PDA

View Full Version : Who starts? Who's benched?



pianoman
06-24-2011, 11:06 AM
In a press conference earlier this week, LB mentioned moving some starters back to the bench. Personally, I think Paul George earned the SG spot in the playoffs, and DC didn't do too bad either. I'd hate to bench DC, but could you imagine the defensive combo of George/Hill? It would be second only to Wade/James! Who would you rather see start?

Ownagedood
06-24-2011, 11:10 AM
Hill is a perfect sixth man. The only way im against him being the sixth man is when we are playing a team like the bulls or the heat where we may really need some defense to be in the game to stop the likes of Rose/Wade.

PacerPenguins
06-24-2011, 11:13 AM
hill is a combo guard and paul george is a 3.... we should start hill instead of george imo bc then if hill or granger get tired... he can jump in for one of them. Hill is gonna help us alot... I absolutely love this trade and he will hopefully be a hometown favorite.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 11:18 AM
GH/Paul George would be the best unit.

woowoo
06-24-2011, 11:23 AM
What a nice problem to have... :)

I really like the trade, Indiana gets a proven commodity that can step right in and help.

Hibbert
Ty, JMC
Granger, George
Hill
Collison

I really like that core group. Sprinkle in AJ, Rush, or Lance and this is a group that I think can win.

BigAndy
06-24-2011, 11:25 AM
I feel like this depends on who we're playing. We may need to start Hill if the other team starts a guard that Darren can't defend.

PacerPenguins
06-24-2011, 11:26 AM
What a nice problem to have... :)

I really like the trade, Indiana gets a proven commodity that can step right in and help.

Hibbert
Ty, JMC
Granger, George
Hill
Collison

I really like that core group. Sprinkle in AJ, Rush, or Lance and this is a group that I think can win.

now if we get nene... check this out

Hibbert/Nene (maybe some time at center)
Nene/Tyler
Granger/George
Hill/George
Collison/Stephenson

Really?
06-24-2011, 11:30 AM
now if we get nene... check this out

Hibbert/Nene (maybe some time at center)
Nene/Tyler
Granger/George
Hill/George
Collison/Stephenson

lol Duplicating George I like that...

Yeah NeNe would be a good pick-up if he doesn't resign...

PacerPenguins
06-24-2011, 11:32 AM
lol Duplicating George I like that...

Yeah NeNe would be a good pick-up if he doesn't resign...

i wasnt trying to duplicate george.... i was trying to point out he could come off the bench for either of them...

PacersRule
06-24-2011, 11:34 AM
now if we get nene... check this out

Hibbert/Nene (maybe some time at center)
Nene/Tyler
Granger/George
Hill/George
Collison/Stephenson
:drooling:

Triangle
06-24-2011, 11:35 AM
I really think GH was brought here to play alongside Lance...

RLeWorm
06-24-2011, 11:40 AM
Paul George earned his starting spot in my books. I say start DC and have Hill back him up. I just want to know where Lance is going to play. Hope he gets some playing time.

PacersRule
06-24-2011, 11:52 AM
I've actually grown quite fond of DC after our series with the Bulls and hope that he keeps his starting pg role. He scored 17 pts, 9 ast, 6 reb in game one during that series and that's really impressive against bull's defense. Plus when DC went down, it just showed how important he is to the Pacers offense. I think George Hill will be the Pacers' version of Jason Terry, coming off the bench to provide a scoring boost.

RLeWorm
06-24-2011, 11:54 AM
I've actually grown quite fond of DC after our series with the Bulls and hope that he keeps his starting pg role. He scored 17 pts, 9 ast, 6 reb in game one during that series and that's really impressive against bull's defense. Plus when DC went down, it just showed how important he is to the Pacers offense. I think George Hill will be the Pacers' version of Jason Terry, coming off the bench to provide a scoring boost.

yea i think we win Game 2 if he never went down. But he did so.........

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2011, 12:18 PM
I don't think Hill will be starting. I still like Collison, George, Granger, Hansbrough, Hibbert with the guys we currently have. I prefer Hill coming off the bench. He could be fantastic off the bench.

Hicks
06-24-2011, 12:54 PM
The beauty of it is there's no wrong answer; I like all three combinations depending on the matchups.

With that said, if in doubt, it's usually best to go bigger and with better defense, so I picked Hill/George.

Trophy
06-24-2011, 12:58 PM
No doubt Vogel is gonna try different rotations, but keep it consistent (unlike a certain somebody who loved to play with the rotations often).

I think he'll start off with DC and Paul and take it from there.

CooperManning
06-24-2011, 01:04 PM
I think the bigger question is who finishes?

PacerPenguins
06-24-2011, 01:05 PM
I think the bigger question is who finishes?

no doubt in my mind.... hill will be the first one on the court out of the three

PacerPenguins
06-24-2011, 01:41 PM
from the Ric Bucher chat

Phenom (Naptown)

George Hill--good or bad for Pacers? Will he start?
Ric Bucher (1:30 PM)

Love the trade for Pacers. Undersized at 1, Hill can play with or in front of Collison. Lots of people feel Collison is a great-off-the-bench PG and merely an adequate starter.

heres another one

John (San Antonio)

Winner of the Spurs/Pacers trade? It hurts to see a contributor like Hill go, and I hope we're getting more than just avoiding paying Hill what he would have been owed after his current contract expires...
Ric Bucher (1:42 PM)

It's not often I don't like a Spurs' trade for SA, but this is one of them. Indy not only gets a long, athletic experienced young PG but a IUPUI alum.

PacerPenguins
06-24-2011, 01:55 PM
i rly like george.

ksuttonjr76
06-24-2011, 02:19 PM
Personally, I would prefer a bigger backcourt. If it was up to me, I would start George Hill over DC. No matter what, IMHO, Paul George should NOT be benched, and I don't like having a 6'2" player at the SG spot. Especially considering the starting PG would be DC, unless we start Lance Stephenson.

Ozwalt72
06-24-2011, 02:25 PM
One point I want to mention is that I'm not so sure Paul George is ready for more than 24 minutes a game at this point.

RLeWorm
06-24-2011, 02:26 PM
right now the only thing i'm hating is seeign George Hill play at the 2. I rather just have him play the 1 all the time. I know he can play the 2 and defend the 2 but y it just makes it harder for him

BRushWithDeath
06-24-2011, 02:29 PM
I can see no logical explanation that could make me think Hill isn't a major improvement over Collison at the point.

Hicks
06-24-2011, 02:55 PM
I can see no logical explanation that could make me think Hill isn't a major improvement over Collison at the point.

He was 1/5th of the 6th most effective unit in the league last year? ;)

Ozwalt72
06-24-2011, 02:59 PM
He was 1/5th of the 6th most effective unit in the league last year? ;)

Logic is overrated!

I think Collison can start, but I expect to see Hill finishing.

Eleazar
06-24-2011, 03:21 PM
I can see no logical explanation that could make me think Hill isn't a major improvement over Collison at the point.

Hill is more of a combo guard than a PG. Ideally a combo guard comes off the bench, and doesn't start. If the combo guard was a special kind of talent (like a Wade) then they should start, but Hill is just a normal combo guard.

Kid Minneapolis
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
I can see no logical explanation that could make me think Hill isn't a major improvement over Collison at the point.

:hmm:

Infinite MAN_force
06-24-2011, 04:03 PM
If people don't like Collison because he isn't a "true point" then they really aren't going to like Hill. Collison is much more of a PG than Hill is.

To me, Hill is the perfect scoring combo guard off the bench who can play backup PG and backup SG. I think Collison should start but Hill will challenge for a decent share of the minutes.

LeeTheG7
06-24-2011, 04:06 PM
Paul George isn't a back up actually he has the most talent on Indiana. Its between collison or Hill realistically.

BRushWithDeath
06-24-2011, 04:29 PM
He was 1/5th of the 6th most effective unit in the league last year? ;)

That still is remarkable to me.

8 teams had a lineup that ended the year at more than +100. The Lakers and Boston both had 2. So out of all the lineups that teams put on the floor, only 10 eneded at +100. The fact that a Pacers team who won 37 games had such a group, is astounding. Especially when you consider how much better it's numbers were than any other Pacer group. The next Pacers group? +26.


1. Lakers: +256 Fisher, Kobe, Artest, Odom, Gasol

2. Boston: +169 Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Glen Davis

3. Houston: +162 Lowry, Martin, Battier, Scola, Hayes

4. Lakers: +149 Fisher, Kobe, Artest, Gasol, Bynum

4. Spurs: +149 Parker, Ginobli, Jefferson, Blair, Duncan

6. Pacers: +121 Collison, Dunleavy, Granger, McRoberts, Hibbert

7. Dallas: +111 Kidd, Stevenson, Butler, Dirk, Chandler

7. Orlando: +111 Nelson, J. Richardson, Turkoglu, Bass, Howard

9. Miami: +103 Arroyo, Wade, James, Bosh, Ilgauskas

10. Boston: +101 Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Shaq

There are a lot of All-Star games among the players on this list. What made Houston and Indiana so different from the others? They didn't have the star power but each group had two really good glue guys who made their teammates better. (Battier & Hayes and Dunleavy & McRoberts)

Mackey_Rose
06-24-2011, 04:48 PM
If people don't like Collison because he isn't a "true point" then they really aren't going to like Hill. Collison is much more of a PG than Hill is.

To me, Hill is the perfect scoring combo guard off the bench who can play backup PG and backup SG. I think Collison should start but Hill will challenge for a decent share of the minutes.

I don't know if Collison is any more of a point guard than Hill is, my hunch is neither one is terribly interested in getting their teammates open shots.

I do know one is able to defend his position at an adequate level, and the other is Darren Collison. That's why I'd start Hill from day 1.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 05:23 PM
I don't know if Collison is any more of a point guard than Hill is, my hunch is neither one is terribly interested in getting their teammates open shots.

I do know one is able to defend his position at an adequate level, and the other is Darren Collison. That's why I'd start Hill from day 1.

I agree with this, DC should be our 6 man.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 05:24 PM
He was 1/5th of the 6th most effective unit in the league last year? ;)

:laugh: good one.

Eleazar
06-24-2011, 06:04 PM
That still is remarkable to me.

8 teams had a lineup that ended the year at more than +100. The Lakers and Boston both had 2. So out of all the lineups that teams put on the floor, only 10 eneded at +100. The fact that a Pacers team who won 37 games had such a group, is astounding. Especially when you consider how much better it's numbers were than any other Pacer group. The next Pacers group? +26.


1. Lakers: +256 Fisher, Kobe, Artest, Odom, Gasol

2. Boston: +169 Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Glen Davis

3. Houston: +162 Lowry, Martin, Battier, Scola, Hayes

4. Lakers: +149 Fisher, Kobe, Artest, Gasol, Bynum

4. Spurs: +149 Parker, Ginobli, Jefferson, Blair, Duncan

6. Pacers: +121 Collison, Dunleavy, Granger, McRoberts, Hibbert

7. Dallas: +111 Kidd, Stevenson, Butler, Dirk, Chandler

7. Orlando: +111 Nelson, J. Richardson, Turkoglu, Bass, Howard

9. Miami: +103 Arroyo, Wade, James, Bosh, Ilgauskas

10. Boston: +101 Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Shaq

There are a lot of All-Star games among the players on this list. What made Houston and Indiana so different from the others? They didn't have the star power but each group had two really good glue guys who made their teammates better. (Battier & Hayes and Dunleavy & McRoberts)

I do think if there was more consistency from JOB that the second most used line-up would have a better stat than +26.

LeeTheG7
06-24-2011, 06:34 PM
I don't know if Collison is any more of a point guard than Hill is, my hunch is neither one is terribly interested in getting their teammates open shots.

I do know one is able to defend his position at an adequate level, and the other is Darren Collison. That's why I'd start Hill from day 1.

This is a great point Collison and Hill are most likely similar at scoring but Hill is a lot better defender so he will most likely start.

BRushWithDeath
06-25-2011, 12:04 AM
I do think if there was more consistency from JOB that the second most used line-up would have a better stat than +26.

The second most used lineup, Collison, George, Granger, Hansbrough, and Hibbert was not the second best group I alluded to. That group was collectively -19.

The second best group at +26 was Price, Rush, Granger, McRoberts, and Foster.

ksuttonjr76
06-25-2011, 12:19 AM
The second most used lineup, Collison, George, Granger, Hansbrough, and Hibbert was not the second best group I alluded to. That group was collectively -19.

The second best group at +26 was Price, Rush, Granger, McRoberts, and Foster.

As a side note...it does go to show how important Granger is ;).

BRushWithDeath
06-25-2011, 12:28 AM
As a side note...it does go to show how important Granger is ;).

That just shows he played a ton.

He was a part of 14 of our 20 most used lineups.

ksuttonjr76
06-25-2011, 12:46 AM
That just shows he played a ton.

He was a part of 14 of our 20 most used lineups.

Man, stop hating on my observation :).

ChristianDudley
06-25-2011, 12:55 AM
I'd say bring George Hill off the bench at the start of the season, but if a change needs to be made, then do it.

Pacerfan83
06-25-2011, 01:01 AM
I say definitely should keep Hill as the sixth man. Hell he could be in the running for the sixth man of the year award imo the way his numbers look in Conseco.

Eleazar
06-25-2011, 01:01 AM
The second most used lineup, Collison, George, Granger, Hansbrough, and Hibbert was not the second best group I alluded to. That group was collectively -19.

The second best group at +26 was Price, Rush, Granger, McRoberts, and Foster.

I know, I wasn't trying to suggest that. If I had made a guess of what line-up it was I would have gone Collison-Rush-Granger-McRoberts-Hibbert. Since it was Price, Rush, Granger, McRoberts, and Foster than that means that was probably the most effective line-up post JOB. Although that would have mostly been against back-ups.

daschysta
06-25-2011, 02:25 AM
Collison is still a vastly superior distributor compared to hill too... Hill got lots of minutes in SA and had paltry assist totals despite being in an absolutely elite offense. Collison started to average more assists as the year went on, and I thought he got better and better at involving other people. He's much more of a point guard than Hill.

I htink you start collison and have hill back up both the one and the two. On nights when collison is just being killed by a huge point like a westbrook or a rose Hill can get more minutes than usual.

Based on history and such I honestly see hill perhaps starting, wheras PG becomes our sixth man, a role that he thrived in for a good portion of last year (goon squad).

Everything i've read out of san antonio stresses that hill really has no skill distributing the ball, he's a great defender, but you guys complain nonstop about collison not being the "prototypical" point, collison is way more of one than hill is though.

Having an elite sixth man who can guard the one and the two and give you a scoring punch off the bench is an aweseome thing to have. As the first guy off the bench there are plenty of minutes for him, just give him AJ's and part of brandons minutes, problem solved. Pop would often put Hill on larger SG's anyways and he did just fine, his freakish wingspan allows him to effectively guard those guys.

Pacer Fan
06-25-2011, 02:32 AM
Shouldn't we wait when the season starts and know who's on the roster. I mean, If Danny gets traded which is highly possible your poll does no good.
Starters would then probably be DC/GH/PG

daschysta
06-25-2011, 02:35 AM
Shouldn't we wait when the season starts and know who's on the roster. I mean, If Danny gets traded which is highly possible your poll does no good.
Starters would then probably be DC/GH/PG

I would imagine that if we were really looking hard to trade danny we would keep our "steal" of a SF prospect in leonard. We'll trade danny if we get our socks knocked off, but I don't think it's very likely at all. I'd like to give him a chance to build on his playoffs, all accounts are reporting an uber focused and hardworkign summer for danny. If he has an amazing year it'd be better to trade him then, as opposed to now when consensus around the league is that he's regressed a bit.

Pacer Fan
06-25-2011, 02:41 AM
I would imagine that if we were really looking hard to trade danny we would keep our "steal" of a SF prospect in leonard. We'll trade danny if we get our socks knocked off, but I don't think it's very likely at all. I'd like to give him a chance to build on his playoffs, all accounts are reporting an uber focused and hardworkign summer for danny. If he has an amazing year it'd be better to trade him then, as opposed to now when consensus around the league is that he's regressed a bit.

Thats not the consensus that I've been reading in multiple articles. I have read on how he played like his old self of the all-star year in the playoffs, that he had basically fell in a funk the last couple years and he hasn't lost anything, just needs the positive challange. I'd like to see your consensus to make you state that on this day!

RLeWorm
06-25-2011, 02:48 AM
just because Hill can play the 2 doesn't mean he is a 2. Y would u want him to have the disadvantage of going against taller guards? Play him at the 1 where he is most effective.

daschysta
06-25-2011, 03:30 AM
Thats not the consensus that I've been reading in multiple articles. I have read on how he played like his old self of the all-star year in the playoffs, that he had basically fell in a funk the last couple years and he hasn't lost anything, just needs the positive challange. I'd like to see your consensus to make you state that on this day!

You don't believe Danny had more value as a 25 year old scoring 25.8 ppg and making the all-star game than he does now as a 28 year old scoring 20 ppg on worse efficiency, along with a degradation of his defensive effort? If Danny has a bounce-back year his value would surely be higher then than it is now.

Pacer!
06-25-2011, 07:32 AM
Shouldn't we wait when the season starts and know who's on the roster. I mean, If Danny gets traded which is highly possible your poll does no good.
Starters would then probably be DC/GH/PG

I don't expect Danny to be traded at all, and if he was I would be bitterly disapointed. Danny is still such an important player for us, losing both he and Dunleavy in the one offseason would reduce our offensive punch substantially. Despite what some think, PG is not ready to be a go-to-guy on offense, he is still young and inconsistent on this end of the floor... combine this with Hibbert's inconsistencies and Granger is the only bonafied scorer on our squad (accounting for a fit Mikey D not being around). Hill is a nice aquisition and a nice scorer, however I expect him to be a bench scorer, scoring in bunches and not a consistent go-to-guy... unless he improves substantially over this next season.

rm1369
06-25-2011, 10:13 AM
As a side note...it does go to show how important Granger is ;).

IMO it's good fodder for the Josh / Hans debate.

rm1369
06-25-2011, 10:19 AM
I don't want any part of a DC / GH backcourt. I admittedly hate DC's game, so I'd prefer to see GH / PG. Of course I'd love to have the Holiday / PG backcourt that we should have, but we don't.

Holiday / GH / Lance
PG / GH / Lance
DG / PG

Oh what could have been! Makes me want to shed a tear!

Pacer Fan
06-25-2011, 12:01 PM
You don't believe Danny had more value as a 25 year old scoring 25.8 ppg and making the all-star game than he does now as a 28 year old scoring 20 ppg on worse efficiency, along with a degradation of his defensive effort? If Danny has a bounce-back year his value would surely be higher then than it is now.

Where are you coming off with that? You need to reread what I wrote, then reread your 1st reply to me, then my 1st reply to you! Now I will ignore what you just wrote me because i'm not going down that road.

However, I think Danny will be traded, there is little doubt in that. Doesn't mean I want it or I think his value is down or up or anything. I just think he will be traded.
The only way he won't be is if the FA is highly successful. Getting Landry and Dalembert and keeping Granger would be really cool, but I have huge doubts on that.

LB trades Jones/Rush/Price and future draft picks in some combination to aquire a subpar PF.

Trading for a wracked veteran contract in exchange for Posey and say Jones.

With the exception of Hill, something has to happen or Pacers will have no better of a team and I don't think Hill will be the big move.

I do think Granger is the smartest trade bait out there. LB can trade for 2 solid players and maybe a draft pick. This would give him his best 10 man / bench in the league for the new season. Evaluate all the talent and continue pluging in players the coming and year after to build a solid team that he wishes to have.

Pacer!
06-25-2011, 12:28 PM
I do think Granger is the smartest trade bait out there. LB can trade for 2 solid players and maybe a draft pick. This would give him his best 10 man / bench in the league for the new season. Evaluate all the talent and continue pluging in players the coming and year after to build a solid team that he wishes to have.

This sounds great in theory, but it would leave us without a go-to-scorer for the near future...

ksuttonjr76
06-25-2011, 02:01 PM
Where are you coming off with that? You need to reread what I wrote, then reread your 1st reply to me, then my 1st reply to you! Now I will ignore what you just wrote me because i'm not going down that road.

However, I think Danny will be traded, there is little doubt in that. Doesn't mean I want it or I think his value is down or up or anything. I just think he will be traded.
The only way he won't be is if the FA is highly successful. Getting Landry and Dalembert and keeping Granger would be really cool, but I have huge doubts on that.

LB trades Jones/Rush/Price and future draft picks in some combination to aquire a subpar PF.

Trading for a wracked veteran contract in exchange for Posey and say Jones.

With the exception of Hill, something has to happen or Pacers will have no better of a team and I don't think Hill will be the big move.

I do think Granger is the smartest trade bait out there. LB can trade for 2 solid players and maybe a draft pick. This would give him his best 10 man / bench in the league for the new season. Evaluate all the talent and continue pluging in players the coming and year after to build a solid team that he wishes to have.

And whom could we REALISTICALLY trade for that would be an impact player now and still keep us in playoff contention?