PDA

View Full Version : Odd thoughts: Unchained...



Peck
02-23-2012, 04:36 AM
Well if nothing else the bench certainly had a break out night. This was good for two reasons. 1. It has been a long time since the bench was really much of a factor in games. 2. Our starters didnít have a lot going on tonight so this was a great night for them to produce.

Was it a coincidence that this was the night that George Hill returned and the bench once again became a cohesive unit? I think not.

While he only had four points and three assists he was very active in moving the ball and often times hit players for shots that they were fouled on thus negating any assist he would have been awarded. His defense was also very good for a player who hasnít been on the court for almost a month.

Itís really very hard to judge what type of impact he would have on a regular game, I donít consider games vs. the Bobcats regular games, but it surely canít hurt.

The great news is that our 4 game winning streak vs. the cupcake teams has happened at the exact same time that the Philadelphia 76ers has hit a 5 game losing streak. The bad news is that because Orlando has a better record than us, even though we now have a better record than the 76ers, we have not been able to rise in the standings due to Philly being the leader of the Atlantic. In fact we actually are a game and a half ahead of Philly.

Hopefully Orlando can move Howard and totally collapse after the all-star break.

Again I am not unhappy about winning but just to be blunt this current 4 game win streak is less than impressive due to the level of competition. However it did go a long way in erasing that 5 game losing streak. Sadly though the shadow casts by those losses to the Hawks and Heat just loom very large for me, not because we lost but because we did not even compete. Even though we all know the problems we still are having problems with something that was our strong suite in the beginning of the season and that is rebounding. Tonight we finally caught up but in the first half we were getting beat on the boards again.

I think Iíll be better again the next time we beat a good team. That is what Iím looking for right now. Certainly I appreciate the break in the schedule but I know that just snacking up on these wins can be fruit from the poisonous tree.

But letís not disparage the team after a win, especially a win that the bench pretty much was responsible for.

Tonight will be bullet point style.

ē Well if youíre going to talk you have got to start with Tyler Hansbrough. He hit his first jumper. You can almost determine how he is going to play in a game based on if he hitís or misses his first jump shot. Season high in scoring but almost as important was the fact that he was hitting the boards hard. Hard to imagine him getting his shot blocked 5 times and still be the best player, but somehow he did.

ē A.J. Price had his best game as a Pacer. Quite possibly the best point guard play we have had in years. He was working the pick and roll tonight as though he were Steve Nash (ok that is a little much but you get the point he was dang good). Took seven shots but I felt like every single one of them was within the flow of the offense and was not forced. His defense was solid as well but tonight his great play was on the offensive side of the floor, he was probably as important as Tyler was in this game.

ē Lou Amundson was just a work horse out there. Yea you would like for him to hit more of his shots from the floor but then again if Granger canít hit then why should we expect it from Lou. But everything else he did he was superb at. 6 offensive rebounds 6 defensive rebounds and 2 blocks. I donít know about anybody else but I certainly appreciate the effort he brought to the floor and I will say he was a huge part of the reason we won this game.

ē Dahntay Jones is just so in control of his game on the offensive end does he even seem like the same player who used to just put his head down a barge his way to the basket often running over people? That put back dunk with the exclamation scream was a back breaker for the Bobcats. Solid defense as always.

ē George Hill in just a very short time back made his presence felt right away. He is just so important for our team because he is a do anything kind of a guard. He can defend, he can pass or he can score. He had two perfect passes to Tyler tonight and I wonder how much Hansbrough missed him while he was out.

The starters are hard to judge because they hardly played in the second half. Roy was having a decent game and while Danny couldnít hit the broad side of a barn again he was at least getting to the free throw line.

Well as we enter the all-star break if we reflect we have to be very happy with our record and also we had some very big wins on the road with victories in Dallas, Minnesota, Los Angles & Chicago. We had a couple of very disappointing losses to Miami and one to Atlanta.

But thanks to us finally catching a break the schedule and taking care of teams that we had to take care of we are right back at one of the top teams in the East.

Letís all take a break, enjoy seeing Paul & Roy in the all-star weekend and come back with a new dedication to attack the second half of the season and make a very strong statement going to the playoffs.

BTW, isnít it great to say playoffs and actually not talk about just trying to make them?

Long live Frank!

Also I apologize for the brevity of my posts tonight but as Naptown Seth can attest we spent Wednesday night running with the devil and I had to watch the game when I got home at 1.

http://postmediavancouversun.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/van-halen-tattoo.jpg?w=580

presto123
02-23-2012, 04:52 AM
Unchained......yeah ya hit the ground running. Hopefully that's what the Pacers do after the break.

TheDavisBrothers
02-23-2012, 04:58 AM
Tyler's ERUPTION was great!
AJ was ON FIRE tonight!
That was a great JUMP by Dahntay on the putback!
I just wish the starters played better so it was the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS!
Oh well the Pacers still have won me over with their great first half, SO THIS IS LOVE?
Now I can DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY!

xBulletproof
02-23-2012, 05:09 AM
I wish AJ had a more consistent shot. When he can shoot, he REALLY makes an impact on the game. Since his rookie year I've not been able to put my finger on it at any point, but when he's out there things just seem to run smoother. I can't say why, I don't know why but I can see it. When he's shooting well it just goes to another level.

Late 2nd round picks don't make the team a lot of times. He's a solid, solid pick at #22 in the 2nd round. I wish I could pinpoint what he does different, but I generally get a different feel from the team when he's out there with the 2nd unit.

presto123
02-23-2012, 05:28 AM
Tyler's ERUPTION was great!
AJ was ON FIRE tonight!
That was a great JUMP by Dahntay on the putback!
I just wish the starters played better so it was the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS!
Oh well the Pacers still have won me over with their great first half, SO THIS IS LOVE?
Now I can DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY!


Yeah but when PUSH COMES TO SHOVE can Vogel convince the team to bring it every night? I'LL WAIT for the day that this team plays consistent ball. He just needs to convince the team to GET UP for every game and we'll be standing on TOP OF THE WORLD. RIGHT NOW would be a good time to start:D

TheDavisBrothers
02-23-2012, 05:44 AM
Yeah but when PUSH COMES TO SHOVE can Vogel convince the team to bring it every night? I'LL WAIT for the day that this team plays consistent ball. He just needs to convince the team to GET UP for every game and we'll be standing on TOP OF THE WORLD. RIGHT NOW would be a good time to start:D

Double thanks for the word play and the actual message! I think we can really make some noise this year if our intensity is as high as it was against Dallas or Chicago, unfortunately we haven't maintained it enough...

presto123
02-23-2012, 05:56 AM
Double thanks for the word play and the actual message! I think we can really make some noise this year if our intensity is as high as it was against Dallas or Chicago, unfortunately we haven't maintained it enough...


Thanks. I agree. The inconsistency of this team drives me crazy but when playoff time comes I think they will be focused and up to the challenge.

Unclebuck
02-23-2012, 10:03 AM
I am expecting Lance to pretty much sit the rest of the way this season. he's gotten consistent minutes through the first 33 games. He's shown improvement, but he needs a lot more work and I think it is obvious any minutes Lance might have gotten should go to George Hill and even AJ Price. Price is not any type of longterm solution (like Lance might be) but Pacers need to win as many games as possible and AJ helps that more than Lance does right now.

Ace E.Anderson
02-23-2012, 10:25 AM
Again I am not unhappy about winning but just to be blunt this current 4 game win streak is less than impressive due to the level of competition. However it did go a long way in erasing that 5 game losing streak. Sadly though the shadow casts by those losses to the Hawks and Heat just loom very large for me, not because we lost but because we did not even compete.

I think Iíll be better again the next time we beat a good team. That is what Iím looking for right now. Certainly I appreciate the break in the schedule but I know that just snacking up on these wins can be fruit from the poisonous tree.



I Agree. This 4-game winning streak, as nice as it is, comes after a 5-game losing streak where we weren't even close to being competitive in 2 of them, and lost to the lowly Cavs in another. In my eyes, we dont have many wins against quality competition (I don't count the Bulls b/c they were without their second best player, and we barely won that game)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE our record right now. But it's definitely misleading. But, as Bill Parcells would say "you are what your record says you are" Hopefully we improve and are able to at least beat a few good teams during the second half of the season

NapTonius Monk
02-23-2012, 10:30 AM
Should we make a run at Wilson Chandler?

Since86
02-23-2012, 10:47 AM
Why?

NapTonius Monk
02-23-2012, 10:49 AM
Why?
I think he'd help this team, both now and in the long term.

bphil
02-23-2012, 10:50 AM
Again I am not unhappy about winning but just to be blunt this current 4 game win streak is less than impressive due to the level of competition.

Great write-up as always, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this one sentiment. This four game winning streak against terrible teams has me more excited than anything else about this year's team. In years past the Pacers would ALWAYS play down to their competition... they would beat Boston or LA and then lose the next three games to the worst three teams in the league. That always drove me completely insane.

This team seems to be much better at consistently beating the bad teams that they need to beat in order to get a decent seed in the playoffs...

Since86
02-23-2012, 10:52 AM
He doesn't take the Pacers to a top-tier team, he plays the same positions as Danny and PG.

The Pacers need to address bigger weaknesses than the 2-3 positions.

Nuntius
02-23-2012, 10:53 AM
(I don't count the Bulls b/c they were without their second best player, and we barely won that game)


If you don't count the win against the Bulls then you shouldn't count the losses against the Sixers and the Cavaliers either. Consistency, people, consistency ;)

That said, the 4 game winning streak alone is not telling a lot. Still, the guys had the resolve to come through and answer to the losing streak with a streak of their one. Sure, it was against bad to mediocre competition at best (I still think that the Hornets are better than their record but that's besides the point). But it's not like we could play with harder opponents and chose not to.

No one can change the schedule. Sometimes the schedule has some tough matches in the row and you lose your concentration and end up with a losing streak. Sometimes you get some weak competition in the row and end up with a winning streak. We shouldn't read too much into our losing streak or into the winning streak.

What we have to look into is our inconsistent level of play. We also need to improve ourselves in certain areas. We are very weak in transition and when it comes to PnR. We cannot really run or defend either of those. Also, as of lately we're a bit shaky when it comes to FT shooting. Those are the things that we should improve on during the break.

Ace E.Anderson
02-23-2012, 11:01 AM
If you don't count the win against the Bulls then you shouldn't count the losses against the Sixers and the Cavaliers either. Consistency, people, consistency ;)

That said, the 4 game winning streak alone is not telling a lot. Still, the guys had the resolve to come through and answer to the losing streak with a streak of their one. Sure, it was against bad to mediocre competition at best (I still think that the Hornets are better than their record but that's besides the point). But it's not like we could play with harder opponents and chose not to.

No one can change the schedule. Sometimes the schedule has some tough matches in the row and you lose your concentration and end up with a losing streak. Sometimes you get some weak competition in the row and end up with a winning streak. We shouldn't read too much into our losing streak or into the winning streak.

What we have to look into is our inconsistent level of play. We also need to improve ourselves in certain areas. We are very weak in transition and when it comes to PnR. We cannot really run or defend either of those. Also, as of lately we're a bit shaky when it comes to FT shooting. Those are the things that we should improve on during the break.

Lol upon first glance, I'd say you were right. BUT, if we want to be one of the better (top-4) teams in the east, we HAVE to be able to win games against the Cavs without our best player. The 76ers loss, I could understand, but you get my point. The bulls have played most of the season without either Rose, or Deng, and they're blowing teams out of the water. Cleveland ran us off the court. There is a difference.

I do agree with you on our consistency. Some games we look awesome (Mavs, T-Wolves, 1st game against ATL) and other games we look lifeless. We need to fix that after the break.

PacerGuy
02-23-2012, 11:03 AM
Why?

Where is our depth after Danny & Paul? We start D.Jones when either is out. What happens if there is an injury to either? IMO if either of them go down we are screwed. We need another scorer, & one who can play the 3 is HUGE. Hell even if Roy went down, you can stop-gap @ C if you have wings that can score. If you dont have wings & are w/o a dominate PG, you go no where in the post season. WC is also a great 3 pt shooter & that is a need IMO. ADD WC to our 2nd unit & we a much stronger & equipted to advance in the post season.

And to the other point of the future - if does give you options. We could sign WC for more $ then anyone for just the rest of the yr (DEN has said multi yr deal or none), or you sign him to a longer deal w/ the intent of making another deal (likely in the off-season) to bolster us somewhere else (PG?). Chandler is younger & would be cheaper then Danny. Danny + DC & picks & cap could = a high level PG (Rondo, D.Will?).

Just something to think about....

Since86
02-23-2012, 11:07 AM
Is the price worth the upgrade though? In Chandler Wilson's case, most likely not.

PacerGuy
02-23-2012, 11:19 AM
Is the price worth the upgrade though? In Chandler Wilson's case, most likely not.

I disagree, especially if you are talking for the rest of the year only. Money is all we give up - no player, no picks. How is that cost not worth it?

daschysta
02-23-2012, 11:21 AM
Jones has actually been a very servicable backup this year. George hill is our backup 2, especially since AJ has been awesome at backup pg as of late.

What team isn't screwed in the playoffs if a key guy got injured?

Nuntius
02-23-2012, 11:27 AM
Lol upon first glance, I'd say you were right. BUT, if we want to be one of the better (top-4) teams in the east, we HAVE to be able to win games against the Cavs without our best player. The 76ers loss, I could understand, but you get my point. The bulls have played most of the season without either Rose, or Deng, and they're blowing teams out of the water. Cleveland ran us off the court. There is a difference.


There is a difference between a top 4 team in the East and a top 3 team in the entire NBA. Because that's what the Bulls are. A top 3 team in the NBA. We're a good team but we're not as good as the Bulls yet.

Therefore, I wouldn't compare us to them. I would compare us to the Sixers and the Magic.

Now, it's safe to assume that the Magic wouldn't win as many games if Howard went down.

About the Sixers now. We have lost Granger for 2 games and Hill for 13. They have lost Spencer Hawes for 20 games. We have an equal Strength Of Schedule (.482) and we have played one game less. We have a better record currently. What I'm trying to say is that good teams (who are not great yet) lose games from time to time due to injuries.

PS: The Bulls are without a doubt a better team than us but we match up with them well enough to beat them or give them fits. They are a better team because they have way more experience in being good. They have a very experienced coach and players who achieved before they came to the Bulls as well. We have a young coach and a young core. We can develop into a great team. Same with Philly. That's why I cannot compare us to the Bulls yet.

BillS
02-23-2012, 11:33 AM
I never feel comfortable with people disparaging a win streak against lower-level teams. It sort of smacks to me of trying to discount a win gained at the free throw line. Just like you have to make your free throws to win close games, you have to beat the teams you are "supposed" to beat in order to be an above-average team.

Would folks have felt better if our win streak was against the good teams and our losing streak was against the bad teams? No, we'd then be getting the whole "they only play well when they are psyched up for the game" thing.

The streak doesn't matter, it is how they play each game. Concerns arose because the team looked beaten from the outset against the teams during the losing streak, and has failed to come out at the beginning of the game even against the lower-level teams. My view, however, is that they WERE able to come back and take care of business - and my previous comparison of these wins to free throws was intentional. Sometimes, when shots aren't falling and things are getting chaotic, you need some easy shots - like free throws - to get you back into the rhythm. Consider these games the "free throws" for our season - we didn't immediately snap back into rhythm, but each win helps focus on what we are doing RIGHT instead of what we are doing WRONG.

Since86
02-23-2012, 11:36 AM
I disagree, especially if you are talking for the rest of the year only. Money is all we give up - no player, no picks. How is that cost not worth it?

Because you have to sign him to a big enough contract where the Nuggets won't match. He's a RFA.

Why would the Pacers pay $5-7mil for a guy who's going to only be available for two months? Especially when the whole reasoning hinges around the "IF Danny gets hurt" scenario?

If you think he's the missing piece that takes you from second/third tier team to a top tier team, then you do it. But I seriously doubt that a backup 2/3 is the missing piece here.

And besides, Chandler seems to be looking for a longer term contract than just a two month rental.



Wilson Chandler (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/24252/wilson-chandler), who met with the Toronto Raptors (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/teams/toronto-raptors) on Wednesday, could opt to remain a free agent until July and look to sign a long-term contract as a restricted free agent then, reports SI.com's Sam Amick (http://www.twitter.com/sam_amick). As a restricted free agent, Chandler is subject to having any offer sheet he signs matched by the Denver Nuggets (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/teams/denver-nuggets), who hold his RFA rights. Chandler cannot sign an offer sheet for less than three years with any club, and Amick reports that the Nuggets are not interested in signing Chandler to a one-year deal, which would allow the forward to become unrestricted in July.

Chandler could, however, sign his Nuggets qualifying offer by March 1 and play out the season on a small contract in order to reach unrestricted status in July.

The Nuggets have invested quite a lot of money in the team's core since the lockout ended. Danilo Gallinari (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/35073/danilo-gallinari), Nene and Arron Afflalo (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/24211/arron-afflalo) all have signed lucrative long-term deals; Ty Lawson (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/players/71918/ty-lawson) will be eligible for an Early Bird extension in the summer, as well. But Denver's front office and coaching staff is believed to think highly of Chandler, who averaged 12 points per game for the Nuggets last season.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/2/23/2818755/wilson-chandler-free-agent-denver-nuggets

daschysta
02-23-2012, 11:53 AM
There is a difference between a top 4 team in the East and a top 3 team in the entire NBA. Because that's what the Bulls are. A top 3 team in the NBA. We're a good team but we're not as good as the Bulls yet.

Therefore, I wouldn't compare us to them. I would compare us to the Sixers and the Magic.

Now, it's safe to assume that the Magic wouldn't win as many games if Howard went down.

About the Sixers now. We have lost Granger for 2 games and Hill for 13. They have lost Spencer Hawes for 20 games. We have an equal Strength Of Schedule (.482) and we have played one game less. We have a better record currently. What I'm trying to say is that good teams (who are not great yet) lose games from time to time due to injuries.

PS: The Bulls are without a doubt a better team than us but we match up with them well enough to beat them or give them fits. They are a better team because they have way more experience in being good. They have a very experienced coach and players who achieved before they came to the Bulls as well. We have a young coach and a young core. We can develop into a great team. Same with Philly. That's why I cannot compare us to the Bulls yet.

Adding to this we have more upside than alot of teams too.

It's not as ridiculous to see Roy averaging 20-10 someday, or close to it anymore, if he got the touches, his confidence should just continue to rise after he plays in the ASG.

George has huge potential as well, and we're just staring to see him play more assertively.

We have capspace and our two future centerpieces are both 25 or younger.

We're already a very good team this year, we have the potential to become a great team if our two young studs continue to grow an dwe use our flexibility well in regards to some of our veteran players.

Philly has hit a bit of a wall though. Jrue has been worse than collison this year, pretty terrible in fact, and Turner is becoming more solidly a bust with each passing horrible game. We're better and more suited for playoff basketball than they are.

IMO our future prospects very much hinge on Hibbert continuing to make strides every year. Another offseason or two improving anywhere near as much as this last one and we have our legit star to build around, he's not as far away as some think. I think he can really develop into a perrenial all-star rather than the fringe all-star he is now. In fact I think both he and George can get to that level, and that's when the Pacers will be legit contenders par with Chicago and right behind Miami (Miami is just otherworldly good, and everyone will be second to them for a while, but they still are prone to lapses and thus beatable if you get lucky).

Nuntius
02-23-2012, 12:08 PM
and Turner is becoming more solidly a bust with each passing horrible game.

He is rebounding well, though :p

IndyJones
02-23-2012, 12:21 PM
I kind of feel the opposite, I think if Lance got enough time so that the other players could adjust and get used to his style he would be more effective.

A lot of his passes would be easy buckets if only the recipients were ready for it or were able to handle it. I also think he actually looks to pass too often and should just try to score more. Not sure if it is because of his lack of confidence(he never pressed upon me that he in any way lacks that.), or those are his marching orders from the coaches.

*shrug* I could be wrong, certainly no one would pay me to make those kinds of decisions.


I am expecting Lance to pretty much sit the rest of the way this season. he's gotten consistent minutes through the first 33 games. He's shown improvement, but he needs a lot more work and I think it is obvious any minutes Lance might have gotten should go to George Hill and even AJ Price. Price is not any type of longterm solution (like Lance might be) but Pacers need to win as many games as possible and AJ helps that more than Lance does right now.

BillS
02-23-2012, 12:33 PM
I kind of feel the opposite, I think if Lance got enough time so that the other players could adjust and get used to his style he would be more effective.

Why is it always that this somehow requires playing time? This isn't just an occasional mis-synch, it's a total difference in how the passer and receiver expect the ball to be handled. One would think they work on this kind of thing even in brief practices during the season, so it almost seems like Lance gets a little uncontrolled during games and needs to bring it down a notch. That doesn't take huge amounts of playing time in order to do.

Playing time is for PLAYING the game, not for holding scrimmages. Work this stuff out in practice, not on the court.

Since86
02-23-2012, 12:44 PM
Well they aren't practicing very much....

imawhat
02-23-2012, 12:46 PM
Game time matters. Look at how long it took for AJ to start playing better. He played the worst ball of his career until he got consistently more minutes.

IndyJones
02-23-2012, 12:53 PM
Jeremy Lin.

I doubt he would have gotten waived if he did in practice what he has been doing in real games.


Why is it always that this somehow requires playing time? This isn't just an occasional mis-synch, it's a total difference in how the passer and receiver expect the ball to be handled. One would think they work on this kind of thing even in brief practices during the season, so it almost seems like Lance gets a little uncontrolled during games and needs to bring it down a notch. That doesn't take huge amounts of playing time in order to do.

Playing time is for PLAYING the game, not for holding scrimmages. Work this stuff out in practice, not on the court.

imawhat
02-23-2012, 12:59 PM
George Hill made me eat my words last night when he was passing. I don't think he's a good passer but he was on the money last night. His passes were well timed and accurate. He should've had 5 or 6 assists. And like Peck, I'm wondering if Tyler missed George Hill.

BillS
02-23-2012, 01:06 PM
So basically the best teams are the ones who never base decisions on how people do in practice and just give their marginal players playing time until they automatically get better?

Yes, there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean everyone who doesn't fit in is only not fitting because they need 20 minutes per game because practice doesn't tell you how a player does.

Seems to me like the players who only do well in the game are actually the ones where their teammates adjust to THEIR inflexible style of play, and more often than not they show a flash until defenses adjust OR they basically become role players. It is also the case that sometimes players DO improve over the course of time (and multiple teams) and finally show on the floor what they've been working on in practice.

Fans far too often think the only important example of a player's skill is on the floor. That happens because we don't SEE practice - therefore, since we don't know what happens, we either make assumptions or disregard its value.

Otherwise, why bother? Sit your best players since they already know how to play together, give the bulk of your time to your poorer players, and you'll score a superstar. Cut your practices in half and let your players handle their own business during that new free time.

Since86
02-23-2012, 01:18 PM
Are you arguing that Lance shouldn't get any time, or that he shouldn't be getting 20mins?

Eleazar
02-23-2012, 01:25 PM
Are you arguing that Lance shouldn't get any time, or that he shouldn't be getting 20mins?

If this team wants to win I don't see where Lance fits in except for garbage minutes. He still needs to learn how to play fundamentally sound basketball.

Since86
02-23-2012, 01:30 PM
Win what exactly?

I'd like to think that we can agree that they're winning now, with Lance playing.

BillS
02-23-2012, 01:43 PM
Are you arguing that Lance shouldn't get any time, or that he shouldn't be getting 20mins?

I am arguing that it's beyond the "give him more time so you can see what he can do" point. I think he gets the time he deserves based on how he and other players are doing. Right now, I'd be hard pressed to say AJ hasn't stepped up and deserves his minutes, especially since Lance has been OK but not incredible.

In the second string, it is hard to figure that out sometimes as a fan, because those players tend to be inconsistent by definition. You see a guy on a good night and you wonder why he's been buried in the rotation. You see a guy on a bad night and you wonder why he's dressed. You start to associate that solely with his time on the court (though when he is showing good he is going to GET more time that night, isn't he?), or by who is specifically on the floor with him, or by what shoes he is wearing :lol: Some combination of those may be correct but it is seldom always the same thing, and playing time is usually the scapegoat.

To me, the point of doing well in practice is to develop and show that consistency - as well as to work out the basic mechanics of, say, a hard pass so you know how to send it where a teammate who knows it is coming will catch it. Game time is for gelling things that already almost work, not for developing fundamental communication skills.

joeyd
02-23-2012, 01:44 PM
... we spent Wednesday night running with the devil and I had to watch the game when I got home at 1.

How was the show? I stayed home because I read really mixed reviews about their first show and their warmup concerts earlier this year, but thought about going.

Brad8888
02-23-2012, 01:45 PM
Win what exactly?

I'd like to think that we can agree that they're winning now, despite Lance playing.

Fixed

IndyJones
02-23-2012, 01:52 PM
Personally I have felt for a long time that success in the NBA is 60% opportunity. Given the opportunity the majority of bench players could probably average 20 ppg. If they were given free reign to shoot volume.

Since86
02-23-2012, 02:47 PM
I am arguing that it's beyond the "give him more time so you can see what he can do" point. I think he gets the time he deserves based on how he and other players are doing. Right now, I'd be hard pressed to say AJ hasn't stepped up and deserves his minutes, especially since Lance has been OK but not incredible.


Do you expect for AJ to keep playing this way?

I sure don't. AJ still shoots too much. Yes, he's beening hitting and when they're going in they don't hurt as much, but he can kill ball movement just as easily as he can facilitate it.

I just think there's always 5-10 minutes for a player you're trying to develop.

Sparhawk
02-23-2012, 02:50 PM
Granger, please check yourself in the mirror and find yourself. You are the leader, so you shouldn't be disappearing so often in games.

Hope Granger does find himself, and starts playing well on both sides of the court for the 2nd half and playoffs.

BillS
02-23-2012, 02:56 PM
Do you expect for AJ to keep playing this way?

I sure don't. AJ still shoots too much. Yes, he's beening hitting and when they're going in they don't hurt as much, but he can kill ball movement just as easily as he can facilitate it.

I just think there's always 5-10 minutes for a player you're trying to develop.

I agree with both of these.

Regarding AJ, unless you have some reason to believe the guy who would replace him is expected to play better, you play AJ as long as he is playing well. If he goes all inconsistent then you pull him for the next option. If the next option is also developing and/or inconsistent, though, you don't pull AJ while he is still playing well.

I think there should almost always be 5 minutes. 10 minutes is on the high end if you have someone on the floor purely for development, unless it is a blow out or there's another opportunity to develop someone without hurting the team (like have him on the floor but as the last option on offense or guarding the weakest guy when on defense).

Unclebuck
02-23-2012, 03:06 PM
Since86 if you don't want to play Price, that is fine by me, but even if Price doesn't play, then I still think Lance probably shouldn't play. More minutes George Hill gets is great if you ask me.

Sookie
02-23-2012, 03:51 PM
I wish AJ had a more consistent shot. When he can shoot, he REALLY makes an impact on the game. Since his rookie year I've not been able to put my finger on it at any point, but when he's out there things just seem to run smoother. I can't say why, I don't know why but I can see it. When he's shooting well it just goes to another level.

Late 2nd round picks don't make the team a lot of times. He's a solid, solid pick at #22 in the 2nd round. I wish I could pinpoint what he does different, but I generally get a different feel from the team when he's out there with the 2nd unit.

That was the first thing I noticed about him. AJ always had the ability to control a game even without making a shot or getting an assist.

I always identified it as "being a court general." Regardless, I do think the New Jersey game was better. But I think it's pretty obvious he's earned playing time.

I also actually am proud of the team for this 4 game winning streak. They're young. It's really really easy for young teams to play to their competition, and lose. They did that a few times, but they never lost it.

There's some obvious improvements needed.

I'd start with defense. Can our bigs (I'm looking at you Roy Hibbert, David West, and Tyler Hansbrough) please stop screening off our guards so that the opposing team can get a good shot. It's hard enough for DC to play defense...I do like that it seems as if Vogel's had Roy lay back on the PnR defense, and stay in the paint.

Watch the backcuts. Our whole team ball hawks. Which can create turnovers but also creates easy layups. It's fine to collapse onto the ball, but the rest of the team has to have the awareness to watch and cover for those players - and I'm not sure the Pacers completely there yet.

I don't know what's up with Danny, but I'm hoping the break will help. I picked on David West for his poor body language a few games ago, but I think he's improved there. Danny needs to get himself together. If reports are right and he's irritating his teammates with his defense..

BrownBearCoffee
02-23-2012, 04:16 PM
I don't know what's up with Danny, but I'm hoping the break will help. I picked on David West for his poor body language a few games ago, but I think he's improved there. Danny needs to get himself together. If reports are right and he's irritating his teammates with his defense..

I can't believe I am going to ask this but I'm going to anyway: Is Danny becoming more of a detriment to the team than he is conducive to its success? I am a big Danny supporter, but he is actually starting to worry me.

vnzla81
02-23-2012, 04:19 PM
I can't believe I am going to ask this but I'm going to anyway: Is Danny becoming more of a detriment to the team than he is conducive to its success? I am a big Danny supporter, but he is actually starting to worry me.

Nothing is wrong with him in fact he is better than ever, just look at the stats....

BrownBearCoffee
02-23-2012, 04:23 PM
Nothing is wrong with him in fact he is better than ever, just look at the stats....

Well aside from your smarta** remark, I would agree ;) but Danny has always been a volume shooter so that's not really what I am referring to. I am talking more about the fact that Danny can start a game 1-11 and, knowing we have a better option inside at the 5, continue his volume shooting.

I like Danny, but I think it is getting close to the time that realizes he is quickly becoming--at the very best--number 2 in the starting 5.

Sookie
02-23-2012, 04:24 PM
I can't believe I am going to ask this but I'm going to anyway: Is Danny becoming more of a detriment to the team than he is conducive to its success? I am a big Danny supporter, but he is actually starting to worry me.

I would say no. Most of the time. But he goes through mood swings and slumps like most players do.

BTW: I love that Vogel and the rest of the team will call him out on it. Mike Brown refused to call out Lebron, and it annoyed his teammates. I know Danny's not Lebron but he is our best player (right now.) I believe accountability starts at the top. If Danny's not playing defense, how can you hound Tyler about it? So I love that Vogel would call him out on it.

BrownBearCoffee
02-23-2012, 04:26 PM
I would say no. Most of the time. But he goes through mood swings and slumps like most players do.

BTW: I love that Vogel and the rest of the team will call him out on it. Mike Brown refused to call out Lebron, and it annoyed his teammates. I know Danny's not Lebron but he is our best player (right now.) I believe accountability starts at the top. If Danny's not playing defense, how can you hound Tyler about it? So I love that Vogel would call him out on it.

Oh, I agree 100%. In all honesty, I think LeBron may have a ring or two by now if Mike Brown wouldn't have been afraid to cross him; that would have been the best thing in the world for him.

vnzla81
02-23-2012, 04:29 PM
Well aside from your smarta** remark, I would agree ;) but Danny has always been a volume shooter so that's not really what I am referring to. I am talking more about the fact that Danny can start a game 1-11 and, knowing we have a better option inside at the 5, continue his volume shooting.

I like Danny, but I think it is getting close to the time that realizes he is quickly becoming--at the very best--number 2 in the starting 5.

I was been sarcastic, some people here tried to tell me that he is better than ever by showing me so stats(for his last five games I think?) other than few games he has been crap all year(for the money he makes and for been "the franchise player").

vnzla81
02-23-2012, 04:30 PM
I would say no. Most of the time. But he goes through mood swings and slumps like most players do.

BTW: I love that Vogel and the rest of the team will call him out on it. Mike Brown refused to call out Lebron, and it annoyed his teammates. I know Danny's not Lebron but he is our best player (right now.) I believe accountability starts at the top. If Danny's not playing defense, how can you hound Tyler about it? So I love that Vogel would call him out on it.

Is there an article were they are calling him out? First time I hear that.

Since86
02-23-2012, 04:30 PM
Man, you can sure twist an argument around. I'm not going point for point with you, but it's just clear that you either don't actually read what's said, or forget it the minute you do.

You tried the same exact excuse at the beginning of the year with Danny's defense.

BrownBearCoffee
02-23-2012, 04:32 PM
I was been sarcastic, some people here tried to tell me that he is better than ever by showing me so stats(for his last five games I think?) other than few games he has been crap all year(for the money he makes and for been "the franchise player").

Well I figured you were being sarcastic, but it was still a smarta** comment any which way you cut it; not a bad thing, I happen to enjoy sarcasm. Anyhow, I don't completely disagree with you. I don't think stats can ever tell the whole story of a player's game. There are tons of NBA players without sexy stats who make a huge impact on games.

Sookie
02-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Is there an article were they are calling him out? First time I hear that.

two games ago Vogel and Danny had words on the bench after Danny missed two defensive assignments. I'm sure it was over his defense.

Someone also said that Roy Hibbert got annoyed with Danny's defense (I think last game)

I don't think Danny's a problem at all. I'm just making the point that I think it's good that players (and coaches) are holding everyone accountable, not just the younger mistake prone guys.

Anthem
02-23-2012, 06:53 PM
I was been sarcastic, some people here tried to tell me that he is better than ever by showing me so stats(for his last five games I think?)
:laugh: You are so full of crap.

It's not just that nobody-but-nobody has said that his last two games were good. It's that YOU KNOW nobody has said the last two games were good. So YOU KNOW nobody has said his last five games were good.

You're being intentionally deceitful in order to strengthen your position. For a while I thought maybe you just really didn't have a good memory, but I'd say that post makes the point pretty blatantly. You know what you're doing, and you're doing it anyway.

CJ Jones
02-23-2012, 07:08 PM
two games ago Vogel and Danny had words on the bench after Danny missed two defensive assignments. I'm sure it was over his defense.

Someone also said that Roy Hibbert got annoyed with Danny's defense (I think last game)

I don't think Danny's a problem at all. I'm just making the point that I think it's good that players (and coaches) are holding everyone accountable, not just the younger mistake prone guys.

Good point. That's one of the reasons I was happy Vogel went away from Danny the other night after he blew up during the timeout. Danny got very few plays called for him that game. It was Paul they kept running the offense thru and he was delivering, while Danny was in the corner watching. He even gave Paul the last shot that game.

Vogel let everyone know he's not showing any favoritism.

vnzla81
02-23-2012, 07:17 PM
:laugh: You are so full of crap.

It's not just that nobody-but-nobody has said that his last two games were good. It's that YOU KNOW nobody has said the last two games were good. So YOU KNOW nobody has said his last five games were good.

You're being intentionally deceitful in order to strengthen your position. For a while I thought maybe you just really didn't have a good memory, but I'd say that post makes the point pretty blatantly. You know what you're doing, and you're doing it anyway.

Here :shakehead


http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1377464&postcount=54

I used to respect you by the way, way to let the Danny Granger homerism blind you and act like that, :footinmou


As you can see on that post Seth is talking about "the last five games" (two games ago) that's what I was talking about.

gummy
02-23-2012, 08:02 PM
Vogel also called Collison out too - not in an unnecessarily mean way, just matter of fact and straight to the point, just the way I think it should be. And while everyone has had some defensive slippage over the past 10 or so games, I think Collison has fallen the farthest and his defense at one of the main points of attack night in and night out is most important. So I am glad to see it said that his defense is not cutting it.

"He's not done a good enough job," Pacers coach Frank Vogel said.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120218/SPORTS04/202180332/Notebook-Defense-lands-Collison-bench-4th-quarter

ilive4sports
02-23-2012, 08:12 PM
Here :shakehead


http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1377464&postcount=54

I used to respect you by the way, way to let the Danny Granger homerism blind you and act like that, :footinmou


As you can see on that post Seth is talking about "the last five games" (two games ago) that's what I was talking about.

You misunderstood Seth's post. He is monitoring the 5 game stretches, tracking Danny's performance, finding trends of improvement and regression. He's not talking about just the last 5 games.

And that was 3 games ago as the post was made before the first Charlotte game.

McKeyFan
02-23-2012, 08:36 PM
I hope this AJ/Lance debate about their minutes becomes a moot point. I hope we acquire a point guard at the trade deadline.

Anthem
02-23-2012, 09:40 PM
Here :shakehead

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1377464&postcount=54

I used to respect you by the way, way to let the Danny Granger homerism blind you and act like that, :footinmou

As you can see on that post Seth is talking about "the last five games" (two games ago) that's what I was talking about.
So... you knew that Seth's post (from the 19th) wasn't referring to the last three games, yet you feel justified in claiming that it was? Am I reading that right?

Eleazar
02-24-2012, 01:49 AM
I hope this AJ/Lance debate about their minutes becomes a moot point. I hope we acquire a point guard at the trade deadline.

I'd rather trade Lance for Kaman. Unless we are bringing in DWill, he would do a hell of a lot more to improve this team than a PG.

Bball
02-24-2012, 12:09 PM
You really got me with all these VH song title references...

Hicks
02-24-2012, 01:27 PM
George Hill made me eat my words last night when he was passing. I don't think he's a good passer but he was on the money last night. His passes were well timed and accurate. He should've had 5 or 6 assists. And like Peck, I'm wondering if Tyler missed George Hill.

I felt like I'd seen him do some of these passes before, so I honestly thought you were wrong when you said he couldn't pass. Now you begin to see why I feel replacing DC with him isn't much of any real loss in terms of being at the point. Neither will be confused with Jamaal Tinsley in the passing / pointing department, but it's a net gain Hill over DC IMO.

Hicks
02-24-2012, 01:58 PM
Granger, please check yourself in the mirror and find yourself. You are the leader, so you shouldn't be disappearing so often in games.

Hope Granger does find himself, and starts playing well on both sides of the court for the 2nd half and playoffs.

It's maddening when he does this.

I want to root for the guy, and when he's fully engaged on both ends he's a hell of a player, but then there's moments like this where he just seems to be kind of half-assing it, complaining to refs/teammates/coaches, and it just makes me kind of angry.

Hicks
02-24-2012, 02:01 PM
Since86 if you don't want to play Price, that is fine by me, but even if Price doesn't play, then I still think Lance probably shouldn't play. More minutes George Hill gets is great if you ask me.

Yeah. I mean I agree there's probably always going to be time to give Lance 5-10 min a game, but if you REALLY want to just go with "win at all costs" rotations, you cut both AJ and Lance out completely.

Typically teams that tighten their belts like this go with no more than 8-9 guys beyond spot minutes.

In our case that would mean DC, Paul, and George splitting up all of the backcourt minutes. 96 / 3 = 32 minutes per game for each of them. I'd be fine with that, actually.

However, that's in a vacuum. In reality there will be times that it's better to introduce that 4th guy. If we're not worried at all about development, that'd AJ in this case right now.

Sookie
02-24-2012, 03:38 PM
Yeah. I mean I agree there's probably always going to be time to give Lance 5-10 min a game, but if you REALLY want to just go with "win at all costs" rotations, you cut both AJ and Lance out completely.

Typically teams that tighten their belts like this go with no more than 8-9 guys beyond spot minutes.

In our case that would mean DC, Paul, and George splitting up all of the backcourt minutes. 96 / 3 = 32 minutes per game for each of them. I'd be fine with that, actually.

However, that's in a vacuum. In reality there will be times that it's better to introduce that 4th guy. If we're not worried at all about development, that'd AJ in this case right now.

Not the way he's been playing recently.

I really don't understand you guys.

I know he struggled last season, any reasonable person would have expected him to. He was good his rookie season. He's helping the team now.

Whose the last bench player to have 7 straight really solid to great games? Even Hill hasn't been that consistent.

AJ's been really good. How do we know this isn't "healthy and improved from rookie season" AJ instead of "just on a hot streak" AJ?

You asked me a while ago "at what point are people's complaint's about AJ, AJ's fault"?

Okay, well at what point do you guys start giving him credit? Bottom line is he has been better than Hill at the point guard position. And he clearly helps the second unit - as he's playing now. So why on earth would anyone suggest that "win at all cost" = sit AJ down?

billbradley
02-24-2012, 04:04 PM
Bottom line is he has been better than Hill at the point guard position.

AJ has not been better than Hill and I think the only way AJ can be all he can be is playing with Hill. I was at and watched too many games when Hill was out and Price was just getting abused on both ends by opposing PGs.

Hicks
02-24-2012, 04:25 PM
Not the way he's been playing recently.

I really don't understand you guys.

I know he struggled last season, any reasonable person would have expected him to. He was good his rookie season. He's helping the team now.

Whose the last bench player to have 7 straight really solid to great games? Even Hill hasn't been that consistent.

AJ's been really good. How do we know this isn't "healthy and improved from rookie season" AJ instead of "just on a hot streak" AJ?

You asked me a while ago "at what point are people's complaint's about AJ, AJ's fault"?

Okay, well at what point do you guys start giving him credit? Bottom line is he has been better than Hill at the point guard position. And he clearly helps the second unit - as he's playing now. So why on earth would anyone suggest that "win at all cost" = sit AJ down?

I'm not saying it because I have a problem with AJ's game the other night, I don't, but rather that usually in this league when you are doing everything you can to win every single game (like in the playoffs), you typically shorten to a tight, small rotation so that only your top talent plays the vast majority of the minutes available.

Assuming Tyler and Danny don't have their heads up their respective asses, our top talent goes 7 deep. 7 is to small a rotation, so you have to include on more if you want to keep things tight. To me, that means playing AJ OR playing Dahntay Jones.

Of course, matchups can change that as well. If a team has two good big centers, you'll probably need to play Lou/Jeff as well.

But the tightest rotation you can get away with is probably either our starting 5 plus George, Dahntay, and Tyler, or our starting 5 plus AJ, George, and Tyler, using others only when necessary.

When our top 7 guys are playing relatively well, there's a noticeable drop off in talent after them, so that's where you generally try to tighten your belt, so to speak.

Sookie
02-24-2012, 04:31 PM
I'm not saying it because I have a problem with AJ's game the other night, I don't, but rather that usually in this league when you are doing everything you can to win every single game (like in the playoffs), you typically shorten to a tight, small rotation so that only your top talent plays the vast majority of the minutes available.

Assuming Tyler and Danny don't have their heads up their respective asses, our top talent goes 7 deep. 7 is to small a rotation, so you have to include on more if you want to keep things tight. To me, that means playing AJ OR playing Dahntay Jones.

Of course, matchups can change that as well. If a team has two good big centers, you'll probably need to play Lou/Jeff as well.

But the tightest rotation you can get away with is probably either our starting 5 plus George, Dahntay, and Tyler, or our starting 5 plus AJ, George, and Tyler, using others only when necessary.

When our top 7 guys are playing relatively well, there's a noticeable drop off in talent after them, so that's where you generally try to tighten your belt, so to speak.

Fair enough.

I'll say though, I think our team, because our top talent isn't amazing, if we can have pretty good depth, which Dahntay Jeff and AJ add, it probably helps. Because being able to play 10 deep, and have those ten play well, can make up for the extraordinarily talented teams (because those ones have short benches in most cases) we have fresher legs, and we have more guys who have the possibility of playing well. Especially in such a compact schedule.

btw: I did not mean that AJ's a better player than Hill. He's not. But he's better at playing the point guard position. And they seem to play very well together.

imawhat
02-24-2012, 05:26 PM
We have a lot of time to tighten the rotation. I'd rather all of our core guys get less minutes now so they're not burnt when we hit the postseason. Both AJ and Lance have played well; let's see more them.

I think we play our core way too much right now. We're not nearly as bad as other teams, but this is a very condensed season and we've already seen our team hit a wall.

imawhat
02-24-2012, 05:38 PM
I felt like I'd seen him do some of these passes before, so I honestly thought you were wrong when you said he couldn't pass. Now you begin to see why I feel replacing DC with him isn't much of any real loss in terms of being at the point. Neither will be confused with Jamaal Tinsley in the passing / pointing department, but it's a net gain Hill over DC IMO.

Despite my feelings about his passing, I'm 100% for Hill as starting PG.