PDA

View Full Version : Is anybody suprised by this???



Peck
09-17-2004, 04:49 AM
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/179403-1832-179.html

Honest to God, is there one person who actually thought that Miller wasn't the starter coming into training camp? If you are you were probably the same people who thought that he would take the vet. min. a couple of seasons ago.

Can one person who isn't wearing their #31 jersey at the moment actually say that Reggie Miller right here & right now is a better shooting guard than Jackson?

tora tora
09-17-2004, 06:08 AM
Reggie's coming back with a vengenace this year.. did you guys see his new billboard? "One goal"

zxc
09-17-2004, 06:31 AM
Not suprised. Disappointed though.

SycamoreKen
09-17-2004, 06:48 AM
I'm neither surprised or disappointed. One of the main factos in starting Reggie is probably his age. I would rather have a warmed up and loose Reggie starting the game than a cold and tight Reggie coming off the bench later. Plus, if he comes out and doesn'r have it on a given night, you just sub Jax in ASAP.

Our bench is also stronger with Jax coming off of it than Reggie as well. This is not the most important issue we have going into the seson.

efx
09-17-2004, 08:05 AM
Yeah, I'm not worried about this. Even as a starter last year, Reggie didn't really play "starter" minutes I think.

Carlisle will do what he feels is right.

Unclebuck
09-17-2004, 08:48 AM
I was one who thought that Jackson would be the starting shooting guard this season. Although I am not surprised that going into camp Reggie is the starter.

Peck, this is going to make you mad, but yes I think that Jackson is a better player right now than Reggie is, and I would certainly hope so otherwise the Harrington trade was a big mistake. However, I have no real problem with Reggie starting at least right now lets see how it works out.

Shade
09-17-2004, 10:01 AM
I was one who thought that Jackson would be the starting shooting guard this season. Although I am not surprised that going into camp Reggie is the starter.

Peck, this is going to make you mad, but yes I think that Jackson is a better player right now than Reggie is, and I would certainly hope so otherwise the Harrington trade was a big mistake. However, I have no real problem with Reggie starting at least right now lets see how it works out.



I think most of us realize that Jax is better at this point than Reg, otherwise, as you said, the trade would have been pointless. But to think that Reggie was going to be benched in his last season is a little naive.

MZahm
09-17-2004, 10:28 AM
Just cause Reg isn't the best overall SG on the roster doesn't mean that the starting unit wouldn't be more effective with him rather than SJax. As long as SJax gets starters mins I don't see what the issue is.

TheSauceMaster
09-17-2004, 10:37 AM
I was one who thought that Jackson would be the starting shooting guard this season. Although I am not surprised that going into camp Reggie is the starter.

Peck, this is going to make you mad, but yes I think that Jackson is a better player right now than Reggie is, and I would certainly hope so otherwise the Harrington trade was a big mistake. However, I have no real problem with Reggie starting at least right now lets see how it works out.



I think most of us realize that Jax is better at this point than Reg, otherwise, as you said, the trade would have been pointless. But to think that Reggie was going to be benched in his last season is a little naive.

Why would that be naive ? Usually most teams the Better Player Starts , Let's Stop this Legacy Start Crap Sh#T and put the Best Players out there. Reggie isn't Reggie anymore and people need to get off the Memories there GONE , they Ain't Coming BACK :mad:

Really I am not surprised , My plate of Crow is looking very empty and I may starve to death this year , Please Mr. Miller Feed Me some Crow ..I dare ya :p:p

Shade
09-17-2004, 11:05 AM
I was one who thought that Jackson would be the starting shooting guard this season. Although I am not surprised that going into camp Reggie is the starter.

Peck, this is going to make you mad, but yes I think that Jackson is a better player right now than Reggie is, and I would certainly hope so otherwise the Harrington trade was a big mistake. However, I have no real problem with Reggie starting at least right now lets see how it works out.



I think most of us realize that Jax is better at this point than Reg, otherwise, as you said, the trade would have been pointless. But to think that Reggie was going to be benched in his last season is a little naive.

Why would that be naive ? Usually most teams the Better Player Starts , Let's Stop this Legacy Start Crap Sh#T and put the Best Players out there. Reggie isn't Reggie anymore and people need to get off the Memories there GONE , they Ain't Coming BACK :mad:

Really I am not surprised , My plate of Crow is looking very empty and I may starve to death this year , Please Mr. Miller Feed Me some Crow ..I dare ya :p:p


As I said before, it's naive to think that Reggie will be benched in his FINAL NBA season, when he's been the starter here forever. Especially after Jax said he's willing to come off the bench. He knows he's next in line for the starter spot after Reg calls it quits.

Doug
09-17-2004, 11:07 AM
Not surprised at all.

IMO, only Reggie can bench Reggie. Right or wrong, that seems to be the way it is.

Bball
09-17-2004, 12:05 PM
I liked the statistical analysis showing Reggie to be an effective starting SG. Kinda reminded me of the analysis of why we couldn't afford a certain player back in the day...

----

One other note.... Who here is CERTAIN Reggie won't opt for that 3rd year in his contract?

-Bball

Fool
09-17-2004, 12:25 PM
When the best thing they can say about you is that you have a "better than average" effect on the outcomes of games, its time to stop trading on your legendary status.

Doesn't almost everybody have a "better than average" effect on the outcome of games on a team that wins more than 60 games in a year?

What needs to be asked is:
What is the difference between the outcomes of games that Reggie doesn't start versus those he starts and then gets benched?

What are the outcomes of games Reggie doesn't start versus those he starts but doesn't hit the three at the end of regulation?

Thats how you find out if he is hurting the team as a starter.

When you guys traded for SJax I said something like "If Reggie starts now you should disband the team" <--- not an exact quote. Clearly I was over-emphasizing to make a point but what is the benefit of him starting? Whats with this "you can feel him out as a starter every game and if he is shooting terribly or affraid of the ball you bench him" logic. You CAN do that with everyone but you don't do that because thats not what any team needs. No team needs a guy that you just hope will be on in a given night, you need a guy who will give you a certain level of performance whenever they are called upon.

Reggie was great because he gave a starters performance game in and game out AND hit the clutch shot when called upon. Now he barely does either. I understand letting him stay as long as he wants as most teams don't use their whole bench when it counts anyway and he is at least better than a guy you would never even try putting in when you are desperate. But keeping him as a starter when on any given night he is at best a crap shoot only gives the other team an advantage at the begining of most games.

beast23
09-17-2004, 02:06 PM
The hole we were filling with the acquisition of Jackson was bolstering perimeter shooting and defense.

Now I believe that Reggie has NEVER gotten his due as being a better than average perimeter defender. But I'll also admit that Jackson is a better defender than Reggie.

But I also don't think folks realize that Reggie's 3FG% last season actually exceeded his career average.

I think folks are nuts when they question whether Reggie is still CAPABLE of providing decent offensive output.

I don't think the question is one of abilities at all. I think the question is whether he is WILLING to step up and re-assume a greater role.

Right now, JO is option #1, Ron is option #2 and Reggie is option #3. Reggie was what, 4th in FGA behind JO, Ron and Al?

If it's merely offensive output you guys are questioning, the problem is NOT that Reggie CANNOT produce. The problem is that either he is unwilling to take more shots, or by design he is not designated to take more shots.

By the way, I will not accept the argument that Reggie simply cannot get open for shots, since last season we all witnessed him pass up a significant number of open perimeter shots.

If fewer shots are being taken by our perimeter players by design, then I don't necessarily believe that Jackson will produce any more offense as a starter than Reggie did. However, I would believe that Reggie and Jackson would be able to produce more points per game collectively than was produced by our SGs last season.

Vicious Tyrant
09-17-2004, 02:13 PM
I say Rick is going to let Reggie start, but keep a close eye on Sex (my S Jackson nick). Sex will be given a fair shake to be the starter by the end of the season, but he'll have to prove himself.

If Reg still have what some here think he does, and if Bender breaks out this year (:p), the bench issue should be moot.

It's not how you start the season, its how you finish.

Sollozzo
09-17-2004, 03:06 PM
Not suprised one bit, I knew this would be the case. I'm just disappointed to think that we are starting Reggie over a player that's clearly better than him.

I've voiced my frustrations on Reggie, his contract, and him starting on other threads before. It's sad to think that our starting lineup hasn't improved one bit.

For those of you that think Reggie is going to actually show something this year, dream on. Last year's was Reggie's chance to show us that 02-03 was a fluke, and then he came out and was worse than 02-03. Reggie is just going to deprecitate every year.

Arcadian
09-17-2004, 03:19 PM
I didn't think SJax would start over Reggie. What I will be looking at is if they reduce Reggie's roll. If not then I will be unhappy.

beast23
09-17-2004, 03:21 PM
Not suprised one bit, I knew this would be the case. I'm just disappointed to think that we are starting Reggie over a player that's clearly better than him.

I've voiced my frustrations on Reggie, his contract, and him starting on other threads before. It's sad to think that our starting lineup hasn't improved one bit.

For those of you that think Reggie is going to actually show something this year, dream on. Last year's was Reggie's chance to show us that 02-03 was a fluke, and then he came out and was worse than 02-03. Reggie is just going to deprecitate every year.
By showing something, what do you mean? Moving back into the 16-18 ppg range?

Because if that is what you want, then you are asking for too much. Most don't seem to realize that a player will not be as offensively productive when he is the #3 option as he was when he was the #1 option.

Reggie is shooting 40% of his 3FGs. All I ask is that when he is wide open that he puts up a shot. If it's offensive production you want, if Reggie is willing to do that, then the rest will take care of itself.

Kstat
09-17-2004, 03:22 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

Reggie has no buisness starting over jackson OR freddie Jones. Period. Regie should be treated with respect, but not at the expense of the team.

Vicious Tyrant
09-17-2004, 03:51 PM
All I ask is that when he is wide open that he puts up a shot. If it's offensive production you want, if Reggie is willing to do that, then the rest will take care of itself.


????

Is he even doing that?

MSA2CF
09-17-2004, 04:48 PM
efx, that is the worst avatar in the history of the world.

Kstat
09-17-2004, 04:51 PM
efx, that is the worst avatar in the history of the world.



You would prefer a Knicks logo?

MSA2CF
09-17-2004, 04:51 PM
efx, that is the worst avatar in the history of the world.



You would prefer a Knicks logo?

Sure, why not.

sweabs
09-17-2004, 05:00 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

Reggie has no buisness starting over jackson OR freddie Jones. Period. Regie should be treated with respect, but not at the expense of the team.

Starting is over-rated...let's just see who gets more minutes...and for that matter, who finishes games.

Kstat
09-17-2004, 05:02 PM
The starters set the tone for the game. Flow in basketball is VERY tough to turn around once you get it started.

Trust me, Curry never played many minutes either, but the first 10 that he started for, he did a lot of damage.....

sweabs
09-17-2004, 05:10 PM
The starters set the tone for the game. Flow in basketball is VERY tough to turn around once you get it started.

Trust me, Curry never played many minutes either, but the first 10 that he started for, he did a lot of damage.....

The flow in basketball can completely change within the blink of an eye.

Kstat
09-17-2004, 05:11 PM
You're talking about momentum. I'm talking about flow. They're two totally different things.

And trust me, if Curry starting didn't hurt us, there wouldnt have been mobs of people wanting his head.

Unclebuck
09-17-2004, 05:21 PM
The flow vs the momentum. I can see the difference.

Reggie Miller is very good for the flow, he is more than willingto pas the ball inside to J.O.

Perhaps the coahcing staff is worrid that if Artest and Jackson are in the starting lineup, J.O won't get the ball.


Before some of you jump overboard lets see how jackson fits in.

The headline to the story is a little deceiving. Rick said that things could change just like last seaosn when Foster replaced Scot after one game


I know many of you don't believe what I am about to say. If Rick thought the Pacers would be a better team with Reggie coming off the bench he would play him off the bench. (now, if he does not think it will make much difference he will start Reggie).

sweabs
09-17-2004, 05:30 PM
Well if UB is correct in his assumption of how you intended "flow" to be perceived - then I would have to agree with him...Reggie is good for the flow.

zxc
09-17-2004, 05:39 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

How is this much worse? Curry never did anything, I'm no fan of Reggie still starting but he isn't a total slug out there. Surely brings more then Curry did.

Kstat
09-17-2004, 05:43 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

How is this much worse? Curry never did anything, I'm no fan of Reggie still starting but he isn't a total slug out there. Surely brings more then Curry did.


No, the point was, that Prince was clearly better, but he was still just an unproven rookie.

Stephen Jackson is clearly more qualified than Reggie Miller to play SG.

unstandable
09-17-2004, 05:45 PM
Yeah, Miller is way better than Curry. When Curry went to the bench at the end of the first quarter, the Pistons always had a deficit to overcome. When Miller goes to the bench, the Pacers have a lead.

Arcadian
09-17-2004, 06:05 PM
Based on our roster Reggie should have started last year.

Fred wasn't very good the beginning of the season and Reggie had skill sets which complented JO and Ron better. I suppose we could have played around with Ron at the 2 and Al at the 3 but I don't think that would have worked either. Perhaps management should have signed a better SG but that is a different issue.

This season we do have a SG who has the similar skill sets and should get significant minutes at the 2. However, I am going to reserve my jugdements on how much better he is as a player and a fit for this team until we play some games. I can't believe how much his stock jumped by switching jerseys. Remember some thought Pollard would be our starting center and Kenny our Point Guard last season.

TheSauceMaster
09-17-2004, 07:33 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

Reggie has no buisness starting over jackson OR freddie Jones. Period. Regie should be treated with respect, but not at the expense of the team.


Thank You Kstat , Well Said ...The Better Player Should Start ..Screw that Veteran B.S !!!! I don't Care if It is Or Isn't Reggie's Last Season if It is then It's Urgent The Best Players Need to Start , Doesn't Matter If you sit on the Bench Or Ride the Pine ..Your Team Wins it All you Still Get a Ring..Plain and Simple.

Kstat
09-17-2004, 07:49 PM
Not to mention, that reggie isnt even the SECOND-best SG on his team.

If you're so nonchalante about who starts, then start Freddie Jones, fill reggie in wherever, and let Jackson finish the game.

At least that way, you're not guarenteeing Reggie the first 8-10 minutes of each half.

Freddie isn't a kid with a huge ego, but I wouldn't be surprised if he got shipped off by the trade deadline. He isn't a PG, no matter how much people want him to be. The odd man out of this threesome should be Miller, not Jones.

Sollozzo
09-17-2004, 08:13 PM
KSTAT is making good points. The best player is not starting. Like Kstat said, Reggie is the third best SG on the team. I think the opinion's Kstat has on this subject are shared with fans of the rest of the league who don't have a bias towards Reggie Miller. I'm sure fans of other teams think it's a joke Reg. is starting.

MSA, what's wrong with a Yanks icon? I see nothing wrong with having an icon of the most successful organization in professional sports. I do understand though that Sox fans hate them because their team always chokes to the Yanks.

TheSauceMaster
09-17-2004, 08:22 PM
Not to mention, that reggie isnt even the SECOND-best SG on his team.

If you're so nonchalante about who starts, then start Freddie Jones, fill reggie in wherever, and let Jackson finish the game.

At least that way, you're not guarenteeing Reggie the first 8-10 minutes of each half.

Freddie isn't a kid with a huge ego, but I wouldn't be surprised if he got shipped off by the trade deadline. He isn't a PG, no matter how much people want him to be. The odd man out of this threesome should be Miller, not Jones.

Yet another Great Point and I agree , if anything Reggie is the 3rd man out on SG , When will the People of Indiana Give up on the Dream that Reggie isn't Reggie Miller anymore , This is Not 1995 Folks ..The Ghost of Reggie Miller isn't coming Back.

By the Talks of some people if reggie said he wanted to play another 3 years and the pacers gave him the contract , you would Still think he deserve's to start :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

SG was a big weak spot , we made a transaction to fix this , I wouldn't be Sad if SJ and Freddie Jones are my Best 2 options. Yes Reggie Put this team on the Map but how many More years does he get the sympathy Starting Role.:confused::confused::confused:

Kstat
09-17-2004, 08:30 PM
Reggie Miller isnt walking through that door......Rik Smits isnt walking through that door......Chuck Person isnt walking through that door.....

Sollozzo
09-17-2004, 08:41 PM
You don't win championships by dishing out sentimental starting roles. You win championships by putting the very best possible team out there.

Reggie starting over Jackson makes us weaker.

It's sad, if Reggie wanted to play until age 44, the Pacers would continue to pay him 5-6 million a year and let him start.

SkipperZ
09-17-2004, 09:31 PM
Bottom line is the flow at the beginning of the game is VERY important and from what I saw in 90 plus games last season, Reggie is good for the flow.

The Pacers consistently got out to fast starts whenever Reggie and tinsley commanded the backcourt, and usually started the third quarter out well too.

the plus minus for that backcourt combo, and for reggie alone is very high, among the highest for the team last year.

Reggie's game last year was better than Freddie's for the vast majority of the season, and definitely better fit for the starting lineup we had out on the court, especially with the offense going through Jermaine.

Stephen Jackson at this point is a better player than Reggie. But Reggie started on a team last year that was VERY successful, and when the team imploded last year, from my point of view Reggie was not the one to blame.

Sometimes you should NOt start your best 5 guys. There is a reason (and a very good one) why Al Harrington did not start in place of Jeff Foster.

Why should he not at least start the season. He deserves that much. And no, not because he is Reggie and he's done so much for the franchise and all that bull. Its because he started all of last season, they won 61 games and reached the conference finals. If a change is needed it will be made, mark my words on that.

I dont understand why you are all so upset about this. Reggie starting last year did us fine. Does anyone think we would have won MORE than 61 games or beaten Detroit if Reggie didnt start? If you do you are seriously kidding yourself. We did as good as we could have with the team we had in the circumstances presented to us, and just because Reggie only scored 10 points a game you all want his head on a stick. The BEST thing to do after having such a successful season is to keep your starting lineup intact for the start of the upcoming season.

In no way am I saying Reggie should play 30 plus minutes a game. Or that he is better than Jackson. Or that he is the player he once was. OR even that he will or should be starting by the END of the season. hell if there is reason to, as early as the first week of the season, a change in the starting lineup will be made. But to say he's not good for the flow of the team, especailly with the starting lineup we have is just not true, at least with what I saw last season. And to compare him to Curry is ridiculous. And to think he had any part in us losing last year is absurd.

We did GREAT all season long except against Detroit in the playoffs. We even did GREAT against Detroit in the regular season, and honestly, played Detroit better than any other team did in the playoffs. (NJ took them to 7, but that 7th game was atrocious). Yea we looked bad against detroit. Guess what? Other teams looked worse. That dominant of a defensive squad will make the original dream team look bad at times. Our flow sure looked terrible to start the game against them with Reggie in our lineup. Yea well our flow with Freddie looked pretty bad as well. Hell the Lakers flow with Kobe was not too pretty either. If there's one thing Detroit did REALLY well last year it was disrupting the other team's flow, especially offensively. For the other 88 or so games we played, we looked pretty good in my opinion, especailly when Reggie was in the game opening up the floor, hitting 40% of his three pointers (including a small share of big ones) and throwing the ball into the post with more success than anyone on the team not named Tinsley.

Anthem
09-17-2004, 10:05 PM
Doesn't matter.

Reggie will get an injury this fall. Jackson will move into the starting lineup in his place, with FJ backing him up. When Reggie comes back, he'll come off the bench so as to "not change what's working." Freddy will slide to backup PG (I'm confident that it will take very little work for him to play the position better than AJ).

I don't care if Reggie's starting at the beginning of the season. I'll be pretty upset if he's still starting by the end.

By the way, this is hilarious:

Miller took a physical and worked out at Conseco Fieldhouse, then took time to write a message on the locker room board that scolded rookie David Harrison for not keeping his area neat.

SycamoreKen
09-17-2004, 10:22 PM
As much as I love Jackson's game, there is a reason people were not rushing out to give him big bucks when he was a free agent. What Miller lacks in the physical area to Jax he more than makes up with what he has in the mental part of the game. Jax can be very Artest like in that you just can't be 100% sure what he is going to do. I already made the rest of my arguement.

MSA2CF
09-17-2004, 10:23 PM
MSA, what's wrong with a Yanks icon? I see nothing wrong with having an icon of the most successful organization in professional sports. I do understand though that Sox fans hate them because their team always chokes to the Yanks.

Do I even need to explain this, or are you just trying to start something, Adam?

Sollozzo
09-17-2004, 10:37 PM
As someone that likes the Yankees, I'm just talking some friendly trash before the playoffs.

MSA2CF
09-17-2004, 10:40 PM
As someone that likes the Yankees, I'm just talking some friendly trash before the playoffs.

Funny, how did I not notice before?

Anthem
09-17-2004, 11:28 PM
Yankees? They play baseball, right?

I didn't realize anyone still followed baseball.

:devil:

ChicagoJ
09-17-2004, 11:34 PM
Yankees? They play baseball, right?

I didn't realize anyone still followed baseball.

:devil:

Isn't that the game where overweight people stand around and scratch themselves. Its almost as exciting as watching a chess match. :devil:

Kstat
09-17-2004, 11:42 PM
As someone that likes the Yankees, I'm just talking some friendly trash before the playoffs.

How about that choke-job in the bottom of the 9th by your boy Rivera, Adam?:p

Bball
09-18-2004, 02:00 AM
Yankees? They play baseball, right?

I didn't realize anyone still followed baseball.

:devil:

Isn't that the game where overweight people stand around and scratch themselves. Its almost as exciting as watching a chess match. :devil:


Not as fun as televised bowling!

-Bball

MSA2CF
09-18-2004, 10:34 AM
No use in arguing with others with opinions I always say. Well, no I don't, but I'm saying it now.

Yeah, Adam. I went to bed early and didn't see how the game ended. Could you give me a recap?

Kstat
09-18-2004, 10:40 AM
No use in arguing with others with opinions I always say. Well, no I don't, but I'm saying it now.

Yeah, Adam. I went to bed early and didn't see how the game ended. Could you give me a recap?

He won't have to, so I will:

Yanks held a 2-1 lead until the 9th inning, when they brought in Rivera to close the game out, and he walked the first batter, HIT the 2nd batter, and gave up base hits to the next TWO batters, allowing the Sox to score 2 runs and they went on to win the game 3-2.

MSA2CF
09-18-2004, 10:43 AM
Kstat, how did the bottom of the ninth go? Did the Yankees come close to tying it and/or taking the lead?

Sollozzo
09-18-2004, 11:55 AM
Tough loss for the Yanks.

Congrats on the win, MSA.

MSA2CF
09-18-2004, 01:44 PM
Tough loss for the Yanks.

Congrats on the win, MSA.

I did what I could, Adam. Thanks.

Sollozzo
09-18-2004, 03:20 PM
Well, right now the Yanks are kicking the crap out of the Sox, 13-0 in the 6th inning.

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 03:29 PM
Flow is Useless if Reggie Scores 3,6 10 pts and the oppsition SG scores 15 , 20 or more points , What will these guys do next year if Reggie Retires there will be no More Flow :o:o:o , Just like I remember the media and alot of people expecting us to fall appart cause we lost Brad Miller.

Freddie Has proved if he gets consistant playing time , he is much better than Reggie in the Over All game , so I am not buying this FLOW CRAP.

I don't think the lineup is set in stone , and it could change , but if we stick with the same things as last year , then were all gonna be here sitting here same time next june saying ..Why , why :confused:

It's really too bad if Reggie is a Starter and SJ is #2 and Freddie is # 3 ..freddie will just grow weery just Like Al Harrington Did , sad but true.

I don't think Reggie should Start but I think I made that clear already , these you guys need to learn how to distribute the ball to JO , Reggie has 1 year left baring a major injury during the Season it's time to Pass the Torch.

Sollozzo
09-18-2004, 03:41 PM
The torch should be passed to SJAX right now, I think. But I know that during hte season, it's going to become painfully obvious that SJAX is a superior player to Reggie, and that Reggie doesn't deserve the starting job. SJAX will be the starter by the end of the season.

I think that if the Pacers had Tmac, they would still start Reggie over him. That's how obsessed they are with "loyalty" towards him.

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 03:56 PM
The torch should be passed to SJAX right now, I think. But I know that during hte season, it's going to become painfully obvious that SJAX is a superior player to Reggie, and that Reggie doesn't deserve the starting job. SJAX will be the starter by the end of the season.

I think that if the Pacers had Tmac, they would still start Reggie over him. That's how obsessed they are with "loyalty" towards him.

Well I am not saying totally banish reggie to the bench ,but he defintely needs to play less mins this next year and tool and train these guys on things. Sjax may not be a instant impact because it's a whole new system , so he is going to need to be worked into this new style and system.

I say let the guys prove in camp who is the better fit , if reggie is more worthy then he should start , if Sjax is more worthy he should start ..Winning a Championship is the Focus ..not playing Favorites or giving sympathy .. which I feel reggie defintely got last year.

Ultimate Frisbee
09-18-2004, 04:09 PM
Reggie ranked second during the regular season in +/- at +6.3 per game and fourth in the postseason at +3.5 per game...

There is some statistical validity to Reggie starting and playing significant minutes...

SkipperZ
09-18-2004, 04:09 PM
The torch should be passed to SJAX right now, I think. But I know that during hte season, it's going to become painfully obvious that SJAX is a superior player to Reggie, and that Reggie doesn't deserve the starting job. SJAX will be the starter by the end of the season.

I think that if the Pacers had Tmac, they would still start Reggie over him. That's how obsessed they are with "loyalty" towards him.

Well I am not saying totally banish reggie to the bench ,but he defintely needs to play less mins this next year and tool and train these guys on things. Sjax may not be a instant impact because it's a whole new system , so he is going to need to be worked into this new style and system.

I say let the guys prove in camp who is the better fit , if reggie is more worthy then he should start , if Sjax is more worthy he should start ..Winning a Championship is the Focus ..not playing Favorites or giving sympathy .. which I feel reggie defintely got last year.



this has nothing to do with playing favorites. Reggie was the best sg on the team for the last 16 years and thats that. This year things may change, but with the success we had last year I think we should at least go into the season with the same lineup. If change is needed there will be change.

To say freddie was ready last year to start at sg is in my opinion (and the opinion of rick) not true. In fact I honestly don't think Freddie will ever be ready to start at the two. People will say I have blinders on as a homer, but I say the same thing to you guys that love Freddie Jones so much. He's a great bench player, and is good a twhat he does. But he was not a better player last year than Reggie throughout the course of the season. In spurts, yes, but not consistently throughout.

Freddie is undersized, lacks a consistent outside jumpshot, and is not the UBELIEVABLE defender you guys make him out to be. He is an above average slasher, a good defender, an outstanding leaper and has improved his jumpshot to the point of it being respectable. No more no less. Reggie started last year because he was our best option at SG and because he worked very well with our starting lineup.

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 04:12 PM
Reggie ranked second during the regular season in +/- at +6.3 per game and fourth in the postseason at +3.5 per game...

There is some statistical validity to Reggie starting and playing significant minutes...

Sorry I am gonna bite on UncleBuck's Stats don't mean a whole Lot , What would Freddie's Stats be if He played Reggies Mins Last year , or If SJax play those Same Minutes on the Pacers last Year :confused::confused::confused:

You Can't Go Off of Last Years Stats , Reggie is a Year older and Probably even a Few Steps Slower ..so those Stats are Garbage too me.

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 04:16 PM
The torch should be passed to SJAX right now, I think. But I know that during hte season, it's going to become painfully obvious that SJAX is a superior player to Reggie, and that Reggie doesn't deserve the starting job. SJAX will be the starter by the end of the season.

I think that if the Pacers had Tmac, they would still start Reggie over him. That's how obsessed they are with "loyalty" towards him.

Well I am not saying totally banish reggie to the bench ,but he defintely needs to play less mins this next year and tool and train these guys on things. Sjax may not be a instant impact because it's a whole new system , so he is going to need to be worked into this new style and system.

I say let the guys prove in camp who is the better fit , if reggie is more worthy then he should start , if Sjax is more worthy he should start ..Winning a Championship is the Focus ..not playing Favorites or giving sympathy .. which I feel reggie defintely got last year.



this has nothing to do with playing favorites. Reggie was the best sg on the team for the last 16 years and thats that. This year things may change, but with the success we had last year I think we should at least go into the season with the same lineup. If change is needed there will be change.

To say freddie was ready last year to start at sg is in my opinion (and the opinion of rick) not true. In fact I honestly don't think Freddie will ever be ready to start at the two. People will say I have blinders on as a homer, but I say the same thing to you guys that love Freddie Jones so much. He's a great bench player, and is good a twhat he does. But he was not a better player last year than Reggie throughout the course of the season. In spurts, yes, but not consistently throughout.

Freddie is undersized, lacks a consistent outside jumpshot, and is not the UBELIEVABLE defender you guys make him out to be. He is an above average slasher, a good defender, an outstanding leaper and has improved his jumpshot to the point of it being respectable. No more no less. Reggie started last year because he was our best option at SG and because he worked very well with our starting lineup.

Freddie Lacks these Stats cause He doesn't Get the Playing time , Your trying to water it down so it makes your view better looking , let's compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

Most people wouldn't be as hard on Reggie if he could just play some Damn Defense and Not let the Oppent light him up like the Christmas Tree On the Circle.

Bball
09-18-2004, 04:18 PM
Ummmm... IF SJax is not a better player than the 21st century model Reggie then why on Earth even bother to trade for him?

-Bball

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 04:19 PM
Ummmm... IF SJax is not a better player than the 21st century model Reggie then why on Earth even bother to trade for him?

-Bball



Exactly :p:p:p:p:p

MSA2CF
09-18-2004, 04:41 PM
If the Pacers cruise through the regular season with Reggie starting, I wonder if some of you will alter your opinions.

Ultimate Frisbee
09-18-2004, 05:21 PM
Reggie ranked second during the regular season in +/- at +6.3 per game and fourth in the postseason at +3.5 per game...

There is some statistical validity to Reggie starting and playing significant minutes...

Sorry I am gonna bite on UncleBuck's Stats don't mean a whole Lot , What would Freddie's Stats be if He played Reggies Mins Last year , or If SJax play those Same Minutes on the Pacers last Year :confused::confused::confused:

You Can't Go Off of Last Years Stats , Reggie is a Year older and Probably even a Few Steps Slower ..so those Stats are Garbage too me.



Yeah.. those are last season's stats, but I don't really see any reason to think that his game has changed that much... He hasn't been the Reggie of his prime for quite some time now..

In terms of statistical value, there is something to be said for the fact that Reggie played a lot of his minutes with the other starters, and that definently helps his overall +/-, but he still did better than 3 of the other starters (all except Tinsley and if you adjust it for # of possessions, Foster too). It is possible that Jackson or Jones could have done just as well given being on the floor at the same time as the starters, but Reggie simply didn't hurt us.

I'm really not trying to say that Miller should start... I do believe that our team will benefit by giving Stephen Jackson more minutes than Reggie. I just don't yet see any reason to bench Reggie.

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 05:22 PM
If the Pacers cruise through the regular season with Reggie starting, I wonder if some of you will alter your opinions.

No !!!!!!! We cruised through the Season Last year , I am tired of falling short just by cruising through. The season is just a Warm up , I consider the Playoffs the Real Season because all the Marbles are on the line , Each loss Means more too me.

I don't know the Stat , but how many teams have finsihed with the Best Record in the League and Didn't atleast make it too the Championship Game ?

Too many times we have crusied through the Regular season to Fall short of Glory, it's getting rather old just crusing :p:p

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 05:29 PM
Reggie ranked second during the regular season in +/- at +6.3 per game and fourth in the postseason at +3.5 per game...

There is some statistical validity to Reggie starting and playing significant minutes...

Sorry I am gonna bite on UncleBuck's Stats don't mean a whole Lot , What would Freddie's Stats be if He played Reggies Mins Last year , or If SJax play those Same Minutes on the Pacers last Year :confused::confused::confused:

You Can't Go Off of Last Years Stats , Reggie is a Year older and Probably even a Few Steps Slower ..so those Stats are Garbage too me.



Yeah.. those are last season's stats, but I don't really see any reason to think that his game has changed that much... He hasn't been the Reggie of his prime for quite some time now..

In terms of statistical value, there is something to be said for the fact that Reggie played a lot of his minutes with the other starters, and that definently helps his overall +/-, but he still did better than 3 of the other starters (all except Tinsley and if you adjust it for # of possessions, Foster too). It is possible that Jackson or Jones could have done just as well given being on the floor at the same time as the starters, but Reggie simply didn't hurt us.

I'm really not trying to say that Miller should start... I do believe that our team will benefit by giving Stephen Jackson more minutes than Reggie. I just don't yet see any reason to bench Reggie.

True , but I am not saying sentence him to bench hell or waterboy , I am just saying Less minutes . Without proper minutes I will think Sjax would have been a wasted trade , he needs to be worked into our system so when Reggie isn't around he can already be a contribution to the system rather than still stuck in the learning process.

I don't think anyone of us who are saying reggie shouldn't start , are saying Throw him in the trash or send him to bench Hell.

Ultimate Frisbee
09-18-2004, 05:36 PM
Reggie ranked second during the regular season in +/- at +6.3 per game and fourth in the postseason at +3.5 per game...

There is some statistical validity to Reggie starting and playing significant minutes...

Sorry I am gonna bite on UncleBuck's Stats don't mean a whole Lot , What would Freddie's Stats be if He played Reggies Mins Last year , or If SJax play those Same Minutes on the Pacers last Year :confused::confused::confused:

You Can't Go Off of Last Years Stats , Reggie is a Year older and Probably even a Few Steps Slower ..so those Stats are Garbage too me.



Yeah.. those are last season's stats, but I don't really see any reason to think that his game has changed that much... He hasn't been the Reggie of his prime for quite some time now..

In terms of statistical value, there is something to be said for the fact that Reggie played a lot of his minutes with the other starters, and that definently helps his overall +/-, but he still did better than 3 of the other starters (all except Tinsley and if you adjust it for # of possessions, Foster too). It is possible that Jackson or Jones could have done just as well given being on the floor at the same time as the starters, but Reggie simply didn't hurt us.

I'm really not trying to say that Miller should start... I do believe that our team will benefit by giving Stephen Jackson more minutes than Reggie. I just don't yet see any reason to bench Reggie.

Without proper minutes I will think Sjax would have been a wasted trade , he needs to be worked into our system so when Reggie isn't around he can already be a contribution to the system rather than still stuck in the learning process.


Yeah, I'll give you that... SJax does need time to work into the system and may need to eventualy start this season to get enough minutes with the core guys (Tinsley, Artest, JO)

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 05:47 PM
It will be most intresting to see how long it will take if Sjax isn't a overwhelming impact at first , before people start screaming the trade was a bad trade. Hell the season hasn't even started yet and I have seen people saying Sjax is a Bust , personally I am gonna try to give him atleast a full season before I try to be ultra critical of him , or a half season.

I guess I believe that with Sjax were a better team than last year , maybe I am wrong ..who knows , but we shall see soon enough.

tora tora
09-18-2004, 06:07 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

Reggie has no buisness starting over jackson OR freddie Jones. Period. Regie should be treated with respect, but not at the expense of the team.

Starting is over-rated...let's just see who gets more minutes...and for that matter, who finishes games.

I need to bump this quote because it sums it all up. Starting Reggie makes the bench deeper anyway, and was the "trade worth it"? Of course it was, we all know Jackson is a better perimeter player than Harrington.

Kstat
09-18-2004, 06:14 PM
This is the innate love of veterans that Carlisle has, that I feared would happen......very similiar to curry over prince in 2003, but this is much worse.

Reggie has no buisness starting over jackson OR freddie Jones. Period. Regie should be treated with respect, but not at the expense of the team.

Starting is over-rated...let's just see who gets more minutes...and for that matter, who finishes games.

I need to bump this quote because it sums it all up. Starting Reggie makes the bench deeper anyway, and was the "trade worth it"? Of course it was, we all know Jackson is a better perimeter player than Harrington.



Give me Reggie and Stephen Jackson in a 3-point contest, I'll put my money on Reggie.

The main purpose of this trade seems to be flying WAAAAAY over the heads of some people. Indy wasn't trading for a SG that could hit threes, they were trying to trade for a SG that could do something OTHER than hit threes.....

In Harrington you gave up a HELL of a lot of frontcourt depth.

Now, the deal may or may not be a good one, but the only way to be certain is to see how it all works out on the court.

Frankly, if you're going to keep Jackson on the bench, you would have been better off keeping harrington, who is much better suited for the 6th man role. Jackson doesn't have the mentality of a 6th man. He typically coasts through games and picks his spots to step up. Asking him to come in and contribute IMMIDIATELY is a big mistake, IMO. Jackson struggled off the bench in NJ because he just isnt the type of player to come off the bench and light it up.

sweabs
09-18-2004, 06:19 PM
The main purpose of this trade seems to be flying WAAAAAY over the heads of some people. Indy wasn't trading for a SG that could hit threes, they were trying to trade for a SG that could do something OTHER than hit threes.....

You are absolutely right.

From the little I have seen Jackson play last year...which was maybe around 5 games at most, I saw a guy who could not only hit 3's...but also create his own shot off the dribble in many circumstances. Granted...he doesn't create the same way a T-Mac or Kobe does...but I think it's developing.

And to be fair, Kstat, you are forgetting something about this trade as well - DEFENSE. We needed the perimeter defense in place of Reggie more than we needed Al down low in my opinion. One thing is for sure - Jackson is a much better defender than Reggie is.

Kstat
09-18-2004, 06:29 PM
And to be fair, Kstat, you are forgetting something about this trade as well - DEFENSE. We needed the perimeter defense in place of Reggie more than we needed Al down low in my opinion. One thing is for sure - Jackson is a much better defender than Reggie is.

Actually, I disagree, to an extent.

Stephen Jackson is a gambler. He loves playing passing lanes, and he often gobbles up bad passes. He gets beat on occasion, so its very hit-and-miss.

However, as a straight man defender, I don't think he's much better than Reggie, and I don't think he's as good as Freddie. He's never really been a shutdown defender on opposing SGs.

And as for Harrington, when JO and Foster are out of the game, who exactly is going to battle in the post and on the boards? Harrington was a ball-hog, yeah, but he really forced other teams to respect him in the post, and he opened the floor up for guys like Freddie, austin and AJ to get wide-open looks.

Anthem
09-18-2004, 07:05 PM
Yankees? They play baseball, right?

I didn't realize anyone still followed baseball.

:devil:

Isn't that the game where overweight people stand around and scratch themselves. Its almost as exciting as watching a chess match. :devil:

I've watched some exciting chess matches. Not that I'd pay money to sit in a stadium to watch, though.

And just like chess, in baseball there's only one person doing anything at any given time. I've never figured out how it got to be considered a team game.

Anthem
09-18-2004, 07:09 PM
And as for Harrington, when JO and Foster are out of the game, who exactly is going to battle in the post and on the boards? Harrington was a ball-hog, yeah, but he really forced other teams to respect him in the post, and he opened the floor up for guys like Freddie, austin and AJ to get wide-open looks.

:shakehead:

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the Pacers this summer. We'll break out our double threat of Harrison and Jonathan Edwards.

TheSauceMaster
09-18-2004, 07:27 PM
I will agree Reggie is a Better 3 Point Shooter than Sjax , even in his age , but remember this game is just more than 3 pointers and prayers. Also I remember one MR Tinsely the previous season was a better 3 point shooter than he was the seasons before, so yes people can improve aspects of there games.

I would like to See Reggie work with Sjax or was it Chuck Pearson? who helps with shooting ...I know he's not offically listed as a trainer. Maybe this would help Sjax improve his 3 pt shot , seem to have worked well for Tinsley.

MSA2CF
09-18-2004, 08:24 PM
And just like chess, in baseball there's only one person doing anything at any given time. I've never figured out how it got to be considered a team game.

:jawdrop: Wrong, in both cases. In chess, both players are mentally thinking about moves at the same time (so they are both doing something). In baseball, every player on the field is doing something. The catcher giving the signals, the batter going through his gyrations, the pitcher going through his motion, the fielders setting up to field, etc. Are you kidding---you don't see how it's a team game? The pitcher needs the fielders as the fielders need him.

Sollozzo
09-19-2004, 12:26 AM
The Pacers are obviously going to win plenty of "regular season" games regardless of who is starting at the 2 guard because the team is so good. Even with the worst starting SG in the NBA in Reggie, the Pacers will win plenty of "regular season" games. Though it sickens me to think that one of the better shooting guards in the league is being shafted for a 39 year old who is finished, I know the Pacers will win plenty of regular season games regardless.

But it isn't about the regular season games in the end. It's about the playoffs. That's what I'm worried about. If we have Reggie starting in the playoffs, we have a problem, and we won't have a shot at winning the eastern conference. What's better, a team with Stephen Jackson starting or a 2005 Reggie Miller starting? Stephen Jackson is a much more complete player, who is better in every aspect of the game outside of 3 pointers and foul shots. Reggie will get mowed over in a series.

If you actually think that Reggie is better and should be starting in the playoffs, you seriously need to let go of the past.

There are no more Miller playoff explosions left in the tank, it's over.

McKeyFan
09-19-2004, 12:37 AM
Surprised no one has mentioned the dollars and sense aspect of Reggie starting (unless I missed that post).

This thing is a business, and most fans do not have hte bball IQ of members on this board. They are willing to pay money to come see the Pacers, especially if they can see Reggie hit a three. Without Reggie, it may mean the difference of fans coming or staying home.

Business considerations I would think put pressure on management to give Reggie some minutes, even though he isn't the best SG. Starting him allows them to play Reggie fewer minutes while keeping the appearance of him being the Man--it's symbolism over substance.

Not ideal, but understandable in a world were you have to be practical. It's better than watching the Phoenix Pacers next year. :cool:

Kstat
09-19-2004, 02:53 AM
This thing is a business, and most fans do not have hte bball IQ of members on this board. They are willing to pay money to come see the Pacers, especially if they can see Reggie hit a three. Without Reggie, it may mean the difference of fans coming or staying home.

I would hope that poeple in Indiana would be better than that.......

Seriously, you're telling me that fans would rather see reggie start than watch the pacers win? Is that a joke?

Anthem
09-19-2004, 03:25 AM
Wrong, in both cases. In chess, both players are mentally thinking about moves at the same time (so they are both doing something). In baseball, every player on the field is doing something. The catcher giving the signals, the batter going through his gyrations, the pitcher going through his motion, the fielders setting up to field, etc. Are you kidding---you don't see how it's a team game? The pitcher needs the fielders as the fielders need him.

I was actually just trolling there, but if it made that big of an impression I may need to hold that opinion. :devil:

In all seriousness, baseball is amazingly boring to me. Even the highlights aren't that much to look at, but when you stretch 30 seconds of watchable plays out over 3 hours? No thank you.

Anthem
09-19-2004, 03:27 AM
Stupid broken sig. :mad:

MSA2CF
09-19-2004, 10:12 AM
I'll have to subscribe to this thread and refer to it mid-June.

Sollozzo
09-19-2004, 10:37 AM
I go to some Pacers games, and I could care less if I see Reggie. Seeing Reggie years ago was cool, but it's sad seeing this Reggie who's game has depreciated.

Obviously fans aren't flocking to see Reggie play, because attendence has been down. I hope most fans care about winning, and we aren't winning anything this year if Reggie is starting in the playoffs. We don't have a shot at the finals with the worst starting SG in the NBA, it's that simple.

MSA2CF
09-19-2004, 12:30 PM
I may regret saying this, but I bet I won't go to as many Pacers games after Reggie retires because he is a big factor as to why I go to games.

There are two things I expect out of every Pacers game I go to:
a Pacers win and
a 3 by Reggie

TheSauceMaster
09-19-2004, 01:30 PM
Hmmmm, Well Reggie Retiring isn't going to stop me from going to any games , that's just silly if you say that , you need to move on.

I go to see the Pacers Win and I don't care if the Towel Boy or a Pacemate hit's the Game Winner. It woulda been Intresting if we got Tmac , Would people be as sentimental for Reggie and I bet you would sell more Seats with a Tmac vs Reggie Miller , but really that point maybe Moot.

We have alot of great youong talent , that could win a a Championship in less time than 16 years ;) Wait I forgot Reggie Miller hasn't one us a champioship , Just Gave us some Memories .

:p:p

Sollozzo
09-19-2004, 05:22 PM
If Reggie Miller means more to you than the Pacers organization, that's your problem.

It was cool seeing Reggie Miller play years ago when he was actually a good player, now it's just sad seeing him get mowed over by younger, more athletic shooting guards.

Now, I would rather see guys like Jermaine, Artest, and Stephen Jackson play. Maybe they will lead us to that ring that Reggie Miller teams never could. I'm loyal to the Pacers, and seeing the Pacers win a ring is way mroe important to me than Reggie Miller.

I wouldn't have a problem with giving Reggie all of this money, and a starting job if he would have led us to a championship. Him and the Pacers choked way too many bigtime playoff games, and we still have zero NBA championships.

MSA2CF
09-19-2004, 07:49 PM
If Reggie Miller means more to you than the Pacers organization, that's your problem.

Well, then it's a good thing he doesn't.


It was cool seeing Reggie Miller play years ago when he was actually a good player, now it's just sad seeing him get mowed over by younger, more athletic shooting guards.

And we obviously must have completely different views on what a "good" player is and what being "mowed over" is.


I wouldn't have a problem with giving Reggie all of this money, and a starting job if he would have led us to a championship.

That's expecting too much. His role isn't to lead the entire team to the championship so much anymore; it's turned into Jermaine's over the past few years. He's not the one who is supposed to score twenty a night anymore.





There are two things I expect out of every Pacers game I go to:
a Pacers win and
a 3 by Reggie

Sollozzo
09-19-2004, 08:02 PM
"Mowed Over" means continually getting outplayed every night. Reggie continually is outplayed by the opposing team's SG.

Of course his role isn't to lead the team to a championship anymore. You didn't get what I said. I meant that his role was to lead us to the championship from the mid 90's to 2000, and him and the team choked continually in the major games. If he would have led us to one title, I would have had no problem giving him all of this money that we're giving him.

Destined4Greatness
09-19-2004, 08:22 PM
So basically only players who lead teams to championship deserve money. Well that just might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

MSA2CF
09-19-2004, 08:47 PM
"Mowed Over" means continually getting outplayed every night. Reggie continually is outplayed by the opposing team's SG.

Of course his role isn't to lead the team to a championship anymore. You didn't get what I said. I meant that his role was to lead us to the championship from the mid 90's to 2000, and him and the team choked continually in the major games. If he would have led us to one title, I would have had no problem giving him all of this money that we're giving him.

I know what my version of mowing over is and very seldom did I see Reggie get mowed over last season.

I got what you said. I guess if I read it backwards, from the choking in the past then the part about giving him money second, then I would have gotten your (intended) meaning. The way I read it in the context was that you would have no problem giving him the money if he had have won the championship last year.

And "all this money we're giving him" isn't really all that much, IMO.

Sollozzo
09-19-2004, 09:11 PM
We gave Reggie a sympathy contract, thats obvious. Reggie isn't worth 6 million dollars a year for the production he gives us. All I mean is, if he had lead the Pacers to a ring, I would have had no problem giving him that contract. Reggie is worth the lowest contract possible at this stage in his career.

dipperdunk
09-19-2004, 09:29 PM
Trust me the problem with baseball is that the degree of difficulty is distorted by television. It is hard to realize the talent level of the players or the fast pace of the game unless you have played it on the field against elite players. It appears slow and easy when watching a player hit on TV but get in the batter's box and look out at the mound with Randy Johnson 60 feet 6 inches away and let him throw you a 100 MPH fastball.

You are lucky if you have 1/2 a second to decide whether or not to swing at the pitch but watching it on TV it distorts that time frame and makes the game look routine and boring to the casual viewer. Stand at 1st base when Barry Bonds hits a bullet down there 130 MPH etc.,, take my word for it only looks boring and easy because the players are so talented.

Bball
09-19-2004, 10:14 PM
And as for Harrington, when JO and Foster are out of the game, who exactly is going to battle in the post and on the boards? Harrington was a ball-hog, yeah, but he really forced other teams to respect him in the post, and he opened the floor up for guys like Freddie, austin and AJ to get wide-open looks.

He mighta opened the floor for those guys to get wide open shots... but unfortunately he didn't pass them the ball! :devil:

-Bball

Anthem
09-19-2004, 10:23 PM
And as for Harrington, when JO and Foster are out of the game, who exactly is going to battle in the post and on the boards? Harrington was a ball-hog, yeah, but he really forced other teams to respect him in the post, and he opened the floor up for guys like Freddie, austin and AJ to get wide-open looks.

He mighta opened the floor for those guys to get wide open shots... but unfortunately he didn't pass them ball! :devil:

-Bball


Twould be funny if it weren't true... now it's just depressing.

kerosene
09-19-2004, 11:33 PM
We gave Reggie a sympathy contract, thats obvious. Reggie isn't worth 6 million dollars a year for the production he gives us. All I mean is, if he had lead the Pacers to a ring, I would have had no problem giving him that contract. Reggie is worth the lowest contract possible at this stage in his career.

Sympathy sure. The organization knows how much he has to pay in alimony :o

Fool
09-20-2004, 11:58 AM
Trust me the problem with baseball is that the degree of difficulty is distorted by television. It is hard to realize the talent level of the players or the fast pace of the game unless you have played it on the field against elite players. It appears slow and easy when watching a player hit on TV but get in the batter's box and look out at the mound with Randy Johnson 60 feet 6 inches away and let him throw you a 100 MPH fastball.

You are lucky if you have 1/2 a second to decide whether or not to swing at the pitch but watching it on TV it distorts that time frame and makes the game look routine and boring to the casual viewer. Stand at 1st base when Barry Bonds hits a bullet down there 130 MPH etc.,, take my word for it only looks boring and easy because the players are so talented.



Thats definately not the problem with baseball. T.V. doesn't make chess look easy but its still not watched. I think anyone who doesn't like baseball would be fine with conceeding that its not easy but that doesn't make it fun to watch.

Fool
09-20-2004, 12:10 PM
I know many of you don't believe what I am about to say. If Rick thought the Pacers would be a better team with Reggie coming off the bench he would play him off the bench. (now, if he does not think it will make much difference he will start Reggie).


If this is true then Carlisle is lying as he has continually said he will leave the decision of whether Reggie starts or not up to Reggie.

For those of you who say "He should start in the beginning of the season but not at the end." Why should he start at all if he isn't going to be the starter at the end? How does it benefit the team to deny the players you think should start when it matters, starts in the begining of the season? Was it better for Foster or the team that he didn't start at the beginning of the season?

As to the flow arguement, if Jackson can't pass it inside or recognize that he isn't the first option then not only would he be bad for the flow and he should not start, but you shouldn't have traded for him in the first place. Jackson is going to play the majority of the minutes even off the bench, so if he is bad for the flow as a starter how is he going to be not bad for the flow off the bench? If he isn't going to pass inside and be the 2nd or 3rd option as a starter why would he be off the bench. Making Al the 6th man certainly didn't change how he did things once he got the ball.

beast23
09-20-2004, 01:28 PM
"Making Al the 6th man certainly didn't change how he did things once he got the ball."

Not true. Not true at all.

Al tended to be a much more selfish player off the bench than when starting. I believe he saw himself as the primary option in the offense and acted the part accordingly.

On the occassions that he started, IMO he played better "team" ball.

As for Reggie / SJAX starting, I believe that one argument in support of Reggie starting is flow/chemistry.

Reggie knows the scope of our offense as well as anyone on the team. Our offensive purpose at the beginning of each game is to establish post play ASAP. With JO being option #1 and Ron being option #2, I think that Reggie continues to accept his role as option #3 and is more than willing, perhaps even far too willing, to defer to the first two options.

Until SJAX proves that he blends well with the offense and is willing to follow "Carlisle's unspoken rules" for beginning games, I don't think SJAX should be the starter.

Anyone who sits here today and flat out says he should be the starter would be better served to how he establishes himself in our offense during the preseason games before making such a claim.

I would think more than anything this is exactly why Carlisle has made his statements. It is far better to stick with something that you KNOW works than plant the seed that changes are definitely going to be made. No decent manager would plant that seed until he OBSERVES with his own eyes that he may have a better option.

So my advice is to be patient, what you want may come to be. But, it is highly unlikely that it would be a very smart move straight out of the gate.

Fool
09-20-2004, 02:58 PM
My limited knowledge of the Pacers comes into play here but I was under the impression that Al was seen as a ball hog no matter if he was a starter or came off the bench. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

Secondly, this statement is not neccessarily true "Anyone who sits here today and flat out says he should be the starter would be better served to how he establishes himself in our offense during the preseason games before making such a claim."

Normally, that statement would ride but the Pacers trading for SJAX isn't a usual situation. This isn't a case where you try to work someone into the offense and if he doesn't fit you bench him (ala Pollard). You guys traded for SJAX to get over the hump. That means you have to have your system work with this guy or else you already know you are out of contention for anything but a lot of reg. season wins and an early playoff exit.

Even if SJAX starts and struggles its better for him to struggle early as a starter than late as a starter especially since its understood that the Pacers are not going anywhere w/o SJAX (particularly now that Al is gone). So 1) if SJAX struggles as a starter he needs the time to adjust as a starter 2) (EXTREME CASE) If for some reason SJAX can't work in the offense the coach needs time to change the offense or management needs to know early in order to have the time to trade him unless you are going to throw away the entire season (I emphasize again, that this is an unlikely and EXTREME CASE).

It makes little sense to me to say "The offense works well with Reggie, leave it be." Its already established that this team needs more than Reggie to win so who cares how well it works with him. It still doesn't work well enough to win the only thing that matters (a championship). What the offense needs to do is work well with SJAX otherwise, be happy with your #1 seed and an all too early playoff exit.

Hicks
09-20-2004, 04:21 PM
My limited knowledge of the Pacers comes into play here but I was under the impression that Al was seen as a ball hog no matter if he was a starter or came off the bench. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

Secondly, this statement is not neccessarily true "Anyone who sits here today and flat out says he should be the starter would be better served to how he establishes himself in our offense during the preseason games before making such a claim."

Normally, that statement would ride but the Pacers trading for SJAX isn't a usual situation. This isn't a case where you try to work someone into the offense and if he doesn't fit you bench him (ala Pollard). You guys traded for SJAX to get over the hump. That means you have to have your system work with this guy or else you already know you are out of contention for anything but a lot of reg. season wins and an early playoff exit.

Even if SJAX starts and struggles its better for him to struggle early as a starter than late as a starter especially since its understood that the Pacers are not going anywhere w/o SJAX (particularly now that Al is gone). So 1) if SJAX struggles as a starter he needs the time to adjust as a starter 2) (EXTREME CASE) If for some reason SJAX can't work in the offense the coach needs time to change the offense or management needs to know early in order to have the time to trade him unless you are going to throw away the entire season (I emphasize again, that this is an unlikely and EXTREME CASE).

It makes little sense to me to say "The offense works well with Reggie, leave it be." Its already established that this team needs more than Reggie to win so who cares how well it works with him. It still doesn't work well enough to win the only thing that matters (a championship). What the offense needs to do is work well with SJAX otherwise, be happy with your #1 seed and an all too early playoff exit.


^Yep

TheSauceMaster
09-20-2004, 04:42 PM
My limited knowledge of the Pacers comes into play here but I was under the impression that Al was seen as a ball hog no matter if he was a starter or came off the bench. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

Secondly, this statement is not neccessarily true "Anyone who sits here today and flat out says he should be the starter would be better served to how he establishes himself in our offense during the preseason games before making such a claim."

Normally, that statement would ride but the Pacers trading for SJAX isn't a usual situation. This isn't a case where you try to work someone into the offense and if he doesn't fit you bench him (ala Pollard). You guys traded for SJAX to get over the hump. That means you have to have your system work with this guy or else you already know you are out of contention for anything but a lot of reg. season wins and an early playoff exit.

Even if SJAX starts and struggles its better for him to struggle early as a starter than late as a starter especially since its understood that the Pacers are not going anywhere w/o SJAX (particularly now that Al is gone). So 1) if SJAX struggles as a starter he needs the time to adjust as a starter 2) (EXTREME CASE) If for some reason SJAX can't work in the offense the coach needs time to change the offense or management needs to know early in order to have the time to trade him unless you are going to throw away the entire season (I emphasize again, that this is an unlikely and EXTREME CASE).

It makes little sense to me to say "The offense works well with Reggie, leave it be." Its already established that this team needs more than Reggie to win so who cares how well it works with him. It still doesn't work well enough to win the only thing that matters (a championship). What the offense needs to do is work well with SJAX otherwise, be happy with your #1 seed and an all too early playoff exit.


^Yep

:amen::amen::amen:

Last count we had 16 yrs of Reggie Miller , Alot of Great Memories , 0 Championships ...Time to try something New.

Will it take even a month if Sjax isn't doing spectacular before people start monaing or saying the trade was bust , I hope people are smart enough to realize he may or may not be the biggest impact at first.

MSA2CF
09-20-2004, 04:50 PM
"It makes little sense to me to say "The offense works well with Reggie, leave it be." Its already established that this team needs more than Reggie to win so who cares how well it works with him. It still doesn't work well enough to win the only thing that matters (a championship). "

Well, if you're the sort who believes that Reggie was the reason we didn't win the Finals this past year, then that thinking makes sense. If you recognize that there were other intangibles that caused the Pacers not to win the championship, that thinking isn't too relevant.



There are two things I expect out of every Pacers game I go to:
a Pacers win and
a 3 by Reggie
in

TheSauceMaster
09-20-2004, 05:10 PM
There are two things I expect out of every Pacers game I go to:
a Pacers win and
a 3 by Reggie


I guess this maybe your last year as a pacer fan or you just won't goto another game if no reggie eh ?;) What If we don't win a champoinship this year , reggie retires and we win a chmpionship the next year or within 3 years ? will that just be because of some fluke or curse ?

:p:p:p:p

SoupIsGood
09-20-2004, 05:20 PM
I don't see how it matters who starts, Jax will still play more minutes than Reg, and jax has said he won't mind not starting, so why not start Reg?

Question - Say the game is tied, one minute left. What's our lineup look like? Do we take Reggie, Artest, or Jax out?

I would probably go with - Tinsley/Reggie/Artest/O'neal/foster

Peck
09-20-2004, 05:36 PM
If it doesn't matter who starts then bench O'Neal. He would be a shoe in for 6th man of the year award.

I'm kidding of course.

Of course it matters who starts, if it didn't then why does Reggie & his fans care?

The entire myth of it doesn't matter who starts but who plays most is a phenom. almost exclusive to fans of the Indiana Pacers. I've never seen people that keep arguing this. Finally at our last gathering we all agreed that starting does matter.

Look, I've stayed out of this other than to start it but I'm gonna go ahead & **** everybody off now.

Not only is Reggie not the best shooting guard on our team, he is now not even the second best. At some point in time during the last half of the season Fred Jones passed him.

This is one of the reasons why I wasn't thrilled with the trade. I am one of those that actually beleive that Fred can be a special player in the league. He is a defensive demon & his offense is developing nicely. What amazed me most about him was that come playoff time he got better & better by each game until his shoulder injury.

We should have just benched Foster started Al & either started Fred or let him play most of the min. This all plays into the question of now the biggest problem. We are to small to make any real noise. Al was not big, but he was at least willing & sometimes able to body up defenders in the post. With him gone that is one less person to help defend the inside.

Sollozzo
09-20-2004, 05:53 PM
Good Points Peck.

We have done nothing to get better for the upcoming season. We traded a solid bench player for a solid bench player. We are still going to have the worst starting SG in the NBA unless Carlisle will make some sense and start Jax.

What if Reggie was just your average Joe. Would you honestly want someone with such a limited game starting for your team. If Reggie was just John Smith, you wouldn't even think to start him over SJAX.

This whole being loyal to Reggie thing is BS. Lets start the players that will give this team better odds of winning the championship that Reggie could never get.

MSA2CF
09-20-2004, 06:54 PM
But this is Reggie Miller.



There are two things I expect out of every Pacers game I go to:
a Pacers win and
a 3 by Reggie

SoupIsGood
09-20-2004, 06:55 PM
If it doesn't matter who starts then bench O'Neal. He would be a shoe in for 6th man of the year award.

I'm kidding of course.

Of course it matters who starts, if it didn't then why does Reggie & his fans care?

The entire myth of it doesn't matter who starts but who plays most is a phenom. almost exclusive to fans of the Indiana Pacers. I've never seen people that keep arguing this. Finally at our last gathering we all agreed that starting does matter.


I didn't mean it never matters who starts where, just not between these two guys. When Jax is going to play more minutes than Reggie anyway, and says he won't be pissed if he doesn't start, what difference does it make between which one starts? I really don't see a difference.

Hicks
09-20-2004, 06:59 PM
Difference is putting your best foot forward from tipoff. Reggie isn't the old Reggie anymore. On certain nights he can and will be a liability in situations where Sjax won't be.

Sollozzo
09-20-2004, 07:02 PM
[quote=MSA2CF]But this is Reggie Miller.



Exactly. You just basically told me that you want Reggie to start because he is Reggie Miller, not because he brings anything to the table.

0% of you would want Reggie starting if he was John Smith. Stephen Jackson is clearly the better player.

We aren't winning a title with the worst starting SG in the NBA.

MSA2CF
09-20-2004, 07:03 PM
I'm a believer in the Stephen-on-the-bench-creates-more-of-a-problem-and-a-deeper-bench-and-goes-better-with-how-the-team's-offense-works philosophy.

SoupIsGood
09-20-2004, 07:08 PM
I don't think Reggie is the worst starting SG in the league...

McKeyFan
09-20-2004, 07:16 PM
This is one of the reasons why I wasn't thrilled with the trade. I am one of those that actually beleive that Fred can be a special player in the league.

I agree that Fred has potential. I agree he got better as the pressure mounted, and apparently this was how he performed in college.

However, I'm tired of waiting on potential to bring us to the next level--Bender's potential, Tinsley's potential, Freddie's potential, Al's potential, Primoz'z potential, yada yada.

Stephen Jackson was a proven starter with a Championship team. He also is a proven scorer at Atlanta--he can shoot and he can create, our two MOST important needs. Freddie hasn't proven he can do either....Although he does have potential:rolleyes:

I applaud the trade.

MSA2CF
09-20-2004, 07:21 PM
And if it turns out the team isn't doing well with Reggie in the starting lineup, Rick would certainly take him out. The Pacers have the entire regular season to see if it will work out or not, and as has been said by some others, the regular season is just preparation for the playoffs. So I say let Reggie start unless it is proven that the team is better without him doing so.

Sollozzo
09-20-2004, 07:33 PM
Saying that Stephen Jackson is a better fit off the bench is just BS to cover up that you can't let go of Reggie Miller. Like Peck jokingly said in an above thread, let's just bring Jermaine off of the bench, that would make the bench a helluva lot deeper.

Stephen Jackson is a PROVEN STARTER ON A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM, and you're telling me he is getting shafted for a 39 year old hasbeen?

MSA2CF
09-20-2004, 08:25 PM
Saying that Stephen Jackson is a better fit off the bench is just BS to cover up that you can't let go of Reggie Miller. Like Peck jokingly said in an above thread, let's just bring Jermaine off of the bench, that would make the bench a helluva lot deeper.

Stephen Jackson is a PROVEN STARTER ON A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM, and you're telling me he is getting shafted for a 39 year old hasbeen?

Yup---my opinion is BS. :usa:

tora tora
09-20-2004, 09:13 PM
Saying that Stephen Jackson is a better fit off the bench is just BS to cover up that you can't let go of Reggie Miller. Like Peck jokingly said in an above thread, let's just bring Jermaine off of the bench, that would make the bench a helluva lot deeper.

Stephen Jackson is a PROVEN STARTER ON A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM, and you're telling me he is getting shafted for a 39 year old hasbeen?


I'm sitting here laughin.. you guys can b***h and moan all you want but it's not going to change anything. You want a deep bench, right? If you do then Reggie makes a -perfect- starter. He commands respect behind the 3 point line making it easier on JO, who is the primary offensive option at tipoff.. then as the game progresses they can bring out a -deep- bench to maintain the "flow". It's that simple. Stop crying about it, learn to deal with it and live with it. Lock this thread already! :censored:

Anthem
09-20-2004, 09:35 PM
Almost agree with ya Peck... but while Al is probably a better player than Foster, Foster was the better fit in the lineup. A PF-C rotation of JO-Foster works better than JO-Al.

I don't think the same statement works for Reggie.

Peck
09-20-2004, 09:51 PM
I don't agree with that assesment.

I think a starting unit of Al & J.O. works every bit as well if not better than Foster & J.O.

Either way, J.O. ain't happy with the fact that he has to guard the big power post players every time down the floor. We desperately need another big man & we need him right now.

Unclebuck
09-20-2004, 09:58 PM
Peck, I thought you were not a big fan of the "small lineup" last season. Small lineup = J.O. and Al as the two big guys. Have you changed your opinion or am I wrong.

ChicagoJ
09-20-2004, 10:08 PM
I think a lineup of Jeff + JO was every bit as small as Al + JO.

I'm neutral on Jeff, I think he's effective against many players, but against the bigger players he plays every bit as small as Al.

Anthem
09-20-2004, 10:33 PM
I think a lineup of Jeff + JO was every bit as small as Al + JO.

I'm neutral on Jeff, I think he's effective against many players, but against the bigger players he plays every bit as small as Al.

Against which bigger players? Don't say Shaq.

Foster defended Duncan as well as it can be done. He did well on Yao, as well. He defended Garnett.

Which "bigger players" did Foster play small against?

Kstat
09-20-2004, 10:49 PM
I think a lineup of Jeff + JO was every bit as small as Al + JO.

I'm neutral on Jeff, I think he's effective against many players, but against the bigger players he plays every bit as small as Al.

Against which bigger players? Don't say Shaq.

Foster defended Duncan as well as it can be done. He did well on Yao, as well. He defended Garnett.

Which "bigger players" did Foster play small against?




Ben Wallace.

Foster got tossed around like a rag doll on more than a few boards in the ECF.

Arcadian
09-20-2004, 10:51 PM
How good do people think SJax is?

I would say he is better than Reg at this point but not so much it will make a huge difference who starts or that he is the final piece. A backcourt of Tins and SJax is still a so so backcourt.

Lets see a couple games and factor in chemistry and how effective SJax really is in a Pacer's uni before we start screaming murder.

Unclebuck
09-20-2004, 11:03 PM
I think a lineup of Jeff + JO was every bit as small as Al + JO.

I'm neutral on Jeff, I think he's effective against many players, but against the bigger players he plays every bit as small as Al.




As the season went along Rick played Al, Ron and J.O together less and less. For whatever reason, those three on the court together I did not believe worked that well.

I thought the team was better in 80% of the situations with Jeff on the court instead of AL. Now don't misunderstand what I am saying. Al is and was a better player than Jeff, and Al was a much better replacement for J.O then anyone else on the pacers team, and Al was the third best player on the pacers.

But I'll say it again. The Pacers were a more effective team with Jeff on the court instead of Al. The offense had better flow, the defense was better and the rebounding was better.

And keep in mind I was one who dreamed of having Al and Ron on the court together at the same time, but I have to admit I was wrong, it just did not work out

beast23
09-21-2004, 12:20 AM
Many last season were calling for either Reggie or Jeff to come off the bench so that JO, Al and Ron could play together.

I was never for it because I've strongly believed that the 3 players all prefer to play in the same space. JO is obviously our primary post player. But Al's best contributions probably come from the post as well. And from the SF position, Ron can overpower almost any SF in the league when he gets the ball in the post.

That combination just wasn't going to work for major minutes in a game.

Peck
09-21-2004, 01:28 AM
I think a lineup of Jeff + JO was every bit as small as Al + JO.

I'm neutral on Jeff, I think he's effective against many players, but against the bigger players he plays every bit as small as Al.



Against which bigger players? Don't say Shaq.

Foster defended Duncan as well as it can be done. He did well on Yao, as well. He defended Garnett.

Which "bigger players" did Foster play small against?




I'll give you a list but numero uno on that list (besides Shaq) is Jamaal Magloire. I prayed every single night they played each other that Jamaal wouldn't kill us.

Beyond Jamaal there is, in no particular order.

Ben Wallace
Brad Miller
Erick Dampier
Eddy Curry
Mark Blount (this one is painfull to watch because you don't expect this one)
Yao Ming (this is a given)
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Brian Grant

Now I'm not saying he can't play the above players, but they are the type of players he has a very very difficult time playing. Of course Shaq as well, but then again so does everybody.

In the future I'm not certain how effective he will be against Nazr Mohamad, Etan Thomas & Adonal Foyle.

Of course these are not offensive machines so his defense is not going to be as needed, but in a rebounding game he will get his clock cleaned.

I think that is the one thing about Foster I tend to lose my mind over. I think he is the most overrated rebounder in the history of the team. He's a decent rebounder, not a great one. Actually defensive rebound wise I think he is below average. However he is an abover average offensive rebounder so it averages out.

Yes, he is very good at guarding Tim Duncan. But let's not act like he stops him cold.

Peck
09-21-2004, 01:31 AM
Peck, I thought you were not a big fan of the "small lineup" last season. Small lineup = J.O. and Al as the two big guys. Have you changed your opinion or am I wrong.



Loaded question for me.

Your right, I'm not a big fan of that lineup. However Jay is 100% right in the fact that both play small ball. However I beleive that Al is more physical on defense than Jeff is.

I don't know, neither is a good option IMO.

ChicagoJ
09-21-2004, 09:29 AM
I think a lineup of Jeff + JO was every bit as small as Al + JO.

I'm neutral on Jeff, I think he's effective against many players, but against the bigger players he plays every bit as small as Al.

Against which bigger players? Don't say Shaq.

Foster defended Duncan as well as it can be done. He did well on Yao, as well. He defended Garnett.

Which "bigger players" did Foster play small against?



Let me break this down a little differently,

Its true that Jeff defends Duncan and Garnett very well. His quickness just drives them batty - you can see it on KG's face - "why does this guy play so well against me?" Because those guys are so skilled, especially with the ball, they don't spend all their time camped out in the post. Granted, when they go into the post, they're great, but because of thier versatility they play "smaller" than they really are.

Jeff isn't a very good post defender - he's quick but he's not especially strong, and he struggles against just about every post player when they post up. He's significantly more effective when his man turns and faces the basket and he can rely on his quickness instead of his strength. He's also more effective when he "fronts" his man in the post, but that's high-risk high-reward.

Peck's list is long enough to justify this concern, I think.


Aside,

JO + Al + Ron didn't work well on the offensive end. Spacing was a major problem. I think that was a pretty good defensive unit, but it was only an average rebounding unit.

FireTheCoach
09-21-2004, 10:04 AM
I'm not surprised..... unfortunately.

:huh:

A starting defensive backcourt of Miller/Tinsley... aint nobody respecting that.

Offensively.... I dunno, JTs shot has improved each year but he's still shakey and streaky at best... and Reggie, I just don't think that he is a championship caliber SG anymore. He hasn't been for at least 3 seasons now if not the last 4. Maybe he will change my mind but I seriously doubt that he can avg better than 10ppg for 82 games. Throw that in with crappy D and you have the ingrediants for mediocrety.

Unclebuck
09-21-2004, 12:35 PM
Jay, I must disagree with you and your comments about Jeff's post defense.

He is excllent agaisnt Duncan and KG, he defends them about s well as anyone in the whole NBA. Of course the the Pacers team defene deserves a lot of credit

I will agree that he struggles agaisnt Shaq and the ally big post players. Like..........

Unclebuck
09-21-2004, 12:36 PM
Jay, I must disagree with you and your comments about Jeff's post defense.

He is excllent agaisnt Duncan and KG, he defends them about s well as anyone in the whole NBA. Of course the the Pacers team defene deserves a lot of credit

I will agree that he struggles agaisnt Shaq and the ally big post players. Like..........

ChicagoJ
09-21-2004, 02:38 PM
I heard you the first time. :p

Although I'm not sure what we disagree on. I said he defends those guys well, because they let him use his quickness. If either KG or TD stayed in the paint, all night, against Jeff, they'd have a heyday.

Anthem
09-22-2004, 12:34 AM
Yeah, gotta go with UB on that one. I saw both games against Duncan, and TD spent a lot of time in the post.

Ben Wallace is definately stronger than Foster, but the Wallaces spent a lot of time sealing Jeff off so the other could get the rebound, i.e.. Sheed would seal Jeff so Ben could get the rebound, or vice versa. That's just veteran big men with a veteran coach.

It's not that I disagree, exactly, with the idea that Jeff needs to improve his post defense. I REALLY wanted Mark Blount this summer. But the problem is, Peck's talking about AL FREAKING HARRINGTON. I like Al a lot. But who would you rather put on Brad Miller? I'd take Foster. Who would you put on Dampier / Curry? I'd take Foster.

Peck, you changed the idea of the post from "Foster plays as small as Al" (which I STRONGLY disagree with and think is very hard to back up) to "Foster has a hard time with physical post players" which is like saying "Reggie likes to shoot 3s." Nobody disagrees with the second. Nobody buy you and Jay believe the first.

Peck
09-22-2004, 01:40 AM
Somehow, someway about three seasons ago Al Harrington went from beloved bench player to selfish ball hog to everybody.

Al Harrington is a decent defender. He is capable of playing either style (finesse or physical).

I don't know if he is better than Foster because they don't always guard the same player.

But the fact that U.B. has listed Duncan & Garnett as the people that Foster guards only goes to further what Jermaine O'neal complained about. He has to guard the centers on the other teams. This is not good for Jermaine in the long run.

I just think to do anything beyond a good regular season we are going to need at least one player that can come onto the floor & play physical. If it's Pollard fine, if it's Harrison fine, if it's Croshere fine. Somebody, anybody has to step up.

Anthem
09-22-2004, 01:55 AM
Somehow, someway about three seasons ago Al Harrington went from beloved bench player to selfish ball hog to everybody.

Al Harrington is a decent defender. He is capable of playing either style (finesse or physical).

I don't know if he is better than Foster because they don't always guard the same player.

But the fact that U.B. has listed Duncan & Garnett as the people that Foster guards only goes to further what Jermaine O'neal complained about. He has to guard the centers on the other teams. This is not good for Jermaine in the long run.

I just think to do anything beyond a good regular season we are going to need at least one player that can come onto the floor & play physical. If it's Pollard fine, if it's Harrison fine, if it's Croshere fine. Somebody, anybody has to step up.

I agree with all of that. But that's different than saying Al Harrington defends bigs as well as Foster does, or that Foster "plays as small as Al."

TheSauceMaster
09-22-2004, 03:09 AM
A starting defensive backcourt of Miller/Tinsley... aint nobody respecting that.


:soundoff::soundoff::soundoff::soundoff::soundoff: :soundoff: