PDA

View Full Version : Four words and the Pacers shock world!



HoopMoney
04-20-2011, 07:25 AM
Four words & Pacers shock world!

Don't help off Korver! If the Pacers will listen to those four words they can shock the world.

Derrick Rose can score 30+ points. Chicago can get more free throw attempts. The Bulls can out rebound the Pacers. We can get untimely injuries. Small market Indiana can get screwed by the refs. But there is one thing that can't happen any more. Don't help off Korver!

In the first game Paul George helped off Kyle Korver to triple team Derrick Rose while he was driving to the lane. Rose jumped up and easily found Korver for the three point dagger that gave the Bulls the lead at the end of the game. In the second game Tyler Hansbrough helped off Noah to trap Rose half court. Rose passes to Noah then A.J. Price helps off Korver to double team Boozer leaving Kyle open to hit another late three point dagger.

That is what Korver does. He's a spot up shooter. It doesn't matter if he hasn't shot the ball all game long. He's Chicago's best shooter. Under no circumstances do you help off Korver ever!

Korver has been the x-factor in this series. He's only played 22 and 21 minutes in the first two games but has been the difference. He comes off the bench but is in with the starters down the stretch.

Korver is easy to stop. Just keep a man on him at all times. We've been guarding him with our point guards and he has not made us pay. He makes his living on kickouts. Take that away and he is useless. He is a defensive liability and that is why he doesn't start.

Danny Granger was asked about the scheme of trapping Rose and he said. "We thought it was a good scheme, it worked and the one time it didn't work was when Korver hit the big three." Coach Frank Vogel was asked about the similarities of the first two games and even he acknowledged Korver's late bomb.

Take away Korver's late exploits and this is a different series. The Chicago media has over hyped there team. They have been asking over and over why are they playing so badly? And over and over they have had to say it's because Indiana is a good team. If you look closely to the Bulls faces they are shocked that the Pacers are giving them such a hard time.

I can't wait to see the Bulls faces when they come here and get beat soundly. If the Pacers can tie this series 2-2. We will have the mental edge going back to Chicago. We already know we can beat this team. Now it is a matter of doing it. Go Pacers!

Do you think Korver is the x-factor? Do you think that we have put the fear into the Bulls? Do you think we can win our home games? If so, do you think we will have the mental edge in this series? Feel free to drop some knowledge.

Fellow Area 55ers & PTOers, HoopMoney droppin knowledge. Oww!

bellisimo
04-20-2011, 07:38 AM
Korver = Steve Kerr

Kid Minneapolis
04-20-2011, 09:34 AM
We've been in a position to win these games until Korver hits his bombs in the last minute, which puts the nail in the coffin.

pacergod2
04-20-2011, 09:44 AM
I think this is absolutely true. I think Mike is a good matchups on Korver because of his length. Korver is almost as slow as Dunleavy, so there is no advantage there. The problem then becomes Dunleavy must be the PG on the other end of the floor if we leave PG in to guard Rose and Danny in because its Danny. I'd leave Hans and Hibbert in as well. It is tough to keep a guy like Collison out of the game if they pressure the ball hard with a lineup like that though.

That is why guys like Korver have careers. It is because they are dead eye shooters that will ensure the effectiveness of the other players' effort. If Korver doesn't hit those threes we win game one without question. His three in game two was the difference as well, but game one I thought he hurt us more.

BPump33
04-20-2011, 09:46 AM
I think this is absolutely true. I think Mike is a good matchups on Korver because of his length. Korver is almost as slow as Dunleavy, so there is no advantage there. The problem then becomes Dunleavy must be the PG on the other end of the floor if we leave PG in to guard Rose and Danny in because its Danny. I'd leave Hans and Hibbert in as well. It is tough to keep a guy like Collison out of the game if they pressure the ball hard with a lineup like that though.

That is why guys like Korver have careers. It is because they are dead eye shooters that will ensure the effectiveness of the other players' effort. If Korver doesn't hit those threes we win game one without question. His three in game two was the difference as well, but game one I thought he hurt us more.

Agree. Did anyone honestly doubt for a second that his shot was going in on Monday night? That must be how Knicks fans felt against Reggie.

CooperManning
04-20-2011, 09:55 AM
I agree with this. We're making Derrick Rose score 35+ to barely beat us. Let Rose get his points and stop everyone else. Foul the hell out of Rose if you need to, but make him have to win it by himself. Korver was absolutely the x-factor in game 1. If we can neutralize him and contain Boozer, I love our odds in game 3.

I don't know if I'm delusional, but I still feel like we can win games 3 and 4.

BPump33
04-20-2011, 10:04 AM
I don't know if I'm delusional, but I still feel like we can win games 3 and 4.

I agree 100%.

Day-V
04-20-2011, 10:20 AM
I was expecting those 4 words to be "Follow me on Twitter!"

MagicRat
04-20-2011, 10:23 AM
<table class="sortable stats_table" id="teams_games_playoffs"><tbody><tr style="" onmouseover="hl(this);" onmouseout="uhl(this);" class=""><td align="right">10</td> <td csk="1998-05-17" align="left">Sun, May 17, 1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805170CHI.html)</td> <td align="left">@</td> <td csk="CHI1998-05-17" align="left">Chicago Bulls (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1998.html)</td> <td align="left">L</td> <td align="center">
</td> <td align="right">79</td> <td align="right">85</td> <td align="right">7</td> <td align="right">3</td> <td align="left">L 1</td> <td align="left">
</td> </tr> <tr style="" onmouseover="hl(this);" onmouseout="uhl(this);" class=""> <td align="right">11</td> <td csk="1998-05-19" align="left">Tue, May 19, 1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805190CHI.html)</td> <td align="left">@</td> <td csk="CHI1998-05-19" align="left">Chicago Bulls (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1998.html)</td> <td align="left">L</td> <td align="center">
</td> <td align="right">98</td> <td align="right">104</td> <td align="right">7</td> <td align="right">4</td> <td align="left">L 2</td> <td align="left">
</td> </tr> <tr style="" onmouseover="hl(this);" onmouseout="uhl(this);" class=""> <td align="right">12</td> <td csk="1998-05-23" align="left">Sat, May 23, 1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805230IND.html)</td> <td align="left">
</td> <td csk="CHI1998-05-23" align="left">Chicago Bulls (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1998.html)</td> <td align="left">W</td> <td align="center">
</td> <td align="right">107</td> <td align="right">105</td> <td align="right">8</td> <td align="right">4</td> <td align="left">W 1</td> <td align="left">
</td> </tr> <tr style="" onmouseover="hl(this);" onmouseout="uhl(this);" class=""> <td align="right">13</td> <td csk="1998-05-25" align="left">Mon, May 25, 1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805250IND.html)</td> <td align="left">
</td> <td csk="CHI1998-05-25" align="left">Chicago Bulls (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1998.html)</td> <td align="left">W</td> <td align="center">
</td> <td align="right">96</td> <td align="right">94</td> <td align="right">9</td> <td align="right">4</td> <td align="left">W 2</td> </tr></tbody></table>

joeyd
04-20-2011, 11:42 AM
I agree about Korver, but I thought the four words were "get more Offensive rebounds." If we did better at this, especially at crunch time, then we circumvent the big runs that the Bulls had made during the fourth quarters. ORBs equals second chance points, no matter if they are bunnies. Box out, stay aggressive (yeah, talking to you Big Roy, but you gotta stay out of foul trouble), get your ORBs and win the game.

cdash
04-20-2011, 11:46 AM
I can guarantee you this: Korver will have a body on him in winning time next game, if the situation calls for it. If not, I'm going to have a coronary in Conseco Fieldhouse.

BillS
04-20-2011, 12:24 PM
How about "Score last two minutes"?

Korver's 3s aren't daggers if we can get more than one FG in the last 2-3 minutes of the game.

TMJ31
04-20-2011, 01:37 PM
Yea, helping off Korver were two HUGE mental lapses in otherwise well executed defensive gameplans.

Really, what many of us have been saying has turned out to be 100% accurate:

We need to put the clamp on anyone NOT named Rose on the Bulls, and let Rose get his points the hard way, while taking his teammates out of rhythm on offense and defense.

Honestly, thus far we have done a surprisingly good job of this. We simply cannot let that come to a halt in the final minute of regulation and let guys like Korver hit daggers on us.

naptownmenace
04-20-2011, 01:50 PM
As much as I'd like to say Korver is the reason we lost, I can't honestly say that. I also can't blame the refs because the Pacers simply shot themselves in the foot time after time.

Failing to grab defensive rebounds, missing free throws, poor offensive execution in the last 3 minutes of both games, and bad defense against Rose completely derailed them.

The Pacers are young and inexperienced and that's why they didn't win. I'm not upset about it though. I'm happy that they can compete with Chicago and that even in defeat, they're making a good name for themselves. They needed the experience of the playoffs and games 1 & 2 were like master classes in dealing with playoff pressure. They didn't ace the test but they get a solid 'B' because of their effort.

NuffSaid
04-20-2011, 02:55 PM
I agree with HoopMoney that not defending Kover along the perimeter in crunch-time were the reasons the Pacers loss both games, but the way to mitigate that is for the Pacers (Vogel) to put his best defensive unit on the floor in those final 2-3 minutes. Most people believe that to be:

Granger - SF
George - SG
Collison - PG
Hans - PF
Hibbert - C

But I think Vogel would be better off going with:

Granger - SG
Hibbert - C
Hans - PF
Dahntey - SF
Collison or AJ Price (whomever he thinks is the better defender) - PG

Each time it's been George who has gotten burned by Kover. Part of that, I believe, his George not taking a good reading of who the Bulls have on the floor in crunch-time. You could blame the coach(ing staff) for not emphasizing man-D in this crucial span, but I think it's his lack of experience w/the game on the line that hurts him. The solution: Put a more experienced defensive-minded player out there who can also score the ball by breaking down the defenses should the Pacers get the ball back while either holding the lead or have a change to score off a transition basket or in a half-court set.

I like Paul George and I think he's done a terrific job defensively for the better part of both games, especially in Game 2 against Rose, but Dahntey's our man for this task down the stretch. I'm 100% confident of that.

CooperManning
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
I agree with HoopMoney that not defending Kover along the perimeter in crunch-time were the reasons the Pacers loss both games, but the way to mitigate that is for the Pacers (Vogel) to put his best defensive unit on the floor in those final 2-3 minutes. Most people believe that to be:

Granger - SF
George - SG
Collison - PG
Hans - PF
Hibbert - C

But I think Vogel would be better off going with:

Granger - SG
Hibbert - C
Hans - PF
Dahntey - SF
Collison or AJ Price (whomever he thinks is the better defender) - PG

Each time it's been George who has gotten burned by Kover. Part of that, I believe, his George not taking a good reading of who the Bulls have on the floor in crunch-time. You could blame the coach(ing staff) for not emphasizing man-D in this crucial span, but I think it's his lack of experience w/the game on the line that hurts him. The solution: Put a more experienced defensive-minded player out there who can also score the ball by breaking down the defenses should the Pacers get the ball back while either holding the lead or have a change to score off a transition basket or in a half-court set.

I like Paul George and I think he's done a terrific job defensively for the better part of both games, especially in Game 2 against Rose, but Dahntey's our man for this task down the stretch. I'm 100% confident of that.

George has been on Rose during most of his minutes in the series, especially game 2.

joeyd
04-20-2011, 03:03 PM
I'm telling ya...when your starting 5 grabs, what was it, only 4 ORBs during the entire game, you stand little chance of winning.

naptownmenace
04-20-2011, 03:05 PM
George has been on Rose during most of his minutes in the series, especially game 2.

That's what I immediately thought. The Pacers didn't stay at home on Korver. I think Rush might've been the guy who left Korver open in game 1 and it was AJ Price that left him to inexplicably double-team Noah.

naptownmenace
04-20-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm telling ya...when your starting 5 grabs, what was it, only 4 ORBs during the entire game, you stand little chance of winning.

They needed to grab more defensive rebounds. They got pounded on the defensive glass. They don't need to grab a ton of offensive rebounds to win. The 2000 Pacers Finals team were at the bottom of the league in offensive rebounds but they took care of business on the defensive boards.

joeyd
04-20-2011, 03:13 PM
They needed to grab more defensive rebounds. They got pounded on the defensive glass. They don't need to grab a ton of offensive rebounds to win. The 2000 Pacers Finals team were at the bottom of the league in offensive rebounds but they took care of business on the defensive boards.

Agreed, but I think that is the exception to the rule. We were out-rebounded 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 on ORB, I believe, which equals a ton more opportunities for the opposing team.

TMJ31
04-20-2011, 03:16 PM
As much as I'd like to say Korver is the reason we lost, I can't honestly say that. I also can't blame the refs because the Pacers simply shot themselves in the foot time after time.

Failing to grab defensive rebounds, missing free throws, poor offensive execution in the last 3 minutes of both games, and bad defense against Rose completely derailed them.



I think you're on the right track, but I disagree to an extent.

No, Korver is not the sole reason we lost... But blowing a defensive rotation TO Korver *IS* a major reason we lost (both games!)

Can we lay the blame solely on the refs? No... But we CAN say without any doubt that had the refs made fair and objective calls in the final 2 minutes of both games, the Pacers would have had a better opportunity at either holding the lead or regaining it in the waning moments.

Which brings me to the final point:

It really boils down to us, I completely agree with you here:
At the end of the day, yes the refs short changed us a couple possessions and points, but we have to be accountable for defending 3 point shooters in clutch time. We have to be accountable for missing more free throws in the 4th quarter than the final losing margin. We have to be accountable for making smart plays on the offensive end when they really matter.

And I think we are right there, and that we have proven to the Bulls, but most importantly ourselves, that we can win these games if we just make TINY adjustments in the final minutes.

If I am the Bulls, I am as nervous as you can possibly imagine right now. 2-0 lead be damned.

I firmly believe we are headed back to Chicago tied 2-2 with a big surge of momentum and a chip on our shoulders for the 2 we gave away. Hopefully at that point we can get over the hump and get a chance to bring the series lead back to Indy for game 6.

Optimistic? Yes.

Overly optimistic? I honestly don't think so. These last two games, the Pacers have outplayed and outcoached the Bulls, we just got some bad breaks. We won't let it happen a third time. Especially at Conseco.

PacersRule
04-20-2011, 03:19 PM
Good to see some high praise for the Pacers. However, don't know if Michael Wilbon really believes this, or is just saying it to add more color to his article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/columns/story?columnist=wilbon_michael&id=6387266


Don't waste time with the argument that it's only the Pacers, the seven-games-under-.500 Pacers, because the Pacers have a better roster by miles than fourth-seeded Orlando and play with a passion the Atlanta Hawks couldn't possibly understand. Whichever of those two the Bulls get in the second round won't come close to testing the Bulls the way the Pacers will over this series.

BillS
04-20-2011, 03:21 PM
Agreed, but I think that is the exception to the rule. We were out-rebounded 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 on ORB, I believe, which equals a ton more opportunities for the opposing team.

well, don't forget that every defensive rebound for the Pacers is one fewer offensive rebound for the Bulls.


Can we lay the blame solely on the refs? No... But we CAN say without any doubt that had the refs made fair and objective calls in the final 2 minutes of both games, the Pacers would have had a better opportunity at either holding the lead or regaining it in the waning moments.

We CAN say without any doubt that:

-- if we made our free throws throughout the game
-- if we had more than one score of any kind at all in the last 2-1/2 minutes

we would have had a better opportunity...

The statement about the refs is not what I would call "without any doubt".

joeyd
04-20-2011, 03:29 PM
well, don't forget that every defensive rebound for the Pacers is one fewer offensive rebound for the Bulls.


Yes, that's right. But I guess I was looking at it the opposite way in that every ORB we make is one fewer defensive rebound that they make, and we might have a higher probability of a put-back. I also agree with the rest of your last post. Bottom line is that we just did not play a complete game. Not that the Bulls did, but they took care of business when it mattered.

vnzla81
04-20-2011, 03:33 PM
Good to see some high praise for the Pacers. However, don't know if Michael Wilbon really believes this, or is just saying it to add more color to his article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/columns/story?columnist=wilbon_michael&id=6387266

Barkley said the same thing the other night, I watched PTI yesterday and MW was serious when making this comments.

joeyd
04-20-2011, 03:36 PM
Not a big Sir Charles fan, but he did have high praise for us during the last game. Said something to the effect that we didn't have a superstar but were loaded at every position, and a very good team. I think he genuinely meant it.

CooperManning
04-20-2011, 03:42 PM
Barkley said the same thing the other night, I watched PTI yesterday and MW was serious when making this comments.

I watched it too. Wilbon went as far as saying that Atlanta and Orlando's GMs would admit that the Pacers have a better roster behind closed doors. I don't know if I agree, but more power to him.

CooperManning
04-20-2011, 03:43 PM
Not a big Sir Charles fan, but he did have high praise for us during the last game. Said something to the effect that we didn't have a superstar but were loaded at every position, and a very good team. I think he genuinely meant it.

Saw this too. He said we're a lot like the new Nuggets depth-wise, which I agree with.

TMJ31
04-20-2011, 04:07 PM
The statement about the refs is not what I would call "without any doubt".

The Hibbert offensive foul? The ensuing Boozer push to the back?