PDA

View Full Version : Where does Mcroberts fit in, if tyler starts?



spazzxb
01-07-2011, 10:53 PM
Is Mcroberts healthy? Tyler had an outstanding game and if this was his audition it would appear its his job to loose, but I don't think Josh played at all. It is nice to have a healthy Foster again and I am happy with him backing up roy. The backup pf minutes are highly dependent on Grangers/
fosters minutes at the 4. This team is healthier than they have been in my memory and it would seem Mcroberts, Posey, and george are all looking at the same minutes depending on matchups. I know very few choose Posey of these three but I am curious how people feel about George and Mcroberts. Do we want Danny playing the four so George gets minutes or Mcroberts backing up Tyler and not going small? Reguardless, I certainly hope Mcroberts gets the backup minutes over Posey. I expect Mcroberts and George to trade minutes from here on out unless Mcroberts starts again or takes Fosters minutes at the 5. who do want to get the minutes?

pacer4ever
01-07-2011, 10:54 PM
yes mcbob is healthy DNP CD

Lance George
01-07-2011, 10:57 PM
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/826/25431384.jpg

Just kidding.

I'd give McBob backup minutes at PF, and test him out at center as well. I'd say there's enough to go around for him to get 15-20 minutes a night, and if he impresses, he can become Foster's replacement, assuming Jeff is gone in the offseason.

Unclebuck
01-07-2011, 10:59 PM
I would like him to only get spot minutes maybe when Jeff can't go or Tyler or Roy get into foul problems

beast23
01-07-2011, 11:01 PM
Where does McRoberts fit in if Tyler starts?

Just a guess on my part, but I'd got with coming off the bench?

Since JOB had Josh playing perimeter quite a bit, I would just as soon see Josh getting most of his minutes backing up Roy.

Shabazz
01-07-2011, 11:04 PM
I don't know what to think about McRoberts. Hansbrough owned McRoberts every single time they played in college. McRoberts has never been a very physical player and was bit of a basket case when I watched him play. It seems like he has matured a lot since then.

But he should have never been starting at PF while the better player sat at the end of the bench.

Where does McRoberts fit in? That is a great question. I don't think you can possibly know as long as O'Brien remains the coach. The man is clueless about how to use his roster. Get a real coach in there. Let him evaluate the roster and figure out how to use it.

As long as O'Brien is here, there will be the risk that Mcroberts will end up back as the starting PF and Hansbrough will be asked to go serve popcorn in the stands.

xIndyFan
01-07-2011, 11:11 PM
looks like josh and solo join the sitters club. but unless the roy and jeff start playing better, they will be back.

although dahntay, solo and AJ should get matching jackets on the bench. :)

BlueNGold
01-07-2011, 11:13 PM
Josh should be Tyler's backup.

Jeff is fine as Roy's backup.

Eleazar
01-07-2011, 11:14 PM
If Tyler is starting McRoberts should be the first big off the bench getting pretty much even minutes as Hansbrough.

With that said though McRoberts should still be starting, and playing 20 to 30 minutes, with Tyler coming off the bench playing the rest of the minutes at the PF position. This team was at its best when McRoberts was playing 20 to 30 minutes and Hansbrough was playing 15 to 20 minutes.

spazzxb
01-07-2011, 11:20 PM
Where does McRoberts fit in if Tyler starts?

Just a guess on my part, but I'd got with coming off the bench?

Since JOB had Josh playing perimeter quite a bit, I would just as soon see Josh getting most of his minutes backing up Roy.

You want him taking Fosters minutes backing up Roy, its a valid aurgument? Obviously he will be coming off the bench, but what we are discussing is his spot in the rotation. There have been numerous post about how Josh doesn't get enough minutes and now there is a chance that he gets a consistent DNP CD. I just want to know how people feel about that. I expect Josh to get Poseys minutes at the four, but Posey didn't get any minutes tonight.

spazzxb
01-07-2011, 11:21 PM
I am in favor of that as well, but it means George sits.
If Tyler is starting McRoberts should be the first big off the bench getting pretty much even minutes as Hansbrough.

With that said though McRoberts should still be starting, and playing 20 to 30 minutes, with Tyler coming off the bench playing the rest of the minutes at the PF position. This team was at its best when McRoberts was playing 20 to 30 minutes and Hansbrough was playing 15 to 20 minutes.

BlueNGold
01-07-2011, 11:22 PM
If Tyler is starting McRoberts should be the first big off the bench getting pretty much even minutes as Hansbrough.

With that said though McRoberts should still be starting, and playing 20 to 30 minutes, with Tyler coming off the bench playing the rest of the minutes at the PF position. This team was at its best when McRoberts was playing 20 to 30 minutes and Hansbrough was playing 15 to 20 minutes.

IDK. I think Tyler showed something tonight that I don't think McRoberts has in him. I like Josh and I'm not ready to conclude anything...

Sookie
01-07-2011, 11:25 PM
I keep dreaming of Price, Hans and Dun off the bench. What a fantastic scoring unit that would be..

Really, I like Hans, and he had a fantastic game tonight..If we start Hans, then I think Josh should be the first big off the bench, and he can play Center or PF. Josh and Hans actually play well together.

spazzxb
01-07-2011, 11:27 PM
looks like josh and solo join the sitters club. but unless the roy and jeff start playing better, they will be back.

although dahntay, solo and AJ should get matching jackets on the bench. :)

http://twitter.com/MikeWellsNBA

Quote:
Lance Stephenson active for the first time 2nite vs. Spurs. Stephenson and A.J. Price will alternate being on the inactive list

They guys a crap journalist, but he does have inside information.

Eleazar
01-07-2011, 11:36 PM
I am in favor of that as well, but it means George sits.

It only means George sits if JOB continues to play Granger more than 35 minutes a game. Really right now George hasn't shown that he deserves anymore than 10 to 15 minutes which I think would be easy to find.


IDK. I think Tyler showed something tonight that I don't think McRoberts has in him. I like Josh and I'm not ready to conclude anything...

Tyler and Josh do two different things. Tyler is more power while McRoberts is more finesse. While Tyler is more capable of scoring when he is struggling on offense he doesn't bring much else on that side of the court. McRoberts on the other hand does things that help to make the offense as a whole play a lot better. As well I don't think it is just a coincidence that Hibbert started to struggle the game that McRoberts started to get reduced minutes.

The way I see it what Tyler brings is best used as coming off the bench, while what McRoberts brings is best used starting. Whoever plays more really should come down to who is playing better and which is the better match-up

Shade
01-07-2011, 11:42 PM
He should alternate backing up the 4 and 5 along with Jeff.

Shabazz
01-07-2011, 11:42 PM
With that said though McRoberts should still be starting, and playing 20 to 30 minutes, with Tyler coming off the bench playing the rest of the minutes at the PF position. This team was at its best when McRoberts was playing 20 to 30 minutes and Hansbrough was playing 15 to 20 minutes.


If Hansbrough is given consistent starter's minutes, your opinion will soon change. Watch as his constant hustle forces his teammates to give 110% too. Watch as he consistently draws fouls and gets to the free throw line (something Mcroberts and Posey were not doing.) Watch as he gets his team into the bonus early in each quarter he starts. Watch how many and-ones he is able to convert. Watch how rarely that POWER forward spends his time out beyond the arc shooting 3's.

No team will EVER be better with Josh McRoberts getting more minutes than Tyler Hansbrough.

Do you really think you would have been that close to beating the Spurs, the team with the best record in the league, if McRoberts had been your starting PF?

Shabazz
01-07-2011, 11:48 PM
IDK. I think Tyler showed something tonight that I don't think McRoberts has in him.


Yeah we figured that out back in '05-'06. Someone forgot to pass that memo on to Jim O'Brien.


The reason Hansbrough is so physical... he is a warrior.

The reason McRoberts is so finesse... well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NElaIEymBb4

xIndyFan
01-07-2011, 11:52 PM
http://twitter.com/MikeWellsNBA

Quote:
. . . Stephenson and A.J. Price will alternate being on the inactive list.

good to see this. maybe lance will get some random playing time at the end of a blowout or foul trouble or something. i would like to see him play against the varsity.

Lance George
01-07-2011, 11:52 PM
Yeah we figured that out back in '05-'06. Someone forgot to pass that memo on to Jim O'Brien.


The reason Hansbrough is so physical... he is a warrior.

The reason McRoberts is so finesse... well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NElaIEymBb4

Some of the comments on that YouTube video are hilarious. :laugh:

hoops_guy
01-07-2011, 11:53 PM
Once again, this is the pros and they are men now compared to college. That **** doesn't matter anymore and they are on the same team. They both do good things and Josh's role is not that of a scorer.

Tyler is a better scorer than Josh while Josh has much better court awareness, athleticism, and basketball IQ. I don't get where this "Josh is a pansy" stuff comes from anymore. His game on defense is definitely that of a banger and he's everything but a pretty boy.

BlueNGold
01-07-2011, 11:58 PM
I think I'm leaning toward Tyler simply being the better basketball player. I have a feeling that if we see more of him, it will become more apparent.

What does Josh do clearly better? Josh passes better (more assists). Arguably he makes his team mates better...which is huge. Josh may also attack the rim with more effectiveness, but Tyler has his moments.

They are close to equal at blocking or altering shots IMO...which I didn't think would be true.

I have no stats to back me up necessarily, but I think Hans does many more things better.

1) Shooting
2) Rebounding
3) Boxing out
4) Setting picks
5) Drawing fouls
6) Steals

I'd probably start Hans and get him more integrated into the flow of the offense. If he does that, he's hands down the better player IMHO.

xIndyFan
01-08-2011, 12:10 AM
I think I'm leaning toward Tyler simply being the better basketball player. I have a feeling that if we see more of him, it will become more apparent.

What does Josh do clearly better? Josh passes better (more assists). Arguably he makes his team mates better...which is huge. Josh may also attack the rim with more effectiveness, but Tyler has his moments.

They are close to equal at blocking or altering shots IMO...which I didn't think would be true.

I have no stats to back me up necessarily, but I think Hans does many more things better.

1) Shooting
2) Rebounding
3) Boxing out
4) Setting picks
5) Drawing fouls
6) Steals

I'd probably start Hans and get him more integrated into the flow of the offense. If he does that, he's hands down the better player IMHO.

josh does a lot of things ok, but tyler rebound so much better. seems to be a better on ball defender also. plus tyler's able to take 19 shots in a game. that's hard to do at the NBA level.

Eleazar
01-08-2011, 12:14 AM
If Hansbrough is given consistent starter's minutes, your opinion will soon change. Watch as his constant hustle forces his teammates to give 110% too. Watch as he consistently draws fouls and gets to the free throw line (something Mcroberts and Posey were not doing.) Watch as he gets his team into the bonus early in each quarter he starts. Watch how many and-ones he is able to convert. Watch how rarely that POWER forward spends his time out beyond the arc shooting 3's.

No team will EVER be better with Josh McRoberts getting more minutes than Tyler Hansbrough.

Do you really think you would have been that close to beating the Spurs, the team with the best record in the league, if McRoberts had been your starting PF?

If you can get past your fanboyism and take a step back from the game earlier you might understand why I have my opinion. Hansbrough has struggled more than he has played well since being a Pacer, and one game isn't the end all be all. Yes Tyler has a better ability to score than McRoberts does, no one will argue that. At the same time though you have to realize that typically Hansbrough doesn't score within the flow of the offense. While McRoberts doesn't score as much he does make the offense flow a lot better, which helps everyone on the court. So there is a pro and con to both of them playing on the offensive side.

Considering there are more scorers in the ranks of the starters, and the majority of them score best from the wing and within the flow of an offense it is best to start McRoberts in order to help those scorers get in rythm and score. At the same time since other than Hibbert Hansbrough is the only low post threat. The team needs someone that is capable of coming in and replacing him.


As far as where McRoberts is playing on the court, that kind of stuff is typically more about what the coach wants the player to do. McRoberts has shown that he is going to do what the coach wants. If the coach wants him to spend time around the 3 he will go out there, and it is pretty obvious that is what JOB wants him to do.


Like the other guy said, college means **** at this level. If it did Duke players would dominate this league like they typically do college, when the truth is Duke players typically are average NBA players.

Naptown_Seth
01-08-2011, 12:30 AM
I would like him to only get spot minutes maybe when Jeff can't go or Tyler or Roy get into foul problems
Why is that if he is statistically identical to Tyler and statistically superior to Posey and Foster?

You're look for worse 3pt shooting, worse rebounding, worse inside shooting, less vertical defense, slower transitions either way, worse outlets, weaker screens and picks away from the ball...

Its quite a long list of great reasons, I'll admit.


Talk about trying to cover your butt. You can't own up to the "Josh isn't an NBA player" thing and he's had big impact games much like Tyler's tonight. Plenty of blah games too, but you better believe Tyler has plenty of blah nights ahead of him as well.

Up till now they've had good results when they've been used as the true PF tandem, usually one of them is on his game for sure and they switch up the type of PF game coming at the other team.


I mean I wouldn't bench Roy either, but between he and Josh it's Roy that's been struggling more. Personally I'd play Roy, Josh, and Tyler as the core rotation and just hold my nose on their stinkfest nights on my way to turning them into a really solid future core.




At the same time though you have to realize that typically Hansbrough doesn't score within the flow of the offense. While McRoberts doesn't score as much he does make the offense flow a lot better, which helps everyone on the court. So there is a pro and con to both of them playing on the offensive side.
Totally agree, and by agreeing I'm obviously admitting that I misread how much Tyler would be able to translate his game to the NBA. My issue with him as a prospect was SPECIFICALLY that unlike most big NCAA scorer/rebounder types, he got a much bigger chunk of those points from the FT line than any other 20+ PPG types.

My suggestion was that he wouldn't get those fouls called in the NBA which would mean a lack of points and ability to impact games. He didn't have a scorer's game, the array of moves and shots that he could turn to night after night. He just hustled his way into 8-10 FTAs for 7-8 of his points and nearly halfway to his average.

Fanboys envisioned this monster power guy throwing down dunks and killing people with a low post/inside game. This was a main issue discussed after his tryout and Bird talking up his vert game. I disputed that.

I think I stand justified in that sense, that Tyler's game isn't about power inside and is more about drawing a truckload of FTs. He also has the mid jumper going, but on the season this year and last he doesn't shoot it very well. His FG% remains low for a power inside guy where most people supplement 43-47% shooting with several dunks or tipbacks that result in carrying a 50-55%.

But he sure put it in my face on drawing fouls. I'm long past admitting that I was wrong about him not being able to do that. His aggression and motor get him boards, get him FTAs and sometimes prove nicely disruptive to the other team. On nights where he can knock down 2-4 of those jumpers he's very likely to get you 16-18 points overall.



BTW I also happily admit he outplayed Blair tonight.

spazzxb
01-08-2011, 12:51 AM
Foster is a far better defensive player than Josh and I like him backing up Roy.

Naptown_Seth
01-08-2011, 12:51 AM
From the Tyler thread I posted their per36.

Josh is outshooting Tyler overeall, and moreso when you consider his 3PMs too (or was before tonight, I'll have to see the added impact)

Josh and Tyler are neck and neck in rebounding per 36, both around 9.1-9.2. Posey runs around 6.0 for comparison.

Josh blocks more shots, period. This isn't as close.

Josh leads in steals as well.

Tyler crushes in FTAs and leads the team too.


And then it has to just lean on opinion when it comes to picks and screens, but I strongly suggest that if you want to see Dunleavy open for a jumper just put Josh on the same side of the court with Dun while the ball works on the other side. Next thing Dun's defender knows he's looking at a chest full of Josh while Dun catches the pass for the wide open shot.

Tyler's picks are too clean to be really disruptive. He's turning to get clear of the contact in order to be ready to take the jumper. He doesn't really PnR all that well IMO, not that I've seen so far. It's all about the PnPop for him. If he's hitting the shot then that's great, but I don't think he frees the ball up as well as Josh who tends to work to maintain contact longer.


Like Eleazar said - different games for different situations. Neither guy warrants a DNP and neither has all year.

beast23
01-08-2011, 01:20 AM
If you can get past your fanboyism... That's kinda becoming a popular insulting word with you, isn't it?

Hicks
01-08-2011, 01:49 AM
Josh should be Tyler's backup.

Jeff is fine as Roy's backup.

Assuming Tyler can stay relatively consistent (and that goes for more than a few games, I'm talking 10+ games), I agree with this.

I'd even say use Jeff and Josh at the backup 5, even when Josh is playing backup 4. He should play often.

beast23
01-08-2011, 02:08 AM
From the Tyler thread I posted their per36....

Tyler crushes in FTAs and leads the team too.

And then it has to just lean on opinion when it comes to picks and screens, but I strongly suggest that if you want to see Dunleavy open for a jumper just put Josh on the same side of the court with Dun while the ball works on the other side. Next thing Dun's defender knows he's looking at a chest full of Josh while Dun catches the pass for the wide open shot.

Tyler's picks are too clean to be really disruptive. He's turning to get clear of the contact in order to be ready to take the jumper. He doesn't really PnR all that well IMO, not that I've seen so far. It's all about the PnPop for him. If he's hitting the shot then that's great, but I don't think he frees the ball up as well as Josh who tends to work to maintain contact longer.There is a lot of truth in what you say.

Other stats that I like are adjusted FG% and points per shot. Josh kills Tyler in AFG% 53% to 43%, but Tyler has an advantage in PPS 1.267 to 1.216. An overall consideration of these two stats would probably result in an edge for Josh as well.

You raise very good points regarding Josh's role in weakside screening.

My belief on Josh is that he does not have significant upside offensively. I think Josh "is what he is" if you can pardon the expression. He can become a little more efficient, but I think that's about all he's going to gain. But, that's probably okay considering his role as a facilitator.

Josh is a better shot blocker and certainly can be an above the rim player, but I believe that Tyler is a better interior position player and "banger". It is very obvious that Tyler's physical play does get him to the line much better than Josh, or better than any other Pacer for that matter. I believe this is a talent that we cannot overlook. If you are able to get a couple of fouls on one or both of the opponent's big men in Q1, you are usually playing at an advantage, at least through the end of the quarter or possibly throughout the first half.

I think Josh has had his chance. It's not that he's done a poor job with it, but because of Hibbert's decline, JOB is looking for more offensive production from his frontcourt. I would like to see Tyler get the nod as the starter for the next few games. I would also like to see if Tyler gets better in sync with the wing players to determine whether his PnR and PnP games will get more refined.

In all honesty, I don't believe either player is going to be our long-term starting PF. More than likely, they are both stop gaps until we find that player. But, if I had to say which one is more likely to become a true starting PF, I would have to go with Tyler, even though he would have to absorb part of Josh's fundamental traits to become that player.

This is a definite reversal for me because I have been so certain that Hansbrough had a one way ticket out of here and that the Pacers might even consider rewarding Josh with a modest contract this summer.

After seeing Tyler play, I have to admit that I have really missed a player for the Pacers with such physical play and interior fortitude. If we could combine the two players games into one player, we would end up with a pretty decent player who still did not fully have the PnR skills that Collison needs at PF and we would still need a better defensive presence to pair with Hibbert.

It is important to fully evaluate all of our young players. That is why I would like to see Tyler get his opportunity with the starters. The Pacers need to know if they just need a starting PF for next season. Or, do they need both a starter and a decent backup?

CableKC
01-08-2011, 02:25 AM
The Title of this thread should be changed to:

Where does Posey and Solo fit in; if Tyler, Foster and McBob gets more minutes?

CableKC
01-08-2011, 02:32 AM
Foster is a far better defensive player than Josh and I like him backing up Roy.
If we could settle on a Hibbert/McBob/Foster/Hansbrough PF/C rotation, I could care less who backs up who....I'd be totally happy if JO'B finally decides to figure out which combination would produce the best chemistry in the Frontcourt.

Sookie
01-08-2011, 02:34 AM
This really shouldn't be Josh vs Hans

Both should play.

dohman
01-08-2011, 09:54 AM
Josh is big and athletic enough to play both positions...

I am really frustrated that he did not play last night. But then again he is slowly transforming into foster v2.

The thing that separates tyler and him is tyler simply has confidence in his game. When tyler gets the ball with a foot of space he is looking to score. Or he is looking to punsih the defense by driving to the rim.

When josh gets the ball with a foot of room. He freezes. He looks left. He looks right. Then its like a hot potato and he throws it to someone else. He is useless on offense unless he is simply running a fast break.

This does not mean that he cannot play like tyler though. If mcroberts would just trust his dribble and look to score he would easily average 10ppg. HE has the dribble to get to the rim. He has the athleticism to jump over other defenders. I just wonder when he will get the attitude that he needs.

xIndyFan
01-08-2011, 10:20 AM
last night, i thought josh would not get much playing time unless jeff or tyler started playing poorly. changed my mind overnight i guess.

expect that josh will gets minutes against guys that JOB thinks he can defend. jmo, but josh is an ok defender, but not a good one. there are guys that he can defend in the post and guys he cannot. the main reason josh didn't get any play vs the spurs is they are too big and too strong for josh to handle. be interesting to see what happens against ATL tonight. josh has shown little ability to defend either horford or smith, but jeff is on the 2nd night of a back to back. not sure he can physically play a lot of minutes tonight. so it is josh and solo to take up the slack. if jeff can play, he will get minutes. otherwise, solo backs up roy and josh takes the backup 4. until/unless jsoh shows he cannot defend josh smith.

in other words, josh's appearences will be situational.

PacerHound
01-08-2011, 10:40 AM
I hate to see this turned into a Tyler versus Josh thing. I am high on them both but they do bring different things to the game. I'd like to see more Josh, Hibbert, and Tyler at the same time. They ought to own the boards together most of the time.

PacerHound
01-08-2011, 10:44 AM
The Title of this thread should be changed to:

Where does Posey and Solo fit in; if Tyler, Foster and McBob gets more minutes?

Posey ought to fit in just where he did last night. Need a last second three give him a shot otherwise enjoy retirement on the bench at an income most of us can only dream about. Easy a money as you will ever make.

xIndyFan
01-08-2011, 10:44 AM
I hate to see this turned into a Tyler versus Josh thing. I am high on them both but they do bring different things to the game. I'd like to see more Josh, Hibbert, and Tyler at the same time. They ought to own the boards together most of the time.

there is a subplot of tyler vs jeff on the team this year. jmo, but tyler and josh are competing for the backup PF job on next years team. since there are two guys and only one spot, it makes it kind of a zero sum game.

ksuttonjr76
01-09-2011, 10:14 AM
I like both players, and each bring different elements to the team. Depending on the Coach, each player could be an asset.

Brad8888
01-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Brilliance by O'Brien, as usual. First, McRoberts is a DNP-CD after being a starter. Then, on the second night of a back to back, he is made inactive...just absolutely brilliant.

http://www.nba.com/games/20110108/INDATL/gameinfo.html#nbaGIlive


Pacers-Hawks notebook


By Matt Winkeljohn, for NBA.com
Posted Saturday January 8, 2011 11:42PM
THE FACTS: The Hawks had five players hit double figures in scoring -- by the middle of the third quarter -- and routed the visiting Pacers 108-93 Saturday night, making 11 3-pointers as Josh Smith led the way with 27 points, 10 rebounds, six assists and two blocked shots. Atlanta's ninth straight win over Indiana was tight in the first half, which ended with the Hawks up 55-50. A 29-18 scoring bulge in the third quarter rendered the rest of the game moot. Joe Johnson added 24 points and Jamal Crawford 20 in the Hawks' sixth win in the last seven games. Danny Granger scored 16 for the Pacers, who never led while losing their third straight and falling for the sixth time in seven outings.

QUOTABLE: "It's fun; we're getting everybody involved. Jamal is starting to play like himself again ... Joe as well."
-- Hawks center-forward Al Horford, who had 14 points, 10 rebounds and six assists.

THE STAT: 62.5 -- Atlanta's Johnson (3-for-5), Crawford (3-for-5) and Mike Bibby (4-for-6) made 62.5 percent of their combined 3-points shots (10-for-16 on a night when Atlanta went 11-for-22).

TURNING POINT: Neither team shot well in the third quarter (Indiana made eight of 24 field goals, Atlanta nine of 25), but the Hawks were 4-for-7 on 3-pointers in the period (Indiana made one trey in the period) and outscored the Pacers by six at the free-throw line in the third while pushing their lead to as high as 20 points.

QUOTABLE II: "We are lacking an inside attack right now, and it's just stifling us. [The Hawks] have a great inside attack, they have a great spacing attack, they have terrific post one-on-one players, they're terrific face-up one-on-one players, and that's with athletes that are better than the athletes that we have."
-- Pacers coach Jim O'Brien, whose team was actually out-scored by a modest 32-28 margin in the paint.

HOT: Atlanta's Smith and Bibby carried the action in the third quarter, combining for 26 of the Hawks' 29 points. Smith scored 14 points on 5-for-9 shooting and hit all three of his free throws, and Bibby went 3-for-4, hitting three treys, and added three free throws as well for 12 of his 15 points in the quarter. ... Hawks sub Jamal Crawford made 10 of 19 shots, and three of five 3-pointers, to continue a roll. In the past five games, he has averaged 25.8 points, making 40 of 78 shots (51.3 percent) and 15 of 30 3-pointers (50 percent). ... Joe Johnson has averaged 27.5 points over the past four after scoring 24 Saturday. He scored 12 in the fourth quarter Saturday.

NOT: The Pacers have lost nine straight games on the road, and eight straight in Atlanta, dating to Dec. 22, 2006. ... O'Brien continues to be disappointed in the offense of center Roy Hibbert. He scored eight points Saturday on 3-for-8 shooting as he returned to the starting lineup one night after scoring 10 off the bench in a loss to San Antonio in which he was 5-for-17. ... Indy's James Posey has made just four of 19 shots over the past five games, including three of 18 3-pointers. He's attempted only one non-trey in that time, and he made it Saturday as he went 2-for-6 (1-for-4 on treys).

QUOTABLE III: "It sucks right now."
-- Pacers forward Danny Granger, when asked about Indiana's effort.

ROOKIE WATCH: Pacers youngster Paul George scored eight of his 10 points in the fourth quarter, when he also grabbed two of his six rebounds. Yet when Indianapolis coach Jim O'Brien was asked if he was encouraged by the way the rookie forward played in the fourth quarter, he said, "No. He played terrible defense."

NOTABLE: Atlanta reserve guard Jeff Teague left the game in the second quarter with a contusion to his right hand, and did not return. ... Atlanta small forward Marvin Williams missed his fifth straight game with a back contusion.

UP NEXT: For the Pacers, Tuesday at Philadelphia, Wednesday vs. Dallas, Friday vs. Chicago. For the Hawks, Tuesday vs. Milwaukee, Wednesday @ Toronto, Saturday vs. Houston

Apparently, player frustration is mounting ever higher, especially after seeing in another thread that Hibbert is now seeking help from a sports psychologist.

McRoberts, Hansbrough, and Hibbert should be a primary three man rotation at the 4/5, with Foster helping in limited minutes. Instead, we are going smaller.

Get rid of O'Brien, now. It is getting ridiculous.

Sorry for the derail, and the O'Brien bash.

ksuttonjr76
01-09-2011, 11:34 AM
ROOKIE WATCH: Pacers youngster Paul George scored eight of his 10 points in the fourth quarter, when he also grabbed two of his six rebounds. Yet when Indianapolis coach Jim O'Brien was asked if he was encouraged by the way the rookie forward played in the fourth quarter, he said, "No. He played terrible defense."

Wow...REALLY :eek:? He had two steals at least.

I'm really starting to believe that JOB expects ALL the players to have All-Star performances every night. Someone needs to tell JOB that's not a possible reality for Indiana, and he needs to work with what he got. As a player, comments like that would make me want to amack the hell out of my coach.

DaveP63
01-09-2011, 12:50 PM
This really shouldn't be Josh vs Hans

Both should play.

This^^^ Why not have a two headed monster that both bring something to the table?

pacer4ever
01-09-2011, 01:14 PM
Wow...REALLY :eek:? He had two steals at least.

I'm really starting to believe that JOB expects ALL the players to have All-Star performances every night. Someone needs to tell JOB that's not a possible reality for Indiana, and he needs to work with what he got. As a player, comments like that would make me want to amack the hell out of my coach.

I watch the game and Paul didnt play bad defense he got burned two times that were his fault. But he played good defense on J.J for the most part but he made a couple really tuff shots.

Hicks
01-09-2011, 01:37 PM
I watch the game and Paul didnt play bad defense he got burned two times that were his fault. But he played good defense on J.J for the most part but he made a couple really tuff shots.

That's what I thought I saw, too.

xBulletproof
01-09-2011, 01:51 PM
Yeah, until he got caught ball gawking I thought he was giving it to Joe. I was enjoying him getting the challenge, and getting to watch it.

I don't care what JOB says, minus 2 mistakes, it was pretty good defense.

CableKC
01-09-2011, 01:53 PM
Wow...REALLY :eek:? He had two steals at least.

I'm really starting to believe that JOB expects ALL the players to have All-Star performances every night. Someone needs to tell JOB that's not a possible reality for Indiana, and he needs to work with what he got. As a player, comments like that would make me want to amack the hell out of my coach.
I could be wrong....but having 2 steals doesn't translate into good defense.

I didn't watch the game, but looking at PGs defense objectively....did he look lost on defense?

I have no problem with J'OB calling out the Player if they played horribly.....I expect a rookie player to make mistakes....what I expect and hope is that he doesn't bench him permanently during the course of the game or the season while giving him a chance to learn from the mistake....specifically given minutes to redeem himself.

hoops_guy
01-09-2011, 02:01 PM
I could be wrong....but having 2 steals doesn't translate into good defense.

I didn't watch the game, but looking at PGs defense objectively....did he look lost on defense?

I have no problem with J'OB calling out the Player if they played horribly.....I expect a rookie player to make mistakes....what I expect and hope is that he doesn't bench him permanently during the course of the game or the season while giving him a chance to learn from the mistake....specifically given minutes to redeem himself.

He got caught ball-gawking twice. Other than that Joe Johnson hit ridiculous shots that not even All Star level players have any business hitting.

Of course he didn't complain about how James Posey got sodomized by Josh Smith on offense.

Hicks
01-09-2011, 02:02 PM
He didn't play horribly. That's the problem with Jim's comment.

Naptown_Seth
01-09-2011, 02:06 PM
I am in favor of that as well, but it means George sits.
No it doesn't.

48 minutes of SF play - 36 for Danny, 12 for Paul

48 minutes of SG play - 30 for Rush, 18 for Dun

Holy crap, it's a miracle, I found a way to play them all.


Josh starts for 26-28, Tyler off the bench for 22-20, Tyler likes to take a lot of shots anyway so he works well as a main scorer while not playing as much with Roy, Danny, Rush and Collison. Bench scorers are the fresh off the bench Dun and Tyler, and as George finds his game as well.

Roy has normal 34 minute type games, Foster picks up the other 14 which works well post-injury/age.

FOUL TROUBLE means you turn to someone like Posey or Solo, and even then you can easily stretch the minutes of all those other guys.

And at this point PG should be Collison 28-36 minutes depending on how he has it going, with PRICE getting at least 10-12. So some nights you can still run Ford out there a little bit.



Or put Josh in street clothes for the 2nd game on the road of a back to back because rest is no issue and the team is so much better this way...if losing by 19 is what we consider "better"



Sorry for the derail, and the O'Brien bash.
It's a thread about Josh's playing time/role. JOB is intricately, insanely intertwined with that. Larry Brown is the only other coach that comes to mind when talking about random, nonsense benchings or trashing to the press. And I'm about to bump that thread to in order to make this point.

Infinite MAN_force
01-09-2011, 02:17 PM
They are close to equal at blocking or altering shots IMO...which I didn't think would be true.

.

I haven't watched the last two games, but I find this very hard to believe. Josh is and always will be more of a factor as a shot blocker.

If we are going small with Danny playing minutes at the backup 4 spot (which means George is in the rotation), I think Josh should be getting minutes at the backup 5 when Foster can't go due to health. I can see the benefit of a lineup like this...

Collison/TJ
Dunleavy/Rush
Granger/George
Hansbrough/Granger/Mcbob
Hibbert/Foster/Mcbob

However, James Posey should never play over Josh Mcroberts (excepting end of game situations where we need a three). Josh's numbers are better across the board, and despite how good Posey's team defense is, it is not enough to negate the constant mismatches we are playing with Posey at the four.

It really wouldn't be a question with a sane coach, Josh is averaging more Points, Rebounds, Assists, Blocks, Better FG%, better 3 point FG% (yes, thats right) Both play roughly 20 minutes per game. Posey has not shot well enough to justify being on the floor. But he is a vet, and despite often being over matched at the four, he always stands in the right spot, and thats all that matters to this coach.

Naptown_Seth
01-09-2011, 02:27 PM
Do you really think you would have been that close to beating the Spurs, the team with the best record in the league, if McRoberts had been your starting PF?
Nope. With Josh starting the only games you can win are against the Lakers in LA or the Heat in Miami.

But home with 4 days off and the Spurs on their 3rd game that week of a East road trip...clearly your only hope is to bench Josh and take Tyler from 0 mpg to 36.


This post is irrational and IMO blatantly anti-Josh, possibly out of the irrational POV that being pro-Tyler means you have to be anti-Josh or vice versa.

I was anti-drafting Tyler and big on playing Josh and I have been converted to playing Tyler also. There is no good reason for this to be an "either or". None of the results suggest that Josh has been anything less than Tyler this year.

He's shot better, rebounded nearly as well (yes, the numbers say he has), passed very well (he's the top Assist guy p36 after the 3 PGs), gets more steals and blocks than Tyler...but somehow a person can see this and say "Tyler is a must play, Josh is ruining the team". That's not rational and the facts do not support it.

Tyler and Josh have both been able to add something to the game with very similar results via different methods.


By the way, if Tyler was the savior then why didn't they almost beat the Hawks? Oh yeah, because CIRCUMSTANCES of the schedule weren't so favorable last night.

This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Naptown_Seth
01-09-2011, 02:36 PM
My belief on Josh is that he does not have significant upside offensively. I think Josh "is what he is" if you can pardon the expression. He can become a little more efficient, but I think that's about all he's going to gain. But, that's probably okay considering his role as a facilitator.Tyler is older. Tyler played heavy minutes at UNC still learning the game while Josh mistakingly came out too early and got stuck getting almost no PT or development the last 3 years. Tyler was on his way to being handed a lot more minutes than Josh last year even while he was shooting sub 40% from the PF position, making him one of the worst (maybe THE worst) shooting PF in the NBA (Tyler I mean).

So frankly I don't see where the upside is in favor of Tyler. I put this out pre-draft, statistically Tyler DID NOT CHANGE his final 3 years at UNC. His rebounding went down his senior year.

At the time I contrasted this with guys like Duncan or Griffin who did show increases when they stayed. They didn't just keep doing more of the same. They were learning and improving.

Now I didn't make Josh leave Duke and it's not just hindsight to say that's a dumb thing to do IMO. I'm always pro-stay in college for all but the most polished and ready players. You'll get more PT and time to mature playing against other KIDS rather than 30 year old men.

Being 20 in a rich man's world with the partying and attitudes is not conducive to growth. Neither is not getting quality minutes of highly competitive basketball, especially at a program like Duke.

But that's in the past, and I'd say it indicates that it's Josh that's more likely to mature his game than Tyler. Tyler stayed at UNC to become what he is. His success even seems to be coming in the same form that he had it in college - high motor, hustle, draw tons of FTAs.




In all honesty, I don't believe either player is going to be our long-term starting PF. More than likely, they are both stop gaps until we find that player. But, if I had to say which one is more likely to become a true starting PF, I would have to go with Tyler, even though he would have to absorb part of Josh's fundamental traits to become that player.
Going backward I still wouldn't have drafted Tyler simply because I would have let Josh fill that role (backup PF) and traded down. Holiday, Chase, Sam Young, and definitely Blair "for free in the 2nd round" were all targets I would have gone for in that draft, just due to the roster situation.

I also wouldn't have gone with George with Rush and Danny here, but Bird did.

So with George on the team and showing pretty solid athletic promise, it would be very tempting to move Danny for Kevin Love as the PF solution. Or if I thought we could trust his attitude I'd be all for making Zach Randolph the FA signing next year.

But somehow it would all seem like a bit of a waste to not take advantage of getting Josh as a throw-in, allowing you to do something else with your next picks/cap space. You'd have to trade Tyler or Josh, and by not SHOWCASING JOSH with 36 mpg (or have I misunderstood the insane pro-Tyler/Ford PT arguments) you don't get a lot of trade value with Josh.

In short, I'm not adverse to upgrading at PF, but I this is tricky given the current situation. Plus I'm one of those guys in the "let's not make moves till we try this with another coach" camp. I mean what if Coach X is brought in, uses the roster in the ways that most of us suggest, and we have nice results from it? Then we'd be glad we didn't pull the trigger prematurely, especially when we'd be dealing from a position of weakness in terms of trade chips (other than Danny).

xBulletproof
01-09-2011, 03:05 PM
Of course he didn't complain about how James Posey got sodomized by Josh Smith on offense.

I forgot about this. To illustrate this I went to the play by play, because I remembered exactly when it happened, because I was complaining about it to a buddy.

From the play by play:


Smith Rebound (Off:3 Def:6) 02:54
Smith Putback Slam Dunk Shot: Made 02:54
Smith Running Layup Shot: Made 02:21
Smith Free Throw 1 of 1 (22 PTS) 02:21
Smith 3pt Shot: Made 01:51
Smith Jump Shot: Made 01:10

The result was bad, and it looked bad. 10 points in 2 minutes. Hilarious.

.

BlueNGold
01-09-2011, 03:35 PM
Assuming Tyler can stay relatively consistent (and that goes for more than a few games, I'm talking 10+ games), I agree with this.

I'd even say use Jeff and Josh at the backup 5, even when Josh is playing backup 4. He should play often.

I've always liked both of these players (Josh and Tyler). But Tyler can take over a game...at both ends of the floor. Not just once a year, but maybe once a week...and not just on offense. Dude has quick hands and rips the ball away from players...and as he has gotten smarter, I've seen he can carve out space and grab tough boards. There are a lot of little things that Tyler can do because he plays with force.

....so yes, I am hoping Josh is the backup...not because I don't like Josh...but because I am also hoping that Tyler becomes more consistent with more minutes.

Have a couple other comments too. I stated that I thought Tyler blocked shots about as well as Josh. I think I'll take that one back. I think Tyler's a lot more effective defensively, including blocking shots, than most people may have expected....and I perhaps got carried away a bit on that point. The short of it is, I think Tyler is a lot better defensively than I expected to go along with a more explosive offensive game.

The other issue that has been raised is about potential and improvement. Some think Josh has more room to improve. I think in theory he does, but I don't see as much natural skill, other than passing the ball. I see an athlete who may become a solid defender and a good facilitator on offense. With Tyler, I see a guy who has dramatically improved his game from just last year. The knock on him last year was FG%. He has improved that nearly 10% simply from playing much smarter basketball. It's really been a phenomenal adjustment IMO.

At bottom, I think Tyler's defense + offense has more potential to be greater than Josh's...but the jury is still out on this one.

Hoop
01-09-2011, 03:48 PM
Where does McRoberts fit in, if Tyler starts?

Apparently he doesn't, since he instantly goes from starting to 13th man and possibly never playing again........ or til @sshat decides on a new brilliant strategy.

spazzxb
01-09-2011, 04:02 PM
Given his post count and timing of his visit to our boards This guy seems to be more of a Tyler fan than a pacers fan. I wouldn't bother trying to persuade him about whats good for the team. He reminds me a lot of the poster Phsyco T. (who isn't here anymore). Also the NC/ Duke thing needs to be differentiated from the nba Josh and Tyler comparisons because the college fans turn this debate into one big cluster____.


Nope. With Josh starting the only games you can win are against the Lakers in LA or the Heat in Miami.

But home with 4 days off and the Spurs on their 3rd game that week of a East road trip...clearly your only hope is to bench Josh and take Tyler from 0 mpg to 36.


This post is irrational and IMO blatantly anti-Josh, possibly out of the irrational POV that being pro-Tyler means you have to be anti-Josh or vice versa.

I was anti-drafting Tyler and big on playing Josh and I have been converted to playing Tyler also. There is no good reason for this to be an "either or". None of the results suggest that Josh has been anything less than Tyler this year.

He's shot better, rebounded nearly as well (yes, the numbers say he has), passed very well (he's the top Assist guy p36 after the 3 PGs), gets more steals and blocks than Tyler...but somehow a person can see this and say "Tyler is a must play, Josh is ruining the team". That's not rational and the facts do not support it.

Tyler and Josh have both been able to add something to the game with very similar results via different methods.


By the way, if Tyler was the savior then why didn't they almost beat the Hawks? Oh yeah, because CIRCUMSTANCES of the schedule weren't so favorable last night.

This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

koVe
01-09-2011, 05:20 PM
I don't know what to think about McRoberts. Hansbrough owned McRoberts every single time they played in college. McRoberts has never been a very physical player and was bit of a basket case when I watched him play. It seems like he has matured a lot since then.

But he should have never been starting at PF while the better player sat at the end of the bench.

I think it depends on what your definition of a better player is. I think it's a no brainer that Hansbrough looked better in college and certainly if they're both the #1 option on their team (which they were for mcroberts 2nd year).

Hansbrough's strength is the mid range jumper and giving him the ball in a face up situation. But, should he be a high option on offense on a decent team? My answer would be no.

McRoberts is a better athlete, shot blocker, passer, long range shooter, and probably a better defender in most situations. I think they're close in rebounding. You certainly don't want to give him the ball in isolation and say 'go make something happen' because he can't create for himself and he's a good passer from the high post/3 point line, but not off the dribble.

So, if you have better options on offense than throwing the ball to Tyler, then I think you're better served with McRoberts, who can give you more things without being an option on offense. Then have Tyler come in as a guy off the bench to give you energy and offense against bench players where he's going to be more effective.

But, there's only 1 ball, do you want to throw it to Tyler over Granger, Hibbert, Dunleavy/Rush, Collison?

flox
01-09-2011, 05:53 PM
I'm starting to think McRoberts may not be on the team next season. If Jim isn't retained, I don't see anything other than dunking that would qualify McRoberts to be on an NBA roster, unless he starts shooting the three better.

CableKC
01-09-2011, 06:16 PM
I'm starting to think McRoberts may not be on the team next season. If Jim isn't retained, I don't see anything other than dunking that would qualify McRoberts to be on an NBA roster, unless he starts shooting the three better.
I'll let Seth expand on this....but my initial response is that he has some solid passing skills for a Big Man and good offensive awareness. To me, he is a good enough Player to be considered IMHO a "1st Big Man off the Bench / Emergency Starter" on any Team...essentially a 7th/8th Man rotational Player.

xIndyFan
01-09-2011, 06:17 PM
i think flox is right. josh was given the first third of the season to show his stuff, it appears that it is now tyler's turn. but pacers big rotation is so weak, he will probably get another shot at it when tyler or jeff plays poorly.

but it looks like solo and josh are the 'in case of fire break glass' club.

BlueNGold
01-09-2011, 06:22 PM
I'll let Seth expand on this....but my initial response is that he has some solid passing skills for a Big Man and good offensive awareness. To me, he is a good enough Player to be considered IMHO a "1st Big Man off the Bench / Emergency Starter" on any Team...essentially a 7th/8th Man rotational Player.

I agree. If anyone thinks McRoberts is not in the NBA in 5 years, they will be proven wrong. I see him as at least a 7-10 guy on a .500 team.

xIndyFan
01-09-2011, 06:24 PM
I'll let Seth expand on this....but my initial response is that he has some solid passing skills for a Big Man and good offensive awareness. To me, he is a good enough Player to be considered IMHO a "1st Big Man off the Bench / Emergency Starter" on any Team...essentially a 7th/8th Man rotational Player.

josh does lots of things ok. but nothing really good. until he is a good defender and rebounder, he will have trouble cracking any decent NBA rotation.

CableKC
01-09-2011, 06:25 PM
I agree. If anyone thinks McRoberts is not in the NBA in 5 years, they will be proven wrong. I see him as at least a 7-10 guy on a .500 team.
Don't get me wrong....I don't think that he's anywhere near the "Legend of McBob" that we all wish that he would be....but to say that he's one doesn't "see anything other than dunking that would qualify McRoberts to be on an NBA roster" is short-sighted.

flox
01-09-2011, 06:26 PM
I'll let Seth expand on this....but my initial response is that he has some solid passing skills for a Big Man and good offensive awareness. To me, he is a good enough Player to be considered IMHO a "1st Big Man off the Bench / Emergency Starter" on any Team...essentially a 7th/8th Man rotational Player.


I agree. If anyone thinks McRoberts is not in the NBA in 5 years, they will be proven wrong. I see him as at least a 7-10 guy on a .500 team.

He might catch with another team running some sort of passing offense, if more of those guys get hired in the league.

But I don't think a lot of teams would put a premium on a big man who's best attributes are dunking, passing, and awareness.

judicata
01-09-2011, 08:06 PM
I put this out pre-draft, statistically Tyler DID NOT CHANGE his final 3 years at UNC. His rebounding went down his senior year.



This was factually inaccurate when you arguing it 18 months ago and remains so now. Which is one of the reasons why this argument goes no where.

Is any one else having trouble following these rules?

1) College is irrelevant, unless you are pointing out statistical decline.

2) Being older with less professional experience is clearly more advantageous than being younger with more professional experience.

3) Your statistics when you are injured and have missed training camp are relevant. Your statistics when you are riding the pine and only getting 8 minutes a game unfairly represent you as a player.

4) Passing, dunks, and handling skills are critical intangibles for your 4 to possess. Toughness, strength, and power are not.

Honestly, I'm mostly disappointed in myself for getting sucked back into this conversation 18 months later.

Unclebuck
01-09-2011, 08:14 PM
Simply put the positive impact that Tyler had on the Spurs game was far superior to anything Josh is capable of doing.

We can spend forever disecting stats ever since Josh and Tyler were born, but if it isn't obvious by just watching the games, then I have no way to convince you

Major Cold
01-09-2011, 08:41 PM
Josh suffers from lack of game definition. And with a coach who lacks consistent role definitions, this is even more disruptive to Josh's development.

And yes a player like Josh needs development. He didn't come out of the womb ready to contribute. And you can show me the flawed per36 stats all you want.

Mackey_Rose
01-09-2011, 09:33 PM
Simply put the positive impact that Tyler had on the Spurs game was far superior to anything Josh is capable of doing.

We can spend forever disecting stats ever since Josh and Tyler were born, but if it isn't obvious by just watching the games, then I have no way to convince you

Tyler played great in that game. That is indisputable. Really made Jim look foolish.

He was put in the lineup to improve the offense. The Pacers scored 87 points. I wouldn't call that a huge improvement. He got buckets, which the team needs, but he really doesn't add anything that improves the offense. To say simply that Tyler has a superior impact to Josh based on one game would be misleading.

Tyler scores, but he doesn't do anything to help his teammates. He is the ideal player to bring off the bench when Hibbert, Granger, and Collison are struggling offensively. They have struggled offensively for a month, and O'Brien made the mistake of scapegoating Josh for those struggles. He had Hansbrough on the bench, and should have been using him to supplement his team's struggling offense. It worked in November, but he never thought to try in December. It is entirely perplexing. Then in January, he decided to take a guy he never played, for no reason, and throw him into the starting lineup. He took the starter, and for no reason, decided to nail him down to the bench. Another classic example of Jim O'Brien throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks.

There is no method to the madness.

Tyler played 36 minutes and took 19 shots. Josh has never played more than 30 and has only taken double digit shots twice, his most attempts being 12. They aren't the same players. They don't have the same roles. You should not act like they do.

Tyler had more plays run for him in the Spurs game than Josh has had run for him all season. The truth is, Josh has probably not had a single play run for him. There is no reason for O'Brien to be unable to find a place, on this team, for both Josh and Tyler. The fact that he is not capable of that is a major black mark on his resume. They both should be getting at least
25-30 minutes every single night. The only reason they aren't is because JOB in incapable of putting this roster in the best position to be most successful.

KCOCGNOL
01-09-2011, 10:10 PM
I don't see what the big deal is Josh was only holding down the spot until Tyler got healthy and up to speed. Don't get me wrong he should dress and play some but I honestly can't see how anyone thinks he's better than Tyler and JMac would never even got any real burn here if Tyler didn't have so many things happen to him since getting drafted in the first place.

Unclebuck
01-10-2011, 10:32 AM
He was put in the lineup to improve the offense. The Pacers scored 87 points. I wouldn't call that a huge improvement. He got buckets, which the team needs, but he really doesn't add anything that improves the offense. To say simply that Tyler has a superior impact to Josh based on one game would be misleading.

Tyler played 36 minutes and took 19 shots. Josh has never played more than 30 and has only taken double digit shots twice, his most attempts being 12. They aren't the same players. They don't have the same roles. You should not act like they do.



I wasn't the one in this thread who started the comparison between Josh and Tyler, I was just responding to it.

I fuind your comment about Tyler not adding anything to the offense a little off base. How about his offensive rebounding, and the fact that teams will start to cover Tyler a lot closer than they would have. Another big thing teams know they have to have size on Tyler so maybe that might allow Roy to play against a smaller guy

purdue101
01-10-2011, 10:44 AM
I wasn't the one in this thread who started the comparison between Josh and Tyler, I was just responding to it.

I fuind your comment about Tyler not adding anything to the offense a little off base. How about his offensive rebounding, and the fact that teams will start to cover Tyler a lot closer than they would have. Another big thing teams know they have to have size on Tyler so maybe that might allow Roy to play against a smaller guy

I'd like to add onto this and say Tyler's help defense against the Spurs was very good. I believe he took at least one charge, maybe two. He also altered several shots after Manu beat his man. I did not watch the Atlanta game, so I cannot comment there.

I believe Larry needs to add a starting PF with size, who can play minutes at the 5. We can then essentially run a 3 man frontcourt rotation with that player, Roy, and Hans. If the Melo deal goes through, Nene comes to mind.

xIndyFan
01-10-2011, 11:56 AM
I'd like to add onto this and say Tyler's help defense against the Spurs was very good. I believe he took at least one charge, maybe two. He also altered several shots after Manu beat his man. I did not watch the Atlanta game, so I cannot comment there.

I believe Larry needs to add a starting PF with size, who can play minutes at the 5. We can then essentially run a 3 man frontcourt rotation with that player, Roy, and Hans. If the Melo deal goes through, Nene comes to mind.

i totally agree. especially the bolded parts. nene looks to be a guy that might fit the pacer needs and is available.

Mackey_Rose
01-10-2011, 12:15 PM
I wasn't the one in this thread who started the comparison between Josh and Tyler, I was just responding to it.

I fuind your comment about Tyler not adding anything to the offense a little off base. How about his offensive rebounding, and the fact that teams will start to cover Tyler a lot closer than they would have. Another big thing teams know they have to have size on Tyler so maybe that might allow Roy to play against a smaller guy

I don't think he really adds much of anything to the offense with the starters. He just changes it. He gets shots up like they are going out of the style, so I suppose it is just a matter of preference. Do you want Granger, Hibbert, and Collison being the main offensive threats and shot takers? That is my preference, but if not, then do you want Hansbrough being the main shot taker?

Because when he is on the floor, he has to be the main offensive option in order to be effective. Other than scoring for himself, he doesn't contribute enough offensively in other areas. He can't and doesn't pass, he can't and doesn't dribble, he doesn't try to set up his teammates through screens. He sets screens to try to free himself up for a shot. I don't think it is an issue of selfishness, I think that's just the only way he knows.

He does get offensive rebounds. Many of them come off of his own misses and blocked attempts when under the basket, but he gets them nonetheless.

When McRoberts was not being asked to float along the three-point line like Troy Murphy 2.0, he was getting offensive rebounds at a very high rate. Probably too high of a rate for him to be able to maintain it over a full season, but that dimension of his game was there, and was taken away from him when O'Brien changed strategy out of the blue.

Dejuan Blair is one of the few guys in the league that is an ideal matchup for Hansbrough, and he took advantage of his opportunity. Boozer in Chicago, Millsap in Utah, also immediately come to mind. I don't think he can be as successful against the taller, longer, more athletic players that are on a majority of the teams, but we are going to get a chance to find out. I have not yet watched the Hawks game, but I don't think he matches up well with Josh Smith at all, so I'm curious to see how he does. I've checked the box score, but I don't believe that you can ever truly judge a player by numbers alone. I have it recorded and will try to watch it tonight after work.

In the first game of the season against the Spurs, McRoberts had 11 points on 6 shots, and 6 rebounds in 24 minutes as the Pacers scored 109 points. On Friday night, Hansbrough had 23 points on 19 shots, and 12 rebounds in 36 minutes as the Pacers scored 87 points. Give McRoberts a full quarter more of playing time, and triple his shots, and who is to say that he doesn't come close to equaling the numbers that Hansbrough produced? There is no way to know, because he has never had that opportunity.

Regardless, I think McRoberts' skills as a passer, ball handler, and screener offensively, are a better fit as a member of the starting lineup. Hansbrough is the ideal scoring punch to bring off the bench. It worked in November, and I still can't understand why O'Brien decided he needed to change things up in December, but he did. He dug himself into a hole by making that move, and now I think he is just digging himself deeper with this January change.

Right now, we are 14-20. There are 11 games to go in January, 5 at home and 6 on the road. If we win more than 3 games this month, I will be pleasantly surprised. We could easily be looking at 17-28, or worse, by the time the calendar flips, and becomes time for O'Brien to make another mystery change. If, we do indeed, slip more than 10 games below .500, will O'Brien make the same mistake he made before and scapegoat Hansbrough as the reason for the problem? Then what? Does Posey become the starter? Does he decide to permanently shift Granger to PF? Do Hansbrough and McRoberts both end up in suits behind the bench? Where does it end?

Since December 1st, and the strategy change, we have played 18 games. We have lost 13 of them. The only teams we have beaten? Toronto, Charlotte, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Washington, all of them at home. That isn't exactly a Murderer's Row of opponents. Things have been ugly, but they are likely to get much worse. The only consolation to all this losing would be a change at the top. That is unlikely to happen, so I hope everybody is prepared for a lot of disappointment.

Peck
01-10-2011, 12:18 PM
Given his post count and timing of his visit to our boards This guy seems to be more of a Tyler fan than a pacers fan. I wouldn't bother trying to persuade him about whats good for the team. He reminds me a lot of the poster Phsyco T. (who isn't here anymore). Also the NC/ Duke thing needs to be differentiated from the nba Josh and Tyler comparisons because the college fans turn this debate into one big cluster____.

Wait, did you just say that Naptown Seth was a Tyler Hansbrough fanboy?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahah!!!!!!!!!

You might want to go back in history and review that comment.

Mackey_Rose
01-10-2011, 12:24 PM
Wait, did you just say that Naptown Seth was a Tyler Hansbrough fanboy?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahah!!!!!!!!!

You might want to go back in history and review that comment.

Pretty sure he was (accurately) referring to Shabazz.

Peck
01-10-2011, 12:33 PM
Am I the only one who likes it when Josh & Tyler are on the floor together?

Jim sometimes just baffles me with his ideas. We must bench a big now every game because we are going small? Really? There is a law that you can not play four wing players a game?

How much you wanna bet that James Posey is one of those that never see's street clothes?

Anyway as Seth pointed out there is an easy way to play the four wings and still have a backup center & power forward.

But if O'Brien can't bring himself to do that then why not use Josh who can play both spots.

I don't mind a player being benched and sometimes when you are losing you throw things against the wall to see if they stick, this I don't blame Jim for per say.

But to take a guy who started all season and now make him DNP-CD for no real reason is just another in a long line of baffeling things.

BTW I don't hate that Tyler played well. I hate the fact that O'Brien has waited 32 games to see that he could play well.

I'm sorry but I'm going to disagree with the usuals here (again) but you won't convince me that this is some miracle of two days of practice that Jim decided that Tyler had earned a spot.

This is Tylers game, nothing different from the Spurs game that we haven't seen from his first game in the NBA other than his jump shot was falling.

To try and pretend that he was so bad that he could not find a single min. of play vs. the N.Y. Knicks to all of a sudden his practice was so good that he should not only start but play extended min. is just insulting to all of our intellegence.

My opinion is that this is Jim just once again being a mad scientist and throwing things together and over coaching again.

However there is a very slight possibility that the Knicks game may have been a breaking point for some of the upper ups in management.

There is no secret that Jim talks to Larry Bird every day, this his by his own words, about the direction of the team. While Larry is probably never going to tell him what players to play or use he certainly would tell him the direction he wants the team to go. Notice as well that at the same time this happened Brunner put out a p.r. piece about going younger and trying to improve?

Let's just say it is a possiblity that we weren't the only ones who watched that Knick game shaking our heads that James Posey played every single min. of the 4th quarter.

While I don't think my latter scenario is out of the question I still believe that Jim is just mixing and matching.

But to be honest I don't know anymore, that is if I ever did.

Peck
01-10-2011, 12:34 PM
Pretty sure he was (accurately) referring to Shabazz.

Hmmmmm....the quote was from Seth though, maybe he just hit quote on the wrong thread.

Mackey_Rose
01-10-2011, 12:47 PM
Am I the only one who likes it when Josh & Tyler are on the floor together?

Absolutely not. I have said on several occasions that I really enjoy watching them both out there together. Their games complement each other very well, and it is very effective when they play together.

Unfortunately we have only seen it for an extended period a couple times. In the first home game against Philly, and then in the game at Washington. Both times it was effective.

I would like to see it more often, but since it is effective, and that it would make sense to try it more often, I don't expect to see it ever again.

Speed
01-10-2011, 01:07 PM
This is Tylers game, nothing different from the Spurs game that we haven't seen from his first game in the NBA other than his jump shot was falling.



Picking on one sentence, I realize, but its something, I've been meaning to post.

I thought Tyler did show some different/added things these past two games. He went to his left twice, maybe even three times against the Spurs. That's maybe 2 or 3 more times than I've ever seen him do it. Also, he hit a baseline fade jumper in a one on one situation in both the Spurs and NY game, very impressive, I've never seen that one either.

It's not a trend, but it was two really important things I was hoping to see from him because I thought made the difference in him being a valid offensive threat or a one trick ineffective pony.

Oh ya, one other thing he didn't get to the line like he had in the past, these last two starts. Seems like a bad thing, but honestly, I'm not sure it is. The way he was getting to the line historically he was getting completely clobbered, taking punishment to the head and shoulders. I think Hansbrough can still get to the line effectively, but I'll sacrifice some of that, for some longevity.

If Tyler can hit the 19 footer, go left just a little to keep defenders honest, not take 3 or more shots to the head a game, you really maybe have a player...imo.

Now if they get in a playoff scenario and Hansbrough wants to go Psycho T, fine, but theres just no way to have him do it and stay healthy over a long season, imo.

Unclebuck
01-10-2011, 01:16 PM
I too saw a different Tyler - he did some things I had not seen before. Remember last season when the Pacers coached remarked how Tyler had no idea how to be the pick man in a pick and roll - well that he has learned and he and Collison ran that play rather well Saturday night. Obviosuly his midrange shooting was on, but I suspect that is to at least a certain degree be his norm.

He also didn't force shots against bigger defenders, he picked his spots, didn't hold the ball.

I saw a different player offensively and defensviely he looked better

Note: I did not watch the Hawks game

Peck
01-10-2011, 01:58 PM
I too saw a different Tyler - he did some things I had not seen before. Remember last season when the Pacers coached remarked how Tyler had no idea how to be the pick man in a pick and roll - well that he has learned and he and Collison ran that play rather well Saturday night. Obviosuly his midrange shooting was on, but I suspect that is to at least a certain degree be his norm.

He also didn't force shots against bigger defenders, he picked his spots, didn't hold the ball.

I saw a different player offensively and defensviely he looked better

Note: I did not watch the Hawks game

Or did you just see a player get extended min. who happened to have his jump shot falling that game?

Obviously any player should improve with practice and dare I say coaching, but to say that there was some fundamental change in his game that made it so that he got zero min. one game and starting with extended min. the next game just doesn't add up to me.

Hicks
01-10-2011, 02:59 PM
No, I disagree with anyone who says Tyler is the same as last year.

He's playing (by his previous standards) a more calm game, a more intelligent game (picking his moments/battles instead of just trying to force his favorite move every time), he's running the pick and pop well, he's starting to go left. The turnaround fadeaway he did have last year, but he didn't use it much. As long as he can knock them down, obviously I hope he goes to that a little more often.

Peck
01-10-2011, 03:08 PM
No, I disagree with anyone who says Tyler is the same as last year.

He's playing (by his previous standards) a more calm game, a more intelligent game (picking his moments/battles instead of just trying to force his favorite move every time), he's running the pick and pop well, he's starting to go left. The turnaround fadeaway he did have last year, but he didn't use it much. As long as he can knock them down, obviously I hope he goes to that a little more often.

How can any of us make any real judgement about his game based on the inconsistant and limited min. he has played. I'm not saying he hasn't added or taken away basic concepts of his game, I just think overall he is still the player I first saw in his first game.

Since86
01-10-2011, 03:11 PM
No, I disagree with anyone who says Tyler is the same as last year.

He's playing (by his previous standards) a more calm game, a more intelligent game (picking his moments/battles instead of just trying to force his favorite move every time), he's running the pick and pop well, he's starting to go left. The turnaround fadeaway he did have last year, but he didn't use it much. As long as he can knock them down, obviously I hope he goes to that a little more often.


But that isn't a different Tyler. It was a more effective Tyler, but he played the game the same way he always does.

Unclebuck
01-10-2011, 03:17 PM
I think we are getting mired in semantics.

Is Tyler different? To a certain degree yes - if nothing else he is in his second year.

Is he still the same player as we first saw a year ago? yes. Of course. Thankfully he is still full of energy, spirit, fight, hustle. So yes he is still the same player. Better yes, but he is the same.

The original point was brought up to make the claim that he didn't change enough to go from DNP-CD to 36 minutes played in 1 game. OK, probably not, what do you want - except - the coach is an idiot. (we could probably close half the current threads if everyone just repeated the line, "the coach is an idiot" But what fun would that be

Peck
01-10-2011, 03:20 PM
I think we are getting mired in semantics.

Is Tyler different? To a certain degree yes - if nothing else he is in his second year.

Is he still the same player as we first saw a year ago? yes. Of course. Thankfully he is still full of energy, spirit, fight, hustle. So yes he is still the same player. Better yes, but he is the same.

The original point was brought up to make the claim that he didn't change enough to go from DNP-CD to 36 minutes played in 1 game. OK, probably not, what do you want - except - the coach is an idiot. (we could probably close half the current threads if everyone just repeated the line, "the coach is an idiot" But what fun would that be


Nope, that's all I wanted.:D

Let it be known from this day forward that it is decreed that "the coach is an idiot" per Uncle Buck.;):dance::dance:

Hicks
01-10-2011, 03:22 PM
But that isn't a different Tyler. It was a more effective Tyler, but he played the game the same way he always does.

Semantics.

Since86
01-10-2011, 03:41 PM
Semantics.

I would normally agree but we have some poseters on here that say Josh is a "different" player than last year and they don't mean just more efficient.

I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page, and we're not talking about the different definitions of different.

Speed
01-10-2011, 03:46 PM
Whats funny is last year, Obie was mad in November that he didn't have Tyler available for enough minutes (shin splints) that he wanted to play him.

This year he just didn't play him... I mean yes he didn't get much experience in his rookie year, but did he become LESS of a player than the one he wanted to play more than 20 mins a game as a true rookie.

If anything with your double/double security blanket in NJ, you should have wanted to play him 40 mins a game.

It doesn't make sense, why the two ideas.....don't make me go into 'A few good men' monolog here.

Even if Tyler is or is not different, he certainly isn't WORSE now, is he?

BlueNGold
01-10-2011, 06:57 PM
Josh was the better player last year. I think that's changed.

Eleazar
01-10-2011, 08:53 PM
That's kinda becoming a popular insulting word with you, isn't it?

To my knowledge that is the first and only time I have used that word in this forum, and defiantly the first time I have used it in so long that I can't even remember the last time I used it prior to this instance.

Eleazar
01-10-2011, 09:13 PM
Anyways, this shouldn't be an argument about who is better. There is no real way to accurately judge them as they are two completely different players. The question should be who is most effective in which situation. To be more specific who is more effective with the starters, and who do you want to have come in for the starters.

To me the obvious answer is McRoberts fits best with the starters as he isn't looking for score every time he touches the ball, he is just as likely to be trying to put the ball in the best spot for Granger, Hibbert, or Dun/Rush to score as he is to look to score himself. Outside of Foster he is probably the least selfish player, and he is the best PF/C at getting the ball to the best option at that moment.

When the scorers on offense go to the bench that is when Tyler becomes the better option because he is more of a scorer than McRoberts. At the same time since he will more than likely be playing against other back-ups he will have a much easier time scoring the ball more efficiently.

This is what it comes down to.

McRoberts brings flow
Hans brings scoring

Starters have plenty of scoring
Bench needs more scoring


McRoberts, Hansbrough, and Hibbert should be the 1st three bigs on this team. With Hibbert being the full time C, McRoberts switching between PF and C, and Hansbrough being full time PF, then throw in Foster for any left over minutes or if one of the players is just playing like complete ****.

In some ways this is kind of like Dale Davis and Antonio Davis. AD was the better offensive player, and always would have been better as the center of attention in the post than DD. DD though fit with the starters better though, he may not have been as much as an offensive threat, but the starters didn't need another offensive threat. It was the bench that needed the better offensive threat. Now granted this isn't a perfect comparison. McRoberts is no Dale and conversely Dale was no McRoberts, but that isn't my point here, my point is that the best scorer shouldn't always been the player who starts. If you already have 3 or 4 players who can score, more times than not it will be better to play the player who does something different than to play another scorer.

McRoberts is a glue guy, where as Hans is a focal point, and you can only have so many focal points playing at 1 time.

Mackey_Rose
01-10-2011, 09:33 PM
Well said Eleazar. Josh and Tyler are different players. They both have roles to fulfill on this team. The fact the O'Brien cannot find a place for them both, anymore, says more about Jim O'Brien than it does about either Josh or Tyler.

It isn't about who is better, it is about who is the better fit for the necessary role.