PDA

View Full Version : What does Darren Collison bring to this team?



Dr. Awesome
03-16-2012, 08:26 PM
I'm not really trying to talk trash or anything, but today I went to his stats and was horrified.

He is not scoring points and he is shooting a horrible percentage. For a PG, he is not getting many assists, and his defense is horrible. What exactly is he bringing to the table?

vnzla81
03-16-2012, 08:44 PM
A good smile.

MillerTime
03-16-2012, 08:59 PM
An undersized point guard

Kegboy
03-16-2012, 09:03 PM
Well, so far he appears to be the only Pacer who showed up tonight. :shrug:

Dr. Awesome
03-16-2012, 09:07 PM
Well, so far he appears to be the only Pacer who showed up tonight. :shrug:

4 assists to 3 turnovers isn't showing up.

And I hate to try and take away the one thing he is doing good(scoring), but Jeremy Lin is guarding him. I could light Jeremy Lin up.

Lance George
03-16-2012, 09:38 PM
Great three-point shooting, an excellent assist-to-turnover ratio, and, according to the actual data (rather than unreliable hearsay and reputation), a good defender.

Dr. Awesome
03-16-2012, 09:48 PM
Great three-point shooting, an excellent assist-to-turnover ratio, and, according to the actual data (rather than unreliable hearsay and reputation), a good defender.

Irony at its finest.

Unless of course ranking 62nd in the NBA is a great a/to ratio. Roy Hibbert has a higher a/to ratio for crying out loud.

Hell, Danny Granger is only 5 spots behind him which is insane.

Nuntius
03-16-2012, 09:54 PM
Irony at its finest.

Unless of course ranking 62nd in the NBA is a great a/to ratio. Roy Hibbert has a higher a/to ratio for crying out loud.

Hell, Danny Granger is only 5 spots behind him which is insane.

:confused::confused::confused:

Not sure what data are you using.

He is ranked 13th in the NBA.

Lance George
03-16-2012, 09:57 PM
Irony at its finest.

Unless of course ranking 62nd in the NBA is a great a/to ratio. Roy Hibbert has a higher a/to ratio for crying out loud.

Hell, Danny Granger is only 5 spots behind him which is insane.

Huh? :confused:

Collison is 13th in the league in assist-to-turnover ratio amongst qualified players.

NBA.com - Assist-to-Turnover Ratio (http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Turnovers.jsp?league=00&season=22011&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=4&splitDD=All%20Teams)

Hibbert
03-16-2012, 09:58 PM
Irony at its finest.

Unless of course ranking 62nd in the NBA is a great a/to ratio. Roy Hibbert has a higher a/to ratio for crying out loud.

Hell, Danny Granger is only 5 spots behind him which is insane.

What are you looking at? He's ranked 15th in the league in a/to ratio. 62nd is way off and is not even close.

TheDavisBrothers
03-16-2012, 10:04 PM
:confused::confused::confused:

Not sure what data are you using.

He is ranked 13th in the NBA.


Huh? :confused:

Collison is 13th in the league in assist-to-turnover ratio amongst qualified players.

NBA.com - Assist-to-Turnover Ratio (http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Turnovers.jsp?league=00&season=22011&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=4&splitDD=All%20Teams)


What are you looking at? He's ranked 15th in the league in a/to ratio. 62nd is way off and is not even close.

I guess that's just irony at it's finest again! :laugh::D:p

Lance George
03-16-2012, 10:04 PM
He's looking at turnovers per game, rather than assist-to-turnover ratio.

NBA.com - Turnovers Per Game (http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Turnovers.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=Y&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=2&splitDD=All+Teams&pager.offset=50)

46. Roy Hibbert , IND, 2.1
62. Darren Collison , IND, 1.9
67. Danny Granger , IND, 1.8

Nuntius
03-16-2012, 10:08 PM
He's looking at turnovers per game, rather than assist-to-turnover ratio.

NBA.com - Turnovers Per Game (http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Turnovers.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=Y&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=2&splitDD=All+Teams&pager.offset=50)

46. Roy Hibbert , IND, 2.1
62. Darren Collison , IND, 1.9
67. Danny Granger , IND, 1.8

Which makes it even more embarrassing as he cannot seem to understand that the lower the better :laugh:

LG33
03-16-2012, 10:09 PM
We don't need this thread.

Everyone asks this question in every other thread.

PacersForever
03-16-2012, 10:11 PM
I'd like to say its vogel limiting him but prob not.

Dr. Awesome
03-16-2012, 10:17 PM
He's looking at turnovers per game, rather than assist-to-turnover ratio.

NBA.com - Turnovers Per Game (http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Turnovers.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=Y&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=2&splitDD=All+Teams&pager.offset=50)

46. Roy Hibbert , IND, 2.1
62. Darren Collison , IND, 1.9
67. Danny Granger , IND, 1.8

I hit assist/turnover ratio - must have taken me to the wrong link.

:o

Nuntius
03-16-2012, 10:18 PM
Let's give a real answer to the question now.

DC is in an initiator. He is responsible for bringing the ball up court without turning it over. He does a good job in this. An initiator is also responsible for hitting his teammates in their sweet spots. He is not running the offense per se as our offense run through our bigs so his assists number is going to be relatively low. He is finding West nicely on the pick roll but he struggles in feeding Roy to the post. Initiators are also supposed to be good 3 point shooters as they play off the ball a lot. DC also does that. Finally, initiators have a very low Usage rate. That's also true for DC.

That's what DC brings to this team. Is he struggling as of late? Sure. However, that's not to say that he doesn't do what he's asked to.

PR07
03-16-2012, 10:29 PM
He's going through a slump, even Bird admitted so. However, I'm not sure benching him is going to instill confidence and get him to play better. George Hill, Barbosa, and Price will start eating into his minutes however if he doesn't pick it up.

Pacer Fan
03-16-2012, 10:39 PM
:picard:

BlueNGold
03-16-2012, 11:07 PM
He brings the ball down the court just fine. He can run the break successfully. He has a very good midrange game and decent range. Honestly, he would make a good instant offense type of player along the lines of Barbosa without the size.

CJ Jones
03-16-2012, 11:10 PM
Great three-point shooting, an excellent assist-to-turnover ratio, and, according to the actual data (rather than unreliable hearsay and reputation), a good defender.

Darren plays good D? Yeah, I don't know about that one. He's a good shooter and takes care of ball, but I don't care what the numbers say, he's a liability on defense against good PGs. He try's, he's just too small.

Hoop
03-16-2012, 11:12 PM
Collison needs to just score the ball, shoot, drive, attack, shoot some more. If he's hitting, let him play, if he's missing, set him down.

That's all he seems to do well. The more decisions that have to be made, the worse he looks.

doctor-h
03-16-2012, 11:59 PM
Let's give a real answer to the question now.

DC is in an initiator. He is responsible for bringing the ball up court without turning it over. He does a good job in this. An initiator is also responsible for hitting his teammates in their sweet spots. He is not running the offense per se as our offense run through our bigs so his assists number is going to be relatively low. He is finding West nicely on the pick roll but he struggles in feeding Roy to the post. Initiators are also supposed to be good 3 point shooters as they play off the ball a lot. DC also does that. Finally, initiators have a very low Usage rate. That's also true for DC.

That's what DC brings to this team. Is he struggling as of late? Sure. However, that's not to say that he doesn't do what he's asked to.

So he is supposed to bring the ball up the floor without turning it over and give it to someone else to facilitate the offense. In your own words you say, he has trouble feeding Roy in the post. That is an understatement. And Vogel wants to run the offense thru Roy. So most of the time he just brings it up and hands it to someone else. Oh and I suppose his inability to distribute on the break has nothing to do with his assist total. But all of these qualities outweigh his inability to guard anyone on defense which continues to put a big burden on everyone else on the floor with him. Any professional point guard should be able to dribble it up and give it to a wing. I guess his constantly dribbling out the shot clock is by design also.

beast23
03-17-2012, 12:55 AM
One thing that I have concluded is that Collison and Hibbert are not compatable at all. So,you can look at that in a few different ways.

If TPTB want to keep them both, then move one to the second unit. For me, the odd man out would be Collison.

Get rid of one and acquire a better, more compatable player. Again, for me, I'd keep Hibbert and get rid of Collison.

A third option would be to keep both, get Hibbert some surgically implanted cajones and order him to get and hold low-post position for more than a second. That way, Collison's odds of being able to deliver him the ball where he could actually do something with it would improve immensely.

But what, the heck, we'd still have a problem because Collison still couldn't run a break if his life depended on it.

jeffg-body
03-17-2012, 01:38 AM
As much as I like DC and what he brings to the table I think the offense flows much better when GH is running the point. The things I like about DC are his speed, good shooting and his pick n roll with DW. I see his weaknesses that stick out to me is his lack of size to deal with larger players at the 1 spot, lack of ability to set up the pass into the low post and his tenative decision to shoot when he is open at times. I would like to see a Hill/Barbosa backcourt after Barbosa get familiar with our guys. DC is doing well, but I think long-term we will need a more physical guy at the 1 spot who can feed Roy in the post in a manner where Roy has the advantage of not being double and triple teamed by a sagging defense. At the defensive end I think DC getting beaten by his man is making it hard for Roy to come over and defend or foul the guy. I like DC a lot and think he would be an excellent back up to an elite PG for 15-25 minutes per night. If he were required in a trade situation down the line to land the kind of PG that would work the best with Roy I'd think we jump at it. Roy has had a couple of bad games lately but it is much harder to get a true 7 footer with his skill set. If one were to have to go to make things work it would have to be DC. I think Roy has improved each year and it takes bigs longer to develop.

kidthecat
03-17-2012, 02:11 AM
It really sucks.

I was *so* excited about trading Dead Weight Murphy away and getting a supposedly quality piece in return. I really can't stress that enough.

However.

I cannot quantify the frustration I have felt over how many fast breaks have been ruined by Collison's lack of vision. I would, conservatively, estimate it to be 3-5 a game. So many times PG is the first person down the court, and Collison cannot find him either due to his lack of height or his inherent lack of vision. The latter being more upsetting. I really can't decide which. It's so frustrating.

I want him to succeed, but I can't help but realize there is no play-making point guard on this team. Lance is the best passing guard on the team, and he rarely even sees the floor.

The Future
03-17-2012, 02:22 AM
Collison has been a bust for the Pacers imo. His #'s have actually trended downward compared to last season even with more minutes.

The opposition lets him take threes and he continues to pass on some of the wide open threes.

Yes, he's shooting 40% but he's only making 0.5 threes a game which is a small sample size. He's not aggressive enough for this team, which makes Granger and George less effective in this offense.

We need to start looking somewhere else at point guard or we will be in trouble come playoff time.

TheDon
03-17-2012, 07:43 AM
lets hope that other teams are as excited about him as some of his apologists are on draft day.

BlueNGold
03-17-2012, 08:31 AM
As much as I like DC and what he brings to the table I think the offense flows much better when GH is running the point. The things I like about DC are his speed, good shooting and his pick n roll with DW. I see his weaknesses that stick out to me is his lack of size to deal with larger players at the 1 spot, lack of ability to set up the pass into the low post and his tenative decision to shoot when he is open at times. I would like to see a Hill/Barbosa backcourt after Barbosa get familiar with our guys. DC is doing well, but I think long-term we will need a more physical guy at the 1 spot who can feed Roy in the post in a manner where Roy has the advantage of not being double and triple teamed by a sagging defense. At the defensive end I think DC getting beaten by his man is making it hard for Roy to come over and defend or foul the guy. I like DC a lot and think he would be an excellent back up to an elite PG for 15-25 minutes per night. If he were required in a trade situation down the line to land the kind of PG that would work the best with Roy I'd think we jump at it. Roy has had a couple of bad games lately but it is much harder to get a true 7 footer with his skill set. If one were to have to go to make things work it would have to be DC. I think Roy has improved each year and it takes bigs longer to develop.

Yes, it is much harder to get a center with Roy's capabilities, even if he's not playing well at the moment. We know he can play better because we've seen it.

I think we just need to make George Hill the starter and be done with it. But I think that will require trading DC to maintain chemistry.

At the same time, I'd much rather have DC than Troy Murphy starting. They both make me ill, but Troy made me want to quit being a fan. Collison actually plays pretty well at times and is better than TJ Ford and maybe a little short (pardon the pun) of Jarrett Jack. He's actually a good basketball player, just not a great PG.

D-BONE
03-17-2012, 08:43 AM
Darren Collison = average overall point guard with serious defensive issues.

McKeyFan
03-17-2012, 08:49 AM
Yes, it is much harder to get a center with Roy's capabilities, even if he's not playing well at the moment. We know he can play better because we've seen it.

I think we just need to make George Hill the starter and be done with it. But I think that will require trading DC to maintain chemistry.

At the same time, I'd much rather have DC than Troy Murphy starting. They both make me ill, but Troy made me want to quit being a fan. Collison actually plays pretty well at times and is better than TJ Ford and maybe a little short (pardon the pun) of Jarrett Jack. He's actually a good basketball player, just not a great PG.
Well balanced post.

ksuttonjr76
03-17-2012, 10:00 AM
Personally, I don't care who starts at PG. I would be just as happy with Lance Stephenson. The BIGGEST problem that I have with Darren is that he seems scare to pass the ball sometimes, because he's overthinking the situation. Price is more of "pure" PG while Stephenson has that "Jeremy Lin" type passing potential. To explain, Stephenson lets the passes fly no matter how risky they are. So, Stephenson could break the record for the most assists in one game, then break the record for the most turnovers in the same week.

(Posted this in a different thread).

BlueNGold
03-17-2012, 10:05 AM
Personally, I don't care who starts at PG. I would be just as happy with Lance Stephenson. The BIGGEST problem that I have with Darren is that he seems scare to pass the ball sometimes, because he's overthinking the situation. Price is more of "pure" PG while Stephenson has that "Jeremy Lin" type passing potential. To explain, Stephenson lets the passes fly no matter how risky they are. So, Stephenson could break the record for the most assists in one game, then break the record for the most turnovers in the same week.

(Posted this in a different thread).

I think there's a real difference in passing ability between Lance and DC, not just the willingness to pass. DC hesitates for good reason. Maybe you agree with that.

Also, Lance is a full 5 inches taller than Collison and has very long arms along with being far more physical. Even if they had the same natural abilities to pass the ball, Lance has a huge advantage.

ksuttonjr76
03-17-2012, 10:14 AM
I think there's a real difference in passing ability between Lance and DC, not just the willingness to pass. DC hesitates for good reason. Maybe you agree with that.

Also, Lance is a full 5 inches taller than Collison and has very long arms along with being far more physical. Even if they had the same natural abilities to pass the ball, Lance has a huge advantage.

Even more reason to develop Lance more quickly.

The hesitation that I'm referring to is when he dribbles to the side with Roy Hibbert after he has gained position, but then he stares at Roy for 3-4 seconds deciding whether or not he should pass the ball to him. During those 3-4 second, the defensive player has pushed Roy off his block, because we ALL know that Hibbert can't keep his offensive position for too long. Not only that, he has pretty much telegraphed the pass which allows the defensive PF to get in better position to give better help defense against Hibbert.

Collison (Granger has the same bad habit too, but I expect more passing skills from my PG than SF) needs to start hitting Hibbert with a bounce or overhead pass as SOON as he gets to Hibbert's side of the court...

EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, Collison doesn't pass the ball quick enough on pick and rolls either. I can't tell you how many times I get frustrated when Collison uses the pick set by David West, dribbles to the left/right of the lane, but doesn't throw the pass backwards to David West at the high elbow.

McKeyFan
03-17-2012, 10:21 AM
I think Vogel has done a pretty good job of getting Lance development minutes this year.

He's a far better passer than Collison, but his decision making isn't ready yet. The pg often needs to be the most mature person on the floor, and Lance is far from that. Collison is no world beater in terms of decision making, but he is acceptable considering our options.

I would love to see a renewed effort to get Lance in the rotation next year. If he hits pay dirt, it really helps our team.

Meanwhile, I would like to see an effort to put Hill at the starting and finishing point. Prove to me that won't work and I'll begrudgingly accept Collison for the rest of the year. Even then, a case can be made for A.J., but I think that fails politically, as TPTB will want Collison as a trade chip in June.

BringJackBack
03-17-2012, 10:25 AM
Darren is a good player.

He is a good scorer in the NBA, he can do some things off the dribble sometimes, he is one of the quickest guys in the NBA, and he is a good locker room guy.

Those things that he is good at, is what we already have covered by Danny, George, Hill, and Barbosa at a higher level. So, then when he is trying to score off the dribble or trying to get his own, it is detrimental to the team because we have players that could be doing it better. So, the answer to that this year was to make him a facilitator and set up the big men in post ups or pick n rolls. Well, he has a serious problem dropping the ball down low, so consistently by the time he does there is only 14-15 seconds on the shot clock left. That is a huge problem in our offense.

Also, he has very bad vision. He is always focused on blowing past his defender, and he doesn't keep his head up for anyone else on the court. Guys will be open, but he doesn't hit them at their sweet spots. David West was pissed at him last night for this. He makes the offense stagnant because there is nothing that the players can expect for him to do.

I mean, shoot, we have one of the best transition players in the NBA and he's only had about 10 alleyoops the whole season, and around 5 from Collison. We rarely ever score in transition, and Darren just puts it up on any break because he is incapable of making a play.

Him running the PnR is just a waste of time. He has no chance of finding the guy setting the pick, and if he does, he gives the defenders more than enough time to recover.

If we found a guy who could get our bigs not only easy baskets, but also opportunity down low, along with the ability to play in transition AND be a scorer on par with the other guys on the team, we would be much better. We are last in the league in assists per game. Yes, the big men do tend to run the offense, but DC doesn't offer anything as far as playmaking goes.

I really think that if we found a real point guard who doesn't even have to be a good scorer, but is above average at finding guys and is good in transition, our team would go from this good but inconsistent team that doesn't always show up to a tough team that can be trusted to be found in their sweet spots.
\
Darren Collison: Good player, but bad fit for this team.

ksuttonjr76
03-17-2012, 10:41 AM
Also, he has very bad vision. He is always focused on blowing past his defender, and he doesn't keep his head up for anyone else on the court. Guys will be open, but he doesn't hit them at their sweet spots. David West was pissed at him last night for this. He makes the offense stagnant because there is nothing that the players can expect for him to do.

Exactly! I swear that almost everyone in the starting 5 has been mad at Collison at some point in the year for not passing the ball when there was an opportunity to do so.

BlueNGold
03-17-2012, 11:30 AM
Even with all this said, I'm not sure TJ Ford is any better. As much as I rip on DC, he's not a terrible PG. It's just not the best use for his skills. He's most definitely an NBA caliber player, but he'd fit much better on a second unit as a small instant-offense SG. Have him zip around picks and have no responsibility for initiating the offense and you might see him excel.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 11:32 AM
IMO DC has just too much of a workload for a young PG. There is nobody to share ball handling duties with him.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 12:31 PM
So he is supposed to bring the ball up the floor without turning it over and give it to someone else to facilitate the offense. In your own words you say, he has trouble feeding Roy in the post. That is an understatement. And Vogel wants to run the offense thru Roy. So most of the time he just brings it up and hands it to someone else. Oh and I suppose his inability to distribute on the break has nothing to do with his assist total. But all of these qualities outweigh his inability to guard anyone on defense which continues to put a big burden on everyone else on the floor with him. Any professional point guard should be able to dribble it up and give it to a wing. I guess his constantly dribbling out the shot clock is by design also.

I don't know if dribbling out the shot clock is by design. However, GH and AJ do it as well. Sometimes our offense stagnates. And it makes sense, actually. When Roy and West try to gain post position they cannot perform staggered screens for PG or DG and initiate some movement. If we fail to get the ball to the post quick enough (something that most of our players fail to do so) then our offense stagnates and no matter who is playing PG out there is gonna dribble out the shot clock.

His inability to distribute the ball on the break is real. He is not good at it. In fast breaks he is at his best taking it to the rack and drawing fouls.

And yes he is supposed to bring the ball up court, give it to someone else and be an off the ball threat. He is not the only PG to do so. Beno Udrih, Steve Blake, Mike Conley, Derek Fisher, Mario Chalmers, Luke Ridnour, Mike Bibby, Mike James, Jarret Jack, Sebastian Telfair etc. are all of this same mold. Low usage PGs who do their jobs without taking risks and able to shoot.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 12:43 PM
I really think that if we found a real point guard who doesn't even have to be a good scorer, but is above average at finding guys and is good in transition, our team would go from this good but inconsistent team that doesn't always show up to a tough team that can be trusted to be found in their sweet spots.


I really hope this turns out to be true. I'll be happy, actually. It's just that from what I'm seeing on the court our problem is not DC. I think that the inconsistency in the paint is hurting us. They battle 'till the end in some games but in others they don't care to be down there and get physical.

I wish that DC was our problem. I just think that our problem is deeper than that.

Meanwhile, DC is the perfect scapegoat for this forum.

Actually, that's the reason I want Hill to start. It would just prove my theory ;)

vnzla81
03-17-2012, 12:51 PM
Darren is a good player.

He is a good scorer in the NBA, he can do some things off the dribble sometimes, he is one of the quickest guys in the NBA, and he is a good locker room guy.

Those things that he is good at, is what we already have covered by Danny, George, Hill, and Barbosa at a higher level. So, then when he is trying to score off the dribble or trying to get his own, it is detrimental to the team because we have players that could be doing it better. So, the answer to that this year was to make him a facilitator and set up the big men in post ups or pick n rolls. Well, he has a serious problem dropping the ball down low, so consistently by the time he does there is only 14-15 seconds on the shot clock left. That is a huge problem in our offense.

Also, he has very bad vision. He is always focused on blowing past his defender, and he doesn't keep his head up for anyone else on the court. Guys will be open, but he doesn't hit them at their sweet spots. David West was pissed at him last night for this. He makes the offense stagnant because there is nothing that the players can expect for him to do.

I mean, shoot, we have one of the best transition players in the NBA and he's only had about 10 alleyoops the whole season, and around 5 from Collison. We rarely ever score in transition, and Darren just puts it up on any break because he is incapable of making a play.

Him running the PnR is just a waste of time. He has no chance of finding the guy setting the pick, and if he does, he gives the defenders more than enough time to recover.

If we found a guy who could get our bigs not only easy baskets, but also opportunity down low, along with the ability to play in transition AND be a scorer on par with the other guys on the team, we would be much better. We are last in the league in assists per game. Yes, the big men do tend to run the offense, but DC doesn't offer anything as far as playmaking goes.

I really think that if we found a real point guard who doesn't even have to be a good scorer, but is above average at finding guys and is good in transition, our team would go from this good but inconsistent team that doesn't always show up to a tough team that can be trusted to be found in their sweet spots.
\
Darren Collison: Good player, but bad fit for this team.


I'm glad that finally people are opening their eyes, I don't even have to comment on this because a lot of people now pretty much agree with what I've been saying for months now, I never thought this day would come ......:cry:

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 12:56 PM
I'm glad that finally people are opening their eyes, I don't even have to comment on this because a lot of people now pretty much agree with what I've been saying for months now, I never thought this day would come ......:cry:

So, when Hill takes over the starting PG spot and fail to do anything better should we turn against him?

Because that's what people are going to do. We both know it. Also, we both know that the people who defend DC now will also defend Hill. And the people who bash DC now will simply continue their bashing to GH.

The PG will always be the scapegoat in our team. It doesn't have to do with DC, GH, AJ or Lance. It has to do with our offensive scheme.

Sookie
03-17-2012, 12:59 PM
I really hope this turns out to be true. I'll be happy, actually. It's just that from what I'm seeing on the court our problem is not DC. I think that the inconsistency in the paint is hurting us. They battle 'till the end in some games but in others they don't care to be down there and get physical.

I wish that DC was our problem. I just think that our problem is deeper than that.

Meanwhile, DC is the perfect scapegoat for this forum.

Actually, that's the reason I want Hill to start. It would just prove my theory ;)

Hill will probably start at some point, and it's going to be a disaster. And I'm not sure we'll adjust quickly enough. That's the bigger problem. And as much as I like AJ, it's hard to start him with such an inconsistent shot. Even though everything else he brings is sorely needed. But he's the only thing close a pure PG on the roster.

Because I agree, only having one ball handler on the floor. The second unit often runs plays where two ball handlers are needed, something the first unit really can't do.

But then DC is not good in the PnR. And then he's not good at getting the ball in the post. (NOT ALL HIS FAULT. This is at least 50% on Roy. But DC struggles to get it to West too.) And then he can't pass in the fast break. (Which, I don't think is necessarily always a problem. With the starting unit, DC taking the ball all the way usually gets us points. And it's the only fast break that we get points in from the starters....But then I watch AJ, GH, and Dahntay run the break....)

And then DC is terrible at defense. And all that stuff, AJ is very good at.


But here's what he does well. He controls the tempo of the game well. He scores well. He's quite fast. He cuts to the basket well. He's not in anyway a bad player. He's just not the point guard the team needs.

One of the more interesting things I noticed last game was when DC was in with the bench. They stopped running plays. So that makes me question, does DC not call them or not know how to execute them? Do the rest of the players not really know them and AJ and GH are "directing traffic" in the true sense? What was going on? (Now, AJ and GH were struggling to run anything anyway, partially because they were both being molested up the court. But DC wasn't having that problem.) But I really want to know if the whole starting unit not running an offense thing is DC or the four other guys on the floor. I was blaming PG, Danny, and Hibbert (West ran an offense well with the bench) as much as DC, but I'd like to know if he's calling anything.

vnzla81 - DC's game has never been one I like. He just turned into such a big scapegoat I had to stick up for him because the problems with the offense aren't entirely his fault. And this forum has a tendency to gain up on him after one bad play and ignore everything good he does. AND he was playing well in the beginning of the season. He's also one of two point guards on the roster. He's also young, and I think he can get better at some of the things I mentioned above. And yes, he's not a pure PG, but he's way more of a PG than Hill. And that's always been my argument. You can't start an actual shooting guard at Point. ESPECIALLY without another ball handler. DC's a combo, he's got some point traits, he can do it, just not as well as we'd like.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:07 PM
Hill will probably start at some point, and it's going to be a disaster. And I'm not sure we'll adjust quickly enough. That's the bigger problem. And as much as I like AJ, it's hard to start him with such an inconsistent shot. Even though everything else he brings is sorely needed. But he's the only thing close a pure PG on the roster.

Because I agree, only having one ball handler on the floor. The second unit often runs plays where two ball handlers are needed, something the first unit really can't do.

But then DC is not good in the PnR. And then he's not good at getting the ball in the post. (NOT ALL HIS FAULT. This is at least 50% on Roy. But DC struggles to get it to West too.) And then he can't pass in the fast break. (Which, I don't think is necessarily always a problem. With the starting unit, DC taking the ball all the way usually gets us points. And it's the only fast break that we get points in from the starters....But then I watch AJ, GH, and Dahntay run the break....)

And then DC is terrible at defense.


But here's what he does well. He controls the tempo of the game well. He scores well. He's quite fast. He cuts to the basket well. He's not in anyway a bad player. He's just not the point guard the team needs.

One of the more interesting things I noticed last game was when DC was in with the bench. They stopped running plays. So that makes me question, does DC not call them or not know how to execute them? Do the rest of the players not really know them and AJ and GH are "directing traffic" in the true sense? What was going on? (Now, AJ and GH were struggling to run anything anyway, partially because they were both being molested up the court. But DC wasn't having that problem.) But I really want to know if the whole starting unit not running an offense thing is DC or the four other guys on the floor. I was blaming PG, Danny, and Hibbert (West ran an offense well with the bench) as much as DC, but I'd like to know if he's calling anything.

As I said, I have no way of knowing. I'm not a person who is going to put the blame on anyone. It could all be DC's fault. It could be the fault of the other 4 or it could also be Vogel's fault. I have no way of knowing and only time will tell, I guess.

I'm just not sure what kind of PG we need as a team. There has not been a single PG that I have watched and got me thinking "damn, he would me an excellent fit for the Pacers, I want him there". We just seem like a hellhole for PGs. And that's something I don't necessarily have a problem with because the history has shown that if your PG is the most crucial part of your team then you're not going anywhere come playoff time.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 01:10 PM
The offense is a disaster no matter who the PG is. That's a reflection of both the PG options on the roster and the inability of the wings to help out.

Hill starting would benefit the reserves more than it would help the starters.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 01:15 PM
We just seem like a hellhole for PGs. And that's something I don't necessarily have a problem with because the history has shown that if your PG is the most crucial part of your team then you're not going anywhere come playoff time.

http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/Fathead/23-23023_nba_magic_johnson_trophy_mural_prod?layer=co mp&wid=175&hei=175&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95,1&op_sharpen=1&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.2,0,0&iccEmbed=0&bgc=0xeeeeee&bgColor=0xeeeeee

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/history/legends/isiah-thomas/isiah-thomas-300d.jpg

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:26 PM
http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/Fathead/23-23023_nba_magic_johnson_trophy_mural_prod?layer=co mp&wid=175&hei=175&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95,1&op_sharpen=1&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.2,0,0&iccEmbed=0&bgc=0xeeeeee&bgColor=0xeeeeee

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/history/legends/isiah-thomas/isiah-thomas-300d.jpg

Touché :laugh:

Actually, I believe that if Magic Johnson would play any other position he would have taken more championships. It's a shame that a talent as rare as his stopped at 5 rings.

Also, I was mostly talking about the present. The post-Jordan era is dominated by wings and big men. This could change in the future as the new seed of PGs is far better than the new seed of wings. But I digress. Time will tell.

To answer your original question "if I don't want a PG who is too good". I certainly to. I'm just afraid that we're not going to utilize him up to his potential. That's all.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 01:29 PM
the last center win win finals MVP was shaq 10 years ago.

only one small forward in the last 25 years has done it.

From this, am I to gather that shooting guard and power forward are the only positions in the NBA that matters?

Kstat
03-17-2012, 01:32 PM
When was the last time Indiana had a real-legit table-setting point guard?

When was the last time they made the NBA finals?

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:40 PM
the last center win win finals MVP was shaq 10 years ago.

only one small forward in the last 25 years has done it.

From this, am I to gather that shooting guard and power forward are the only positions in the NBA that matters?

It's not about the finals MVP.

It's about a player being an important cog on a team.

Are PGs an important cog on a team? Sure, they are. A very important cog, actually.

But it's easier to stop the man who has the ball in his hands for the 70% of the game. Just ask Nash and Stockton.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 01:41 PM
It's not about the finals MVP.

It's about a player being an important cog on a team.

Are PGs an important cog on a team? Sure, they are. A very important cog, actually.

But it's easier to stop the man who has the ball in his hands for the 70% of the game. Just ask Nash and Stockton.

Jordan and Kobe didn't touch the ball %70 of the time?

When did Steve Nash ever get shut down in the playoffs? He lost because the other team had better players. That's all.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:51 PM
Jordan and Kobe didn't touch the ball %70 of the time?


Yeah but they were not responsible to bring the ball up court and thus were not trapped as much. Also, they were not the smallest guy on the floor.

McKeyFan
03-17-2012, 02:28 PM
Jordan and Kobe didn't touch the ball %70 of the time?

When did Steve Nash ever get shut down in the playoffs? He lost because the other team had better players. That's all.

He lost because the suspended guys on his team were better than the suspended guy on the other team.

CJ Jones
03-17-2012, 02:32 PM
IMO DC has just too much of a workload for a young PG. There is nobody to share ball handling duties with him.

I can't figure out why some people can't see this, and why the ones that do see it, think it's no big deal. It shocking because I consider most people here very knowledgeable about the game. It's clear to me that starting 2 poor handling wings and a non pointing PG is killing this offense.


So, when Hill takes over the starting PG spot and fail to do anything better should we turn against him?

Because that's what people are going to do. We both know it. Also, we both know that the people who defend DC now will also defend Hill. And the people who bash DC now will simply continue their bashing to GH.

The PG will always be the scapegoat in our team. It doesn't have to do with DC, GH, AJ or Lance. It has to do with our offensive scheme.

What makes you guys so sure he'll fail? What does DC do that Hill can't do at PG? At least we know the defense will be much better with Hill.

ksuttonjr76
03-17-2012, 02:39 PM
I can't figure out why some people can't see this, and why the ones that do see it, think it's no big deal. It shocking because I consider most people here very knowledgeable about the game. It's clear to me that starting 2 poor handling wings and a non pointing PG is killing this offense.



What makes you guys so sure he'll fail? What does DC do that Hill can't do at PG? At least we know the defense will be much better with Hill.

As I stated before, I'm all for starting Hill, but emulating the Spurs offensive plays where Paul George will be the primarily ball handler in the half-court set. This would still allow George Hill to be an "off-guard" where he thrives best.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 02:40 PM
What makes you guys so sure he'll fail? What does DC do that Hill can't do at PG? At least we know the defense will be much better with Hill.

I'm not sure that Hill will fail. I'm sure that he is not going to alter our offese in any way or manner. Yes, the defense will improve. That's a given. The offense will remain stagnant, though. Because the problem lies in our offensive scheme and not in our PG. At least, that's what I think.

So, the point is not that Hill is going to do something bad. Offensively, he'll do what DC did. It's just that the people who put all the blame on DC here will turn against Hill when they realize that he is not going to change anything.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 02:42 PM
As I stated before, I'm all for starting Hill, but emulating the Spurs offensive plays where Paul George will be the primarily ball handler in the half-court set. This would still allow George Hill to be an "off-guard" where he thrives best.

This would be interesting. Are we sure that PG is up to this task?

Sookie
03-17-2012, 02:51 PM
I can't figure out why some people can't see this, and why the ones that do see it, think it's no big deal. It shocking because I consider most people here very knowledgeable about the game. It's clear to me that starting 2 poor handling wings and a non pointing PG is killing this offense.



What makes you guys so sure he'll fail? What does DC do that Hill can't do at PG? At least we know the defense will be much better with Hill.

Because he's less of a point guard than DC. He runs an offense worse than DC and he's not as strong of a ball handler as you'd like at the point either. If we had an off guard like Manu, it could work. But someone mentioned PG as the primary ball handler...I don't think that would work either.

He is just as good (if not better) of a passer, but PG is as well. And no one wants him to be the point guard.

Every time we see GH run the point, it's ugly. Uglier than when DC runs it. But no one mentions it because people are so desperate to see DC on the bench.

GH is clearly best at coming off screens and looking to score and defending. His production at the shooting guard is considerably better than that at the point.

Make no mistake, I like GH. I like GH a lot. I think he's a great player, and if we didn't have PG in front of him, I'd start him at shooting guard in a heartbeat. As it is, he's got to be one of the best sixth men in the league. But I love Paul George and Roy Hibbert and Danny Granger etc..and I wouldn't put them at the point either. Despite some perceived physical advantages we might have there.

CJ Jones
03-17-2012, 02:54 PM
As I stated before, I'm all for starting Hill, but emulating the Spurs offensive plays where Paul George will be the primarily ball handler in the half-court set. This would still allow George Hill to be an "off-guard" where he thrives best.

I don't think Paul's ready for that, but I'd still love to see it. That faster we get the ball in his hands so he can develop the better. We don't use him nearly enough IMO.


I'm not sure that Hill will fail. I'm sure that he is not going to alter our offese in any way or manner. Yes, the defense will improve. That's a given. The offense will remain stagnant, though. Because the problem lies in our offensive scheme and not in our PG. At least, that's what I think.

So, the point is not that Hill is going to do something bad. Offensively, he'll do what DC did. It's just that the people who put all the blame on DC here will turn against Hill when they realize that he is not going to change anything.

I agree, I'm starting to really doubt the offensive scheme. Hill might or might not be any better in it, but having his defense out there would be a huge upgrade.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 02:57 PM
I agree, I'm starting to really doubt the offensive scheme. Hill might or might not be any better in it, but having his defense out there would be a huge upgrade.

Sure, his defense would be a huge upgrade. Also, DC off the bench would be amazing.

But the people who think that GH will be the solution to our offense are probably up for a disappointment.

But hey, people are allowed to dream and be positive :)

CJ Jones
03-17-2012, 03:02 PM
Because he's less of a point guard than DC. He runs an offense worse than DC and he's not as strong of a ball handler as you'd like at the point either. If we had an off guard like Manu, it could work. But someone mentioned PG as the primary ball handler...I don't think that would work either.

He is just as good (if not better) of a passer, but PG is as well. And no one wants him to be the point guard.

Every time we see GH run the point, it's ugly. Uglier than when DC runs it. But no one mentions it because people are so desperate to see DC on the bench.

GH is clearly best at coming off screens and looking to score and defending. His production at the shooting guard is considerably better than that at the point.

Make no mistake, I like GH. I like GH a lot. I think he's a great player, and if we didn't have PG in front of him, I'd start him at shooting guard in a heartbeat. As it is, he's got to be one of the best sixth men in the league. But I love Paul George and Roy Hibbert and Danny Granger etc..and I wouldn't put them at the point either. Despite some perceived physical advantages we might have there.

How do we know he runs a worse offense than DC? He hasn't had the opportunity to run with the first unit. I'll give you DC handles the ball a little better, but it's not like Hill's handles are bad. He's a capable ball handler.

Wanting him to start isn't all about offense either. Defense is the main reason.

CJ Jones
03-17-2012, 03:07 PM
Sure, his defense would be a huge upgrade. Also, DC off the bench would be amazing.

But the people who think that GH will be the solution to our offense are probably up for a disappointment.

But hey, people are allowed to dream and be positive :)

I don't remember anyone claiming this.

Peck
03-17-2012, 03:07 PM
When was the last time Indiana had a real-legit table-setting point guard?

When was the last time they made the NBA finals?

The answer is one and the same. But you already knew that.

Tinsley could have been there but instead of progressing over the years he regressed.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 03:09 PM
How do we know he runs a worse offense than DC? He hasn't had the opportunity to run with the first unit. I'll give you DC handles the ball a little better, but it's not like Hill's handles are bad. He's a capable ball handler.

The second unit runs a better offense than the first, actually. You can actually see some movement. Lou is always cutting and get himself open when he is not screening.



Wanting him to start isn't all about offense either. Defense is the main reason.

Most people want him to start just because they want to see DC on the bench. GH's defense is not the main reason why people want him to start.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 03:13 PM
I don't remember anyone claiming this.

It's just that some people claim that DC is everything that's wrong on our offense and that his benching would improve it, that makes me reach this conclusion.

Sookie
03-17-2012, 03:13 PM
How do we know he runs a worse offense than DC? He hasn't had the opportunity to run with the first unit. I'll give you DC handles the ball a little better, but it's not like Hill's handles are bad. He's a capable ball handler.

Wanting him to start isn't all about offense either. Defense is the main reason.

We've seen it. We've also seen him run the offense with the second unit the entire first half of the season.

Obviously there's a huge defensive advantage with Hill over DC. But as bad as DC's defense is, the interior defense is WAY more of a problem for them than the perimeter defense. (Because Paul George is on the perimeter)

Which is why I say go with AJ if we're going to make a change. Because you know, he's a point guard, and he plays defense. Yea I'm a fan, but for a while, I didn't want to (and I still don't to be honest) separate him from George Hill. They play too well together to not give them minutes together. (both offensively and defensively. In the past ten games that pairing is the highest +/- on the team.)

that said, people pay way too much attention to who starts and who doesn't anyway. Who finishes is what matters. And I don't care if DC starts, so long as the right people finish. (And sometimes, that will be DC)

ksuttonjr76
03-17-2012, 03:16 PM
This would be interesting. Are we sure that PG is up to this task?

I rewatched the last 3 games just to study Paul George's ball handling skills. The key thing for me and what I noticed is that Paul George is comfortable with the ball in his hands. Paul George maintains good ball control throughout his dribble, and he starts plays with his left hand which tells me he's able to use his left hand without being forced to it.

When Paul George moves (as it's been mentioned MANY times before), he's very fluid. He rarely bobbles the ball on catches, takes control of the ball quickly on possessions, and is able to move into his next move easily. That indicates to me that Paul George plays more on instinct which is important trait for a ballhandler.

xIndyFan
03-17-2012, 03:35 PM
IMO DC has just too much of a workload for a young PG. There is nobody to share ball handling duties with him.


. . .What makes you guys so sure he'll fail? What does DC do that Hill can't do at PG? At least we know the defense will be much better with Hill.

DC has a much better handle, especially in traffic, than hill does. or at least it seems that way to me. if you can see different, then great. but it looks, imo, that the pacers have 2 PG's right now. leandro, hill, lance are all guys that can play the point in stretches, but are not ready for full time.

unless the pacers trade for a new PG, or lance makes a quantum leap in his level of play, AJ and DC are the choices.

CJ Jones
03-17-2012, 04:48 PM
[QUOTE]We've seen it. We've also seen him run the offense with the second unit the entire first half of the season.

I don't think we've seen enough to make a concrete judgment on Hill's ability to run the point. He's rarely played with the starting unit, and he was never the sole ball handler/offense initiator in the second unit.


Obviously there's a huge defensive advantage with Hill over DC. But as bad as DC's defense is, the interior defense is WAY more of a problem for them than the perimeter defense. (Because Paul George is on the perimeter)


They go hand in hand. If we stop penetration on the perimeter our bigs won't get exposed nearly as much. Having Hill at the point of attack would help that.


Which is why I say go with AJ if we're going to make a change. Because you know, he's a point guard, and he plays defense. Yea I'm a fan, but for a while, I didn't want to (and I still don't to be honest) separate him from George Hill. They play too well together to not give them minutes together. (both offensively and defensively. In the past ten games that pairing is the highest +/- on the team.)


I'd agree with you about AJ if he hit shots consistently. He's too much of a liability out there when he's not. Of course, he'd get a lot more open looks in the first unit, so it could help his shooting %.

His defense, I think you might be overrating. He's really good some games, but then some games he's not (last night). He's not consistent defensively IMO.


that said, people pay way too much attention to who starts and who doesn't anyway. Who finishes is what matters. And I don't care if DC starts, so long as the right people finish. (And sometimes, that will be DC)

Having him defend 1st string PGs is the reason I want him to start. If we're going to struggle offensively we might as well put our best defensive team out there.


DC has a much better handle, especially in traffic, than hill does. or at least it seems that way to me. if you can see different, then great. but it looks, imo, that the pacers have 2 PG's right now. leandro, hill, lance are all guys that can play the point in stretches, but are not ready for full time.

unless the pacers trade for a new PG, or lance makes a quantum leap in his level of play, AJ and DC are the choices.

If that's all you got, that's not enough to convince me DC's a PG and Hill's not.