knowing that 15 inches of height aside, I'm a better athlete than an NBA player haha.

34.5 inch vertical... yea, I barely graze rim at 5'6", sup?

Putnam
09-30-2010, 07:22 PM
. . . intramural. . .



:bowdown: Ya got me. :laugh:

Anthem
09-30-2010, 08:44 PM
Sometimes I think I'm watching completely different games than everyone else... :confused:
If you watched last year's team and thought "Brandon's not really making a difference on D" then yeah, we're watching different games.

Anthem
09-30-2010, 08:49 PM
Also could we please quite trying to insult Mike's athletic ability by just saying he has a high Bball IQ. Mike is fast, Mike can jump, Mike is average strength for someone of his height & build (in other words he is not week or strong).
Peck, Mike is not of average strength for his height & build. I like the guy and am excited to have him back to normal, but the dude is not even a little bit strong (for an NBA player, blah blah blah).

If you're 6'9" with a fantastic basketball IQ, you should be able to post up a guy who's 4 inches shorter than you. You should have a mismatch every time down the floor. The other team should be thinking "crap, how are we going to cover him on this possession." Instead they stick a 6'5" guy on Dun and let Dun try shooting over the top. Sure, his accuracy's not bad, but you'd expect a lot more.

I'll say this: if the Pacers were playing against a team with a 6'9" shooting guard, I'd be thrilled and relieved if he played the type of game Mike played.

pacer4ever
09-30-2010, 09:19 PM
If you watched last year's team and thought "Brandon's not really making a difference on D" then yeah, we're watching different games.

brandon can put the clamps on his man

BlueNGold
09-30-2010, 09:47 PM
Wingspan measures from fingertip to fingertip I believe. As we've seen Tyler has some pretty broad shoulders. So while his wingspan is longer, I'd guess that his actual arm length is shorter. If it were say, 1 inch shorter on each arm because of the width of his shoulders, it would make up that difference in wingspan, I believe.

Just a guess, but I think it's a pretty good one.

There are several differences in their frames that might account for this. Sometimes a player's shoulders may be positioned higher than another player even though they are the same height. Sometimes that's because one player has a longer head and/or neck. Other times it's because one player's shoulders are simply a bit lower...sometimes angled down...due to the way they are built.

SMosley21
10-01-2010, 09:18 AM
Healthy Mike Dunleavy is currently better than Brandon Rush, Paul George, or Lance Stephenson. End of story.

jhondog28
10-01-2010, 10:29 AM
Since I have seen almost every game he has played in I will say this. There was a game his sophmore year at Duke where he drove and one hand dunked a ball over Heyward. There was also a game his junior year where he was playing Boston College and off a free throw missed while the ball was still in the air he grabbed the rebound and flushed it. I know he has athletic ability but to be honest that has never been his game. As far as the workout numbers I do know he does not have a crazy vertical or wingspan by NBA standards, but he is quick for his size and has sneaky speed which is why he may be one of the best cutters in the NBA.

MLB007
10-01-2010, 10:43 AM
You used two wrong examples.

Hans isn't athletic and he shows it. He has difficulty getting off "normal" shots. That was true even in college. He gets that label because he initiates contact and puts his body in weird spots. When you initiate contact it's hard to get maximum lift on your shot. People who normally initiate contact do so because they can't jump high enough to get their shot off cleanly and need a way to counter balance their lack of athleticism.

There were times watching Tyler at UNC he would come out of no where and make a very athletic play, then the next time he came down the court he would look like he was on par with Zoubek and barely get 3inches off the ground.

I've already given the measurements on Dunleavy, and he IS unathletic.

I agree there is a sigma attached to white players, but it's because most white players aren't as athletic as black players. Sure some exceptions to the rule come along, but those are just that, exceptions.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
His vertical is at least the league average.
It's not that Tyler can't jump, it's that he never learned (or likely didn't HAVE to) in order to get his shot off.
He's so big (wide) and long armed that he developed a flat footed game in the paint.
And it worked for him against college sized players.
I've seen plenty of highlight films of him soaring for massive put back slams.
And his time in the cone shuttle type test is in the upper range.
There is NOTHING about Tyler athletically that is below average.
Accept that YOU have a preconception based on his whiteness and certainly his often clumsy looking moves.
That ain't a lack of athleticism. ;)

MLB007
10-01-2010, 10:54 AM
Interesting to compare Mike and Tyler:

Height w/o shoes: 6'8" vs 6'8.25"
Height w/ shoes: Both 6'9.5"
Wingspan: 6'9" vs 6'11.5"
Standing reach: Both 8'10" (By the way, how is this possible given their height and wingspan differences?)
No Step Vertical: 24.5" vs 27.5"
Max Vertical: 29" vs 34"
Bench Press: 11 vs 18
Lane Agility: 11.55 seconds vs 11.12 seconds
3/4 Court sprint: 3.30 seconds vs 3.27 seconds

I'm fascinated that by most measurements listed, Tyler surpasses Mike, including areas you would think an NBA wing would be better than an NBA big. (Vertical, Lane Agility, 3/4 Court sprint)

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mike-Dunleavy-2294/
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Tyler-Hansbrough-288/

I posted an article sometime back that said if there was a big winner in the pre draft testing it was Tyler Hansbrough.
He tested in the upper ranges of every test they use. And compared favorably with a bunch of guys that would be considered superior athletes by most on this site and others.
He matched the #1 pick from a couple of years ago, (big white kid, came out early, from out west, ahhhhhhhhh damn memory) in pretty much every test.
Certainly can't match in SKILLS, but athletically this kid is close to a freak for his size.
And his color.
MIke is much more challenged as shown by those results, but as you say, you don't play wing in the NBA at 6'9" if you can't move. :laugh:

MagicRat
10-01-2010, 11:23 AM
Didn't the Pacers start Reggie Miller at shooting guard for 17 years?

Hicks
10-01-2010, 11:33 AM
Didn't the Pacers start Reggie Miller at shooting guard for 17 years?

I don't see how that's possible. College small forwards can't play as NBA shooting guards, as we've established in discussing Paul George. ;)

Brad8888
10-01-2010, 11:39 AM
Didn't the Pacers start Reggie Miller at shooting guard for 17 years?

Yeah, but playing out of position against quicker players at the 2 probably shortened his career...:D

TooBigNdaPaint
10-01-2010, 07:17 PM
Dun-Dun may start ONLY becuz Brandon is suspended and JOB has always had a problem with developing his rookies. Paul George is already better than Dun-Dun if you play NBA basketball with your DEFENSE dictating your OFFENSE. The Pacer BS of going up and down the court and giving UP as much as you score if DUMB. JOB needs to put the best athletes on the court and let them PLAY at least 25 minutes per game. We need guys on the court who can cause MISMATCHES. Dun-Dun doesn't create any kind of mismatch. Paul George at SG, Lance Stephenson at PG, Magnum Rolle (with his quickness, speed down the court, and mid-range shooting prowess) at PF will ALL create mismatches. I like McBob at PF but you can tell that he wants to take the shot behind the 3pt line and he will now spot up there and shoot it when he gets the rock passed to him. McBob is best suited near the rim where his nasty attitude helps the team when he get rebounds, starts the break, and he runs the court to finish at the rim. If we continue to play this pansy-antsy game of 3pt shooting again this year, I'll puke with all the athletes we have now.

BlueNGold
10-01-2010, 09:09 PM
Mike Dunleavy is a better player than Brandon if Mike is healthy. He is under-rated on Defense because he's spent his entire career playing alongside Troy Murphy. Dude takes charges, provides good help side D and has good length. Maybe D is not his strong suit, but he plays so smart and effectively offensively that he makes up for it. ...and without Smurph, Mike can play the role of the weak link on defense while bringing a potent offensive threat from the perimeter....and a heady game that makes basketball easy for his team mates.

Let's be clear about this. I know that defense is the way you advance in the playoffs. It is a must. However, just because Brandon is a better defensive player does not make him more consistent or a better overall player than Mike Dunleavy. If we get the same Mike and Brandon from last year, I would take Brandon. If we get the best from Mike Dunleavy, however, Brandon will be hard pressed to beat him out.

Does Brandon have more potential? Absolutely...but he has yet to show much. Dunleavy has played better than Brandon in the NBA and that's simply a fact.

As for Paul George, I hope he beats out both of them. However, nobody knows how he will develop. Give him a good chance to win the job is my opinion.

vnzla81
10-01-2010, 10:06 PM
I think is funny that some guys here wants to get rid of Rush, a second year player that average 9.4 PPG 4.20 RPG 1.4APG and +10.20 EFF and wants to replace him with an eight years broken down veteran that average 9.9PPG 3.50RPG1.5 APG and +9.43 EFF.

another comparison:

Brandon Rush 2.9 millions team option salary, 24 years of age, .411 3point %

Mike Dunleavy 10.5 salary 30 years of age, .318 3point %


I might ad that Brandon Rush is a way better defender than Mike, he is in fact the best defender on the team and he does many things on the court that don't show on the stats.

Here are Brandon Rush stats for his second year:

Season Age Tm Lg G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB
2009-10 24 IND NBA 82 64 30.4 3.6 8.6.423 1.5 3.7.411 0.7 1.1 .629 0.5

DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
3.7 4.2 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.9 9.4


Here is Danny Granger stats for his second year:



Season Age Tm Lg G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT%
2006-07 23 IND NBA 82 57 34.0 4.9 10.6 .459 1.3 3.5 .382 2.9 3.6 .803


ORB DRG TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1.4 3.3 4.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.6 3.0 13.9


If you guys look at Brandon numbers and compare them to Danny's they are not too far off and actually Brandon right now is a better 3 point shooter than Danny was in his second year.

BlueNGold
10-01-2010, 10:35 PM
...and TJ Ford averaged 12.2ppg his second year.

...and your Dunleavy stats picked a year when he was recovering from major knee surgury. He averaged 14, 19 and 15 the previous 3 years..and he only played in 18 games that last year.

But I get it. He is not the long term answer. My argument is merely that Brandon has not proven that he is necessarily going to be the better player this year. In fact, Brandon has never played nearly as well as the pre-injured version of Dunleavy.

With that said, I am hoping Rush beats out Dunleavy because we need a better SG.

vnzla81
10-01-2010, 10:53 PM
...and TJ Ford averaged 12.2ppg his second year.

...and your Dunleavy stats picked a year when he was recovering from major knee surgury. He averaged 14, 19 and 15 the previous 3 years..and he only played in 18 games that last year.

But I get it. He is not the long term answer. My argument is merely that Brandon has not proven that he is necessarily going to be the better player this year. In fact, Brandon has never played nearly as well as the pre-injured version of Dunleavy.

With that said, I am hoping Rush beats out Dunleavy because we need a better SG.

I don't think you can actually talk about Dunleavy's stats from three years ago, if we do that we can say that Tmac average 21 ppg three years ago and because of that he is maybe going to get healthy and come back to be the man again(I doubt it), I understand that Mike didn't have the same surgery but I'm just using Tmac as an example.

I really hope that Mike is healthy and ready to help this team but at the same time I think is foolish to ignore that Mike is been playing poor basketball in the last two years (injured or not) I remember the time when we had the same type of conversations about JO always looking back to his numbers from three years ago not realizing that the guy was done and that was never going to be the same player again.

BlueNGold
10-01-2010, 11:11 PM
I don't think you can actually talk about Dunleavy's stats from three years ago, if we do that we can say that Tmac average 21 ppg three years ago and because of that he is maybe going to get healthy and come back to be the man again(I doubt it), I understand that Mike didn't have the same surgery but I'm just using Tmac as an example.

I really hope that Mike is healthy and ready to help this team but at the same time I think is foolish to ignore that Mike is been playing poor basketball in the last two years (injured or not) I remember the time when we had the same type of conversations about JO always looking back to his numbers from three years ago not realizing that the guy was done and that was never going to be the same player again.

You could be right. If he doesn't bounce back to form Brandon will have him beat. If he does, I think it goes the other way.

I am pro-defense so backing Dunleavy goes against my nature. However, he brings something special to the offense and considering he is no longer paired with Murphy, his weaknesses if any on defense are less of an issue. Remember when Mike would drain the 3 every single time if someone was not right on top of him? I do. He was playing Granger level ball at the time and many people thought he had an edge on Danny. Rush is nowhere close to that.