PDA

View Full Version : The honeymoon is over



Shade
02-25-2011, 09:45 PM
Argh.

Sookie
02-25-2011, 09:47 PM
young team, they were bound to go into a valley. Guess what though, they'll be another peak.

Just pick it up for Sunday.

Trophy
02-25-2011, 09:48 PM
Enough with this honeymoon crap.

It's been over a while ago.

I wouldn't blame Vogel for this. This is on the team.

Merz
02-25-2011, 09:50 PM
1-3 in the last 4, with the one win being a 1-point victory over lowly Detroit.

Argh.

2-2 over the last 4. The Pacers beat the Wizards too.

DemonHunter1105
02-25-2011, 09:51 PM
Enough with the whining. Utah is still better than us without D-Will because our interior D sucks. We will be fine.

Shade
02-25-2011, 09:55 PM
...our interior D sucks. We will be fine.

:huh:

DemonHunter1105
02-25-2011, 10:02 PM
I should have put the "We will be fine" on another line because I wasn't trying to imply we will be fine because our interior D sucks. But my point was most teams don't have multiple post players that are deadly inside so it is not as big of an issue against other teams.

I just don't like the whole point of this thread, which seems to be to discuss how sad you are. You can do that in the game or post-game threads.

doctor-h
02-25-2011, 10:15 PM
Everyone on this board overreacts to everything. We were never as good as you thought. Paul George can be a very good player but he has a long way to go. Where was he tonight. We have played a patsy schedule and still have struggled to beat bad teams. We saw tonight what real good power forwards are like. They made us look sick. I think sometimes we want to be good so bad that we will fall for anything. Our point guards are some of the weakest in the league. Until we improve that we will never be a contender. Danny Granger is not a star, nowhere close. He is just a pretty good role player. If he is our best we are in trouble. That is why it is disappointing that we don't land a player with tons of talent when we have a chance to.

Unclebuck
02-25-2011, 10:17 PM
Is it time to talk about tanking??

BlueNGold
02-25-2011, 10:41 PM
Is it time to talk about tanking??

No. Nobody here should think this team is a contender.

Fact is, we would have been blown out if Jim was still coaching. The Jazz have their (still decent) record because of the infighting between Sloan and Deron. They are a .600 team talent wise that is still well above .500. I don't think we played well but we still had them tied up fairly late.

Bottom line? Vogel isn't going to win every game.

Kaufman
02-25-2011, 10:41 PM
Everyone on this board overreacts to everything.

welcome to the board and all, but did you just say that? did you read your post in the thread you just started?

PacerGuy
02-25-2011, 10:45 PM
It's not so much that ours is over, but rather their's is newer.

Sookie
02-25-2011, 11:24 PM
No. Nobody here should think this team is a contender.

Fact is, we would have been blown out if Jim was still coaching. The Jazz have their (still decent) record because of the infighting between Sloan and Deron. They are a .600 team talent wise that is still well above .500. I don't think we played well but we still had them tied up fairly late.

Bottom line? Vogel isn't going to win every game.

Correct. Even when this team played poorly, even when we couldn't make a shot, didn't defend well ect... ect.. In every game that Vogel has coached, this team has fought hard. They may have come up short, but they were in the game.

BlueNGold
02-25-2011, 11:38 PM
Correct. Even when this team played poorly, even when we couldn't make a shot, didn't defend well ect... ect.. In every game that Vogel has coached, this team has fought hard. They may have come up short, but they were in the game.

I agree, but let me add one thing. I think the team fought hard for Jim O'Brien. I just don't think his system worked for the team.

And more to the point, I think his system was less effective and a game like tonight...which was pretty competitive...would have been a blow-out with Jim coaching. We've been in every game with Vogel at the helm...possibly without exception. That by itself is a remarkable improvement.

Scot Pollard
02-26-2011, 01:02 AM
Enough with this honeymoon crap.

It's been over a while ago.

I wouldn't blame Vogel for this. This is on the team.

100% agree

the fact that people say honeymoon is stupid

people are just never happy here

we get rid of the dumb previous head coach and then think our new one is just on a honeymoon ride this season

9-4 is a damn good record

pizza guy
02-26-2011, 01:04 AM
What impressed me about the coaching tonight was that even when we were down by double digits, it was a methodical comeback where we fed the post, got good shots, got foul shots, and didn't settle for 3-pointers to try to make the comeback. If we had gone to chucking 3's, this is a 20 point loss instead because NO ONE COULD MAKE A SHOT TONIGHT!

Vogel still has my vote, and yes the honeymoon is definitely over now.

sothenrobbiesaid
02-26-2011, 12:19 PM
Really, guys? Come on. Utah is a solid team. They are better than we are.

We got pounded on the glass and couldn't make a shot.

This honeymoon nonsense is just that - nonsense.

jcouts
02-26-2011, 12:58 PM
I think that for many of us, the bad taste left by yesterday's game wasn't the fact that we lost...but it was more about the manner in which we lost and the lack of overall effort and passion from the players throughout most of the game.

I live in Denver and behind the Pacers, I would consider the Nuggets my second home team. That ugly feeling I had after watching the Pacers game - I definitely didn't have that same feeling later last night after the Nuggets got beat by Portland because the effort the Nuggets put out and the passion they played with was more in line with what I like to see.

If the team plays hard, tough and does everything they can do win a game, I'll never be upset about a loss. But, if the players leave things on the court like the Pacers did yesterday, I'll be left with an irritated feeling...and factor in that I'm not even there paying my hard earned dollars for tickets. I'd be really irritated in that situation.

Compare last night's loss to the losses against Miami and that's a perfect example. Sure, I wanted us to beat Miami because I can't stand anything that Miami is about, but as a team, we didn't leave much on the court in those Miami games (except maybe Granger's lack of devotion to defense...but this is becoming somewhat standard...).

Naptown_Seth
02-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Is it time to talk about tanking??
Are you kidding? I know you are not pro-tanking, and I'd hope you really weren't this year in a lesser draft class with some kids thinking of staying in school to avoid the lockout period.




As for the honeymoon, remember the "Slow your roll" thread where I was trying to warn everyone about the emotional rollercoaster? I love ya Shade, but I'm not sure anyone rides that coaster more than you.

It's fine. This is what we wanted...DEVELOPMENT. That's not a smooth road.

Here's your problems -

1) Hibbert's inconsistency, primarily on offense
2) Granger's defense
3) Collison's defense
4) Price's inconsistent shooting and FGA/Ast ratio
5) Tyler being undersized which makes it tough for him to defend normal sized PFs and to score inside (without scrapping for it)
6) Paul's inconsistent offense and somewhat poor defensive scheme awareness (he does have good awareness of the court, just not his role)


McRoberts is fine because he's supposed to be the sidekick, whatever bits you need guy. Foster is fine because he's just the backup C who can give you solid rebounding and defense while holding on for the starters.

Rush could use a slight bump to his FGA/minute but has improved this and looks to be on his way to be fine as the backup SG or sometimes starting SG.

DJones forces his offense but Vogel has been able to keep his role limited.


1) You get Roy settled in with solid development time and dedication to working with him, he's got to become that reliable 17/8 guy by the end of next season or he becomes the backup/tradeable

2) You get Danny back to being the star of the team. He's deferred on offense almost too much and he's still not always bringing great effort to deny the 1st and 2nd moves on defense.

3) Collison worries me because I expected his on-ball defense to be much stronger. This is one I'm stumped by, but he is still a 2nd year guy.

4) Not sure what to think of Price's shooting, but he does control the floor and the ball much better than Collison in terms of working the system to get other players involved. Maybe you can't expect better shooting from the backup PG spot. He needs this playing time.

5) Tyler's game hasn't really changed since college, but on most nights he makes the crazy crap shots and FTAs thing work very effectively and you are bringing him off the bench. He has defensive awareness issues still, but like most of the guys he's only just recently started getting back to a fixed role with regular minutes. How much more do you need from him in this role? He's fine.

6) You see Paul simply develop naturally, he's a rookie. As his good games show up more often you'll see the W-L go up with it.


Granger is the only problem not possibly solved by MONTHS of regular playing time and roles. That's where we are now, and they are able to still be in the playoff hunt too.

This in one of the best times to be a Pacers fan IMO. If/when you have Roy, Danny, Paul and DC filling out the main options roles on offense with consistency you'll see plenty of winning.

BringJackBack
02-26-2011, 02:09 PM
Really, guys? Come on. Utah is a solid team. They are better than we are.

We got pounded on the glass and couldn't make a shot.

This honeymoon nonsense is just that - nonsense.

This is definitely where I'm at, but our weaknesses are showing more and more with each passing game which may start hurting us; Our interior defense and our lack of a closer (Or someone who can create for himself). These are things that are going to need to be solved in the future.

Psyren
02-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Enough with this honeymoon crap.

It's been over a while ago.

I wouldn't blame Vogel for this. This is on the team.

Last night wasn't on Vogel at all.

Frankly, I don't even know that it was necessarily our players faults.

We simply couldn't hit shots when we needed them, and Utah got about every lucky roll they could ask for.

And yes, the honeymoon has been over for a while. Last night wasn't the end of it.

Part Timer
02-26-2011, 02:28 PM
4) Price's inconsistent shooting and FGA/Ast ratio
4) Not sure what to think of Price's shooting, but he does control the floor and the ball much better than Collison in terms of working the system to get other players involved. Maybe you can't expect better shooting from the backup

I think we can ultimately expect better shooting from Price, but I'm not sure we'll see it until he has another summer of work to further distance him from the injury last May. His shot just seems a bit labored and I'm not sure he can just work through it.

Before breaking his thumb, you could tell Dunleavy had pretty much restored his shot from a couple years ago, but it took time and the opportunity to train (as opposed to rehab).

Sookie
02-26-2011, 02:34 PM
Are you kidding? I know you are not pro-tanking, and I'd hope you really weren't this year in a lesser draft class with some kids thinking of staying in school to avoid the lockout period.




As for the honeymoon, remember the "Slow your roll" thread where I was trying to warn everyone about the emotional rollercoaster? I love ya Shade, but I'm not sure anyone rides that coaster more than you.

It's fine. This is what we wanted...DEVELOPMENT. That's not a smooth road.

Here's your problems -

1) Hibbert's inconsistency, primarily on offense
2) Granger's defense
3) Collison's defense
4) Price's inconsistent shooting and FGA/Ast ratio
5) Tyler being undersized which makes it tough for him to defend normal sized PFs and to score inside (without scrapping for it)
6) Paul's inconsistent offense and somewhat poor defensive scheme awareness (he does have good awareness of the court, just not his role)


.

I think you have to add Josh's inconsistent defense, and apparently every interior player's inability to box out. Personally, I think Josh struggles when a post player is stronger than him, and he does well when an athletic defender is more needed. That won't change until the off season where he can work on becoming stronger. But his biggest problem is the boxing out. I love Josh, but last night was pathetic in that regard. And he hasn't been boxing out well for a while. That being said, I think Jeff Foster is the only big that does box out.

1. I think Roy's biggest problem is when he is double/tripple teamed. He's a good passer, I don't know why he's not passing out of them. Some of it is because certain players don't move without the ball (DC bails him out when he's tripple teamed quite often, with a nice little cut to the basket)

2. Danny just needs to be chewed out. I'm sorry, unlike Darren, his lack of defense is about effort. He's fully capable of playing really good defense. And he's a vet. He needs to be a leader. If the kids are going to go out and play all out

3. I think DC isn't laterally quick, and that's his biggest problem (other than size, which isn't going to change.) Also something he can fix in the off season. I think DC's decision making is his biggest problem, but that's something he'll get better at as he grows up.

4. You mean Price's non-existent shot? Inconsistent would suggest that he makes a few every once in a while. :laugh: All of his shots are short..I don't really know what that suggests, because we just had All Star break so it's not from being tired. The only good news is that he's too good of a shooter to continue to suck this bad, and he's missing wide open shots..so eventually the percentages will even themselves out. I'm glad he's been aggressive instead of pouty. That was annoying at Uconn. (He's so much like Sue Bird, it's scary. )

And for the record, with these two, whom (especially DC) have been getting a lot of crap recently. The point guard position is the hardest position to learn. They are both second year players. One of them spent his entire first season not knowing whether he was going to play or not, and being converted into a shooting guard. The other has had 5 different coaches and has been traded..and has been thrusted into the starting spot..probably before he was ready. Let's be shocked that they struggle sometimes. :rolleyes:

The PG position isn't our weakest position. It's just one of our youngest and our most important. Last night neither played well, but both weren't afraid to try and win the game for us. Unlike the rest of the team, which, with the exception of Tyler and Jeff, played timid.

5. I agree, Tyler's fine. He goes to the free throw line against that defense last night, on most nights. He needs to pick up on the defensive end.

6. As I said in the game thread, PG played like a rookie..OMG lets shoot him.

MagicRat
02-26-2011, 03:21 PM
I would've liked this thread better if it had started "Okay, I'm just going to come out and say it.."

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=37859&postcount=1

Major Cold
02-26-2011, 07:12 PM
This simple offense has been scouted and is easily slowed down.

The double team came baseline (the shoulder where Hibbert likes to throw up that hook), with Jefferson shading the line preempting a drop step to the baseline double team.

The pick and roll is extremely lacking in productivity in the last three games. Tyler is settling for the pop and Vogel and McCarty were both encouraging him to slip to the basket.

The positioning was off. McRoberts should have been at the opposite elbow when Hibbert received the ball, with Danny or Rush on the opposite baseline. This allows for the double team defender to have to force Hibbert to his sweet spot.

The only adjustment was putting McRoberts on the same baseline three. He cut twice and got two buckets, but there was very little movement on the other side of the court, limiting it to two options.

The honeymoon period was the unknown of what the Pacers were doing with the change in leadership. Now it is time to adjust or fail/fizzle.

grace
02-26-2011, 09:59 PM
Is it time to talk about tanking??

Please tell me you meant to type that in green.

righteouscool
02-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Of course he did. he was exaggerating the normal poster of the last few years.

daschysta
02-27-2011, 06:38 AM
I'm actually not that mad about the utah loss. We bascially played the worst game we possibly could and weren't really out of it until the end, plus they were riding the high of a new trade.

That game is one in which bascially everything that could possibly go wrong offensively did...

The defensive issues are more troubling, but our offense won't look nearly that bad a vast majority of the time.

A-Train
02-27-2011, 07:50 AM
The bench shot 6-32 from the field (18.8 %)... pretty hard to blame this game on anyone/thing but a bad shooting night. If they shoot 12-32 (still a measly 37.5%) they win the game.

Don't over think it anymore than that, just move on to the next game and make some shots.