PDA

View Full Version : Lets Analyze What's Going Wrong



boombaby1987
11-05-2012, 10:55 PM
Ok,first and foremost, we are 2-2, and have 78 games remaining in the 82 game schedule. I know its difficult, but lets take a deep breath. We know this team is capable of a high level of success. It's still early folks. Last year, in the lockout shortened season, we lost 118-83 in Miami in the 6th game of the season. I know it's not exactly the same, but just trying to put things in perspective.


I, like many, are very disappointed in certain aspects of the team at this point in time.


1) I am very disappointed in the flow of our offense, and the lack of quality shots we get. This is leading to a very poor shooting percentage.

2) I am extremely disappointed by how poorly we have taken care of the ball early in the season.

3) I am disappointed in the inconsistency I've seen from Roy Hibbert so far. 2 points and 5 rebounds is simply unacceptable on all facets. Paul George as well.

4) It seems that our team is lacking the fire and desire needed every night to be a championship contender.

5) I am disappointed in Frank Vogel and his lack of ability to make adjustments.


I know it is early, and we have plenty of time to turn it around, I just wanted to voice some of my concerns, and wanted to hear what your opinions were regarding this 2-2 start.

Most importantly. GO PACERS!!! :boomer:

Dr. Awesome
11-05-2012, 10:57 PM
The honeymoon period with Vogel is over and it's pretty clear he doesn't know how to coach.

notque
11-05-2012, 10:59 PM
The honeymoon period with Vogel is over and it's pretty clear he doesn't know how to coach.

I'd give the offense over to Brian Shaw immediately to implement the Triangle. If we're going to suck, we might as well have good spacing while we do it.

Mad-Mad-Mario
11-05-2012, 11:24 PM
We lost to a great team on the road without our best player. OMG hit the panic button. Is it possible they helped cause our offensive woes?

boombaby1987
11-05-2012, 11:26 PM
We lost to a great team on the road without our best player. OMG hit the panic button. Is it possible they helped cause our offensive woes?

You don't think we have greatly struggled with offense in our first 3 games before tonight?

PR07
11-05-2012, 11:29 PM
We miss Granger and happened to play one of the NBA's best.

I'm still waiting for the crowd that said DG was stunting George's growth...

oxxo
11-05-2012, 11:32 PM
We lost to a great team on the road without our best player. OMG hit the panic button. Is it possible they helped cause our offensive woes?

We got completely stomped by SA. We barely beat two bad teams,SAC and TOR, in double overtime and with a last second comeback. We lost to the Bobcats.

It's still early and we're missing Granger so it's not time to panic... but I don't see how you can't say there isn't cause for concern. Our offense has been terrible and the team as a whole has been incredibly sloppy with the ball.

aamcguy
11-05-2012, 11:40 PM
Vogel has a guaranteed contract through this season and a team option for next season. He will be evaluated at the end of the season I'm sure, but he's our guy this year and he should be. And considering he's coached us to about a .600 winning percentage, he deserves a little credit. We showed last year you can win with good defense and a good offensive philosophy (our offense wan't good for sure). But the philosophy worked for us.

We're missing a guy who in his least efficient season ever was still our most consistent and effective scorer. He is also our second-best post AND wing defender. Honestly, we are playing the same way we played last year that was effective for us. Let's not forget that however ugly we looked last season, we were in the top 10 for offensive and defensive efficiency. And your best player is part of that. If Danny were here, I think our TOs would still be high. but i think we would also look better on offense than last year.

Also keep in mind that this team didn't really have a preseason together as constructed. So they know the plays but they haven't used them in real time. So just like we can see them stop and try to think what to do, so can the defensive team.

aamcguy
11-05-2012, 11:41 PM
We got completely stomped by SA. We barely beat two bad teams,SAC and TOR, in double overtime and with a last second comeback. We lost to the Bobcats.

It's still early and we're missing Granger so it's not time to panic... but I don't see how you can't say there isn't cause for concern. Our offense has been terrible and the team as a whole has been incredibly sloppy with the ball.

Most young teams don't have a good offense when their only reliable scorer is injured. Let's be patient with the offense.

But I agree, we have had a LOT of stupid unforced turnovers.

Trader Joe
11-05-2012, 11:41 PM
To keep it simple and short

1.) http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/sp/ap_photo/20110130/all/l4986822.jpg


1a.) http://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/IFWT-Roy-hibbert.jpg

Hicks
11-05-2012, 11:45 PM
I'd give the offense over to Brian Shaw immediately to implement the Triangle. If we're going to suck, we might as well have good spacing while we do it.

It looked to me like this is already what we kind of are doing (I definitely see some triangle sets out there) but it isn't working out very well.

Eleazar
11-05-2012, 11:50 PM
Also keep in mind that this team didn't really have a preseason together as constructed. So they know the plays but they haven't used them in real time. So just like we can see them stop and try to think what to do, so can the defensive team.

I was with you until this part. That is just a cop out. Most teams have new players and injuries and are still able to run a better offense. Not all teams are like the Spurs with a high rate of continuity from season to season.

Yes this team with Danny has the talent to overcome a poor offensive scheme. That still doesn't dismiss Vogel's terrible offense. I by no means want him to be fired this season, but if the offense doesn't get more sophisticated over the season I hope we replace him.

Sookie
11-05-2012, 11:50 PM
You don't think we have greatly struggled with offense in our first 3 games before tonight?


I think we haven't had our best offensive player for the past three games too.

Can we please wait to criticize and panic until our best player is playing.

And Newsflash, Vogel's offense is always going to look ugly. That's just what he coaches. But with Danny, it's likely to be significantly more efficient.

The Pacers have to make jump shots in order to get the ball into Roy. Roy's got to play like a man. Particularly without Danny there. (Meaning teams are just focusing on the front court) The Pacers didn't do either tonight.

Also, DC is still a better fit for that bench. Unless Lance/Hansbrough/Young/Green suddenly learn how to score consistently..a PG that can't score but can run an offense isn't going to look good. DC could score.

pacer4ever
11-05-2012, 11:55 PM
I'd give the offense over to Brian Shaw immediately to implement the Triangle. If we're going to suck, we might as well have good spacing while we do it.

You need time to install that offense. It wouldn't be possible to install that in season. We already do some triangle concepts. But nothing like what PoP does with the Spurs which is a ton of triangle.

Sookie
11-05-2012, 11:56 PM
You need time to install that offense. It wouldn't be possible to install that in season

Honestly, I figured handing the keys to George Hill meant they were installing that offense.

Trader Joe
11-05-2012, 11:57 PM
RE: Sookie

Let's be honest making George Hill a full time PG is a horrible decision and always has been. He is a good gap guy, heck he might be a good closing PG, heck he is a great 36 MPG guy, but he is not a point guard. Hill himself was saying just this preseason how hard it is for him to play PG, because it is not his natural instinct.

Sookie
11-05-2012, 11:59 PM
Yea. Also very hard to run an offense with no PG. I've been saying Hill isn't a point guard since we got him. It's the Pacers thing...lets take someone who is best at scoring, and make them into a point guard.

But that's why I thought we were going with the triangle. We've got Shaw. And that's about the only offense Hill should be running. Similar to Fisher...

Trader Joe
11-06-2012, 12:01 AM
Yea. Also very hard to run an offense with no PG.

But that's why I thought we were going with the triangle. We've got Shaw. And that's about the only offense Hill should be running. Similar to Fisher...

Who's your Kobe or MJ? It's not there.

BobbyMac
11-06-2012, 12:02 AM
I really don't like to read this forum after a loss. So many people seem to feel that's it's the end of the world or at least the season......The NBA season is 82 games. Let's relax and let this play out a bit before getting all upset.

pacer4ever
11-06-2012, 12:04 AM
Honestly, I figured handing the keys to George Hill meant they were installing that offense.
That's the only offense he can run. He showed that with the Spurs. But to be honest our team is to selfish and bad at passing to run the triangle. Tyler in the triangle would be lol I would pay to see that. Green is almost the worst fit possible for the triangle. Pg and Lance would fit the scheme Lance would be good at the Triangle if he learned how to move off ball IMO.

Sookie
11-06-2012, 12:04 AM
heh. Granger and PG.

pacer4ever: to me that went around with it. Frank was talking about playing the starters more, PG being more involved with the offense. Yea, our bench players aren't a good fit for the offense. But if PG and Danny (which, I'll say PG has looked much better at that this season) learned to move without the ball, the interior passing with Roy and West, and the fact that it's an offense Hill is capable of running made me believe that's where the offense was heading.

In essence, who cares if it doesn't fit our bench. It does fit Hill (our starting PG), Hibbert, and West. And could easily fit PG and Granger.

So what if Hans can't play in it. He can't really play in any structured offense.

Trader Joe
11-06-2012, 12:06 AM
I really don't like to read this forum after a loss. So many people seem to feel that's it's the end of the world or at least the season......The NBA season is 82 games. Let's relax and let this play out a bit before getting all upset.

I understand BobbyMac, my hope is this game can be a wake up call in the same way the Miami butt kicking on the road early in the season last year was, but right now there is a lot to worry about. Granger being out only compounds that.

TheDavisBrothers
11-06-2012, 12:09 AM
What some of you guys don't seem to be able to comprehend is that there is a huge difference between panicking and being concerned...

Kinda unrelated but maybe it's a factor... an interesting thing I just learned is that we have only one guy over 27 playing for us right now. West at 32 is the only guy on our roster that is 30+ and our second oldest, Granger is only 29...

aamcguy
11-06-2012, 12:09 AM
I was with you until this part. That is just a cop out. Most teams have new players and injuries and are still able to run a better offense. Not all teams are like the Spurs with a high rate of continuity from season to season.

Yes this team with Danny has the talent to overcome a poor offensive scheme. That still doesn't dismiss Vogel's terrible offense. I by no means want him to be fired this season, but if the offense doesn't get more sophisticated over the season I hope we replace him.

You're right in that it's a copout. I think what I'm trying to get across is that there are are plenty of valid reasons (at least 33) for us to not be playing as well as we expected the full team to play. Nobody's happy after getting blown out like that, but some people choose to look for reasons why we're struggling VERY early in the season.

I bet the entire board was laughing their ***** off about the Lakers drama because an 0-3 start is nothing for that caliber of roster in an 82 game season. The same can be said of our 2-2 start, no matter when Danny Granger comes back.

Trader Joe
11-06-2012, 12:11 AM
The most frustrating thing for me, is that I was firmly in the camp that this iteration of the Pacers could survive the loss of Danny, and I have been one of the biggest Danny fans, I shouldn't have abandoned my feelings on him as a player. I thought Roy, Hill, George, West, and yes even Green could all chip in raise their games a bit and hold the fort. Well it's just not happening, the statistic about how bad we have been without Danny is coming true, and I really am actually upset wiht myself that I went against what I have been preaching abotu Danny for a long time on here.

notque
11-06-2012, 12:13 AM
You need time to install that offense. It wouldn't be possible to install that in season. We already do some triangle concepts. But nothing like what PoP does with the Spurs which is a ton of triangle.

I know it needs time, and a lot of failure to install the Triangle, but we're already failing on offense. Why not start now, eat our lumps and at least have good spacing.

So much of our offense is 1 on 1 with the other 4 guys on the other side. I'd much prefer the spacing in the Triangle.

I know we're not doing it, so it's irrelevant.. I just can't watch our offense like this and not think there's a better solution than our bigs at the top of the key passing to a side for 2 on 2 basketball over and over and over again.

Trader Joe
11-06-2012, 12:16 AM
We don't have the guys to run the triangle IMO. We have a bunch of average passers at best. West and Roy may be above average for this position but that is about it. Danny may actually be one of our best passers, he is a master of the hockey assist.

We also don't have guys who move exceptionally well without the ball. Paul especially is really bad at it.

aamcguy
11-06-2012, 12:17 AM
I think what I'm most annoyed by this season is that I haven't got to listen to our home team broadcasters once. 0/4 for Quinn and Denari :(

MvPlumlee
11-06-2012, 12:18 AM
I'd say most of our guys can't (yet) deal with not being the underdog . The pressure is there and they are feeling it.

A blowout loss confirms our underdog position, so it might be the spark we needed to go from ugly offense to not so pretty offense.

notque
11-06-2012, 12:19 AM
We don't have the guys to run the triangle IMO. We have a bunch of average passers at best. West and Roy may be above average for this position but that is about it. Danny may actually be one of our best passers, he is a master of the hockey assist.

We also don't have guys who move exceptionally well without the ball. Paul especially is really bad at it.

We don't have the guys to run the Triangle. We don't have the guys to run Vogel's offense.

What exactly are our guys good at? Playing enough defense and getting fouled enough to stay in games even though offensively we're trash?

PaceBalls
11-06-2012, 12:20 AM
We don't need a new offense, we just need Danny Granger.

SkipperZ
11-06-2012, 12:26 AM
I think it's worrisome that our offense made a player so clearly capable of being a very good starting pg in this league look so mediocre. And that we dumped him to commit for 5 years to be our starting pg a player who is a very very good 3rd guard but a below average starting pg.

vnzla81
11-06-2012, 12:29 AM
We don't need a new offense, we just need Danny Granger.

Yeah I don't know about that.

Pace Maker
11-06-2012, 12:39 AM
The problem is our offense is completely anemic.

We struggle to get good shots, because we get very little dribble penetration and our team consists of miserable passers. The lack of structured offensive sets isn't helping anybody either. Another big problem is even when we DO get good shots we can't capitalize on them because our perimeter shooting without DG is just miserable.

2 points and 5 boards from our max contract player? yucccccck

Trader Joe
11-06-2012, 12:41 AM
The toss the ball into Roy, run Paul George by him, and if he doesn't get open let Roy shoot play is one of the dumbest plays in the NBA. It is good for maybe one bucket a game, and we use it a lot more than that. Only way it works more than that is if the other team is really bad at defense or lazy.

yoadknux
11-06-2012, 12:53 AM
In a nutshell:

1. We don't have our best player (cut this "Hibbert most important!!" crap)
2. Our signings don't play well so far
3. We don't have a point guard

Cactus Jax
11-06-2012, 12:53 AM
I've been saying it since the signing, but George Hill at 8 million a year was a joke even for one year, let alone 5 years. There were so many PG's that got much smaller and better contracts that could've been had, and kept DC and maybe signed him long term, but I think the Pacers really didn't want to feel screwed over on the Hill/Leonard trade.

The team is just a terrible passing team, was last year, and adding 1 player (DJ) wasn't going to change that. Hibbert couldn't have been let go, but dude needs to get his **** together. Danny is so important to the team, he's no Kobe but he's a pretty damn good player, and it's clear noone is able to take his scoring role yet.

If (big if, the team is still talented) the team is near or under .500 about the time JOB was, late January I think, I could see the team going to Shaw, but that's a real low scenario, but Vogel needs to be better than a RAH RAH kind of guy.

rexnom
11-06-2012, 02:33 AM
Is DJ Augustin not a point guard? I'm not sure that a lack of point guard is as big of a problem as our offense, which looks awful. The spacing is terrible, the movement is worse, etc.

rexnom
11-06-2012, 02:36 AM
I've been saying it since the signing, but George Hill at 8 million a year was a joke even for one year, let alone 5 years. There were so many PG's that got much smaller and better contracts that could've been had, and kept DC and maybe signed him long term, but I think the Pacers really didn't want to feel screwed over on the Hill/Leonard trade.

The team is just a terrible passing team, was last year, and adding 1 player (DJ) wasn't going to change that. Hibbert couldn't have been let go, but dude needs to get his **** together. Danny is so important to the team, he's no Kobe but he's a pretty damn good player, and it's clear noone is able to take his scoring role yet.

If (big if, the team is still talented) the team is near or under .500 about the time JOB was, late January I think, I could see the team going to Shaw, but that's a real low scenario, but Vogel needs to be better than a RAH RAH kind of guy.
I was a big proponent of the off-season but, looking at it more rationally now, we may have made some key missteps. Not forcing Hill to hit the open market was one, signing Hibbert and Hill early was another, not signing Mahinmi outright yet another, trading DC to get rid of Dahntay's contract (I guess?) another.

xtacy
11-06-2012, 02:44 AM
Ok,first and foremost, we are 2-2, and have 78 games remaining in the 82 game schedule. I know its difficult, but lets take a deep breath. We know this team is capable of a high level of success. It's still early folks. Last year, in the lockout shortened season, we lost 118-83 in Miami in the 6th game of the season. I know it's not exactly the same, but just trying to put things in perspective.


I, like many, are very disappointed in certain aspects of the team at this point in time.


1) I am very disappointed in the flow of our offense, and the lack of quality shots we get. This is leading to a very poor shooting percentage.

2) I am extremely disappointed by how poorly we have taken care of the ball early in the season.

3) I am disappointed in the inconsistency I've seen from Roy Hibbert so far. 2 points and 5 rebounds is simply unacceptable on all facets. Paul George as well.

4) It seems that our team is lacking the fire and desire needed every night to be a championship contender.

5) I am disappointed in Frank Vogel and his lack of ability to make adjustments.


I know it is early, and we have plenty of time to turn it around, I just wanted to voice some of my concerns, and wanted to hear what your opinions were regarding this 2-2 start.

Most importantly. GO PACERS!!! :boomer:

realistic mode on.


The honeymoon period with Vogel is over and it's pretty clear he doesn't know how to coach.

this.



and now blind/dreaming mode on.

stop overreacting man.

so what we lost to one of the worst teams in the league. and it took two overtimes to beat another. we were able to beat a mediocre team at best with an extraordinary individual performance. and finally a really good team totally kicked our asses. so what?

danny will come back and solve all our problems. after all vogel is a great coach that creates great offense for this team. hibbert earns every penny he got.

all is well and for the last time stop ****ing overeacting!

skyfire
11-06-2012, 03:04 AM
We aren't executing nearly as well as we did last season. Against the Spurs who are best in the whole NBA at executing on both ends of the floor, we looked much worse in comparison. It felt like we were going to get blown out all game, not that we were hanging around 10pts back for a good part of it.

We go through stretches where we put up 5 or more jump shots in a row with not even attempting to get to the rim. For a team that is attempting to play through the post this is inexcusable.

Roy got totally owned by Duncan today, but it seemed like every single Spurs big man has far better footwork than any of our guys. Every time we get it down low it seems like we have to go up through traffic. They seemed to be able to work a position to get a solid finish over and over again. The 2 man game that Ginobili and Blair did to us towards the end of the game was just so clinical. They passed it back and forth 4 times, working over our defense until Blair had a good look at a floater. That has nothing to do with a PG even tho Manu is a great passer. It was just simple passes but the movement the players made was the key.

Ace E.Anderson
11-06-2012, 07:31 AM
Us "not having a PG" doesn't matter. Our offensive system isn't conducive to a PG, it's strictly for our frontline. Also, most PG's in this league are scores first and Formost, so I don't agree that Hill is the problem.

Post play is the easiest offensive philosophy to disrupt. You can front a player, double, etc. both of our post players are slow, and below the the players, so they're not going to beat teams "stacking the box" against them. Where we miss Danny the most is the fact that nobody's leaving him to go double the post. He'll Nobody's leaving him open period. Paul isn't knocking down the 3 ball consistently enough so teams are simply packing the lane nd letting us shoot from deep.

This far this season we've looked "our best" on offense when Hill or PG are looking to score, West is spotting up from mid range, and our new max C is crashing the offensive boards. Hill has a length advantage over most PG's so when he's being aggressive, it puts A LOT of pressure on opposing defenses.

Unfortunately we've either gone to West in the post, or Roy in the post exclusively. It seems Vogel has us starting our offense late in the shot clock to try nd slow the game down which doesn't help us at all. If anything we need to use our athleticism on the wing (Hill, Green, George, lance all like to get up nd down) as opposed to letting Roy and West try nd score tough baskets in the post all day.

Not to jump off the bridge, but if somehow by the ASB we are still struggling mightily, we should almost look to move West's expiring contract. I love West nd he's a great fit offensively to Roy, but we have to slow the game wayyy down for him nd Roy nd it's causing problems in the half court. Teams with athleticism or compatible length are able to just camp in the lane nd if our 3'a aren't falling then we are screwed.

naptownmenace
11-06-2012, 07:45 AM
Not having Danny Granger is the problem. All these other theories seem to conveniently leave that out of the equation. There is a reason that every basketball mind says that the Pacers best player is Danny Granger. That reason is because he is!

Regarding the offense, the Pacers rely too much on isolation plays. This includes our post plays because when West and Hibbert get the ball in the post they rarely pass the ball. Sometimes resetting the post would be a great idea or they cut have a player from the opposite side of the court cut to the hoop. For all the complaints the Lakers fans have had about the Princeton offense, the Pacers are a good team for it but the players have to be able to execute it. In other words, they need to make harder cuts and pass with better timing.

BlueNGold
11-06-2012, 07:51 AM
Settle down folks. We just played the Spurs who also beat the Thunder a few days ago. They are a well oiled machine. Did you know they went 47-7 at the end of last season sweeping Utah and the Clippers in the playoffs...only to fall to OKC after beating them the first two games. Did you also know they are undefeated and beat OKC just a few days ago? What do you expect to happen when you face a team like that without Granger? They have Ginobili, Blair and Stephen Jackson coming off the bench. Our guys are simply not that good and without Granger we don't stand a chance.

Unclebuck
11-06-2012, 08:25 AM
The honeymoon period with Vogel is over and it's pretty clear he doesn't know how to coach.

Really?

I suppose I will have to start defending Vogel like I did O'Brien, like I did Carlisle. The humorous thing is it always gets to this point - just a matter of when.

yoadknux
11-06-2012, 08:41 AM
This also explains our situation a bit (from NBA.com):


QUOTABLE: "We caught a break tonight. Without (Danny) Granger, their team loses their spacing and their ability to hang tough in certain periods of the game when he would keep them in the game. -- Spurs coach Gregg Popovich.

Ace E.Anderson
11-06-2012, 08:45 AM
For some perspective: The Spurs made us look pretty bad last season as well. We only lost by nine (thanks to DG havin a strong game) but it felt like much worse.

I agree, we shouldn't get TOO bent out of shape for losing to one of the best teams in the league without our best player. At this point it's not just Danny's game that we're missing, but it's his fire. His aggressiveness. I'm slowly starting to see why Danny maybe gets in the face of a few players from the opposing team--to fire this team up; because apparently without someone lighting that fire, we tend to kind of coast. I'm not saying we aren't playing hard, we just aren't playing MAD--or competitively enough to compensate for the lack of scoring that we're missing with Danny being out.

Pacerized
11-06-2012, 08:49 AM
I've been very unhappy at how DW squandered a rare opportunity with our cap space this summer but that's not the biggest issue today. Our bench is a was but we've lost chemistry there and with the starters by throwing a new player into the starting lineup.
Our biggest issue is that our best player is out. This team still needs Danny to be our leading scorer at least for 1 more year but he does a lot of things right beyond that. None of the guys getting his minutes are nearly as good at defense either.
I was at first against overpaying Roy but soon came around that it was better then the alternative of losing him and never replacing him with the same talent.
He's always been hot and cold but to start out a new max contract like this is very disappointing. If Roy were producing like he did last year that would change everything. He needs to come around quickly. If he doesn't get back to form and Granger misses a substantial amount of time, we're not even a playoff team.
Right now we could still be anywhere from #2 to #10.

Pacer Fan
11-06-2012, 08:49 AM
Offense is to stagnant.
Hibbert has to earn his pay check...fight for position in the post and take it hard to the rim. Pacers are trying to be post dominate and when Roy doesn't fight for position this causes the pg to lose his first option and if they try it a second time in the same possession it results to rushing to the open jump shooter. Pacers couldn'nt hit the broad side of BLF let alone the basket.

Pacers need more rotations, screens and less standing around on the perimeter. Doesn't give the pg many options. Must be frustrating to be Hill in that offense.

Come on coach, fix this sooner then later.

graphic-er
11-06-2012, 08:50 AM
Im not sure you can blame Hill for our terrible offense. Vogel is calling out plays from the side. Hill has been fantastic at the end of games, where his instinct takes over

BlueNGold
11-06-2012, 09:18 AM
Really?

I suppose I will have to start defending Vogel like I did O'Brien, like I did Carlisle. The humorous thing is it always gets to this point - just a matter of when.

This is true, but I don't think Jim deserved much defense. He was always defending himself.

jbx225
11-06-2012, 09:34 AM
I think one thing this team is lacking the is discipline to be patient and wait for the right play at the right time. When Vogel stepped in on an interim basis two seasons ago that was one of the criticisms of him from the beginning.

My guess is part of the turnaround from Vogel's first season full season and second half of his interim season was Bird stepping in and making sure the team was focused, disciplined and executed well. Keep in mind that what I speak of is not necessarily in game as much as it is in the locker room and in practice, which very easily translates in game.

I'm not sure Walsh carries the same kind of authority as Bird did. I see Walsh more of a personnel guy as to Bird who I would see as a coach looming in the background. I'm not laying blame on Walsh as much as I want to point out that not having Bird is a major difference between this year's team and last year's team.

I don't think this is the only thing wrong with the team but I also don't think we should overlook Bird's departure when we are having this conversation...

Pacer Fan
11-06-2012, 09:42 AM
Im not sure you can blame Hill for our terrible offense. Vogel is calling out plays from the side. Hill has been fantastic at the end of games, where his instinct takes over

It's not Hill's fault at all for Roys lazy positioning. And I'm not doubting Hill's instincts, but his late game shot the other day was a set play. He wasn't winging it with instincts.

McKeyFan
11-06-2012, 10:00 AM
Who's your Kobe or MJ? It's not there.

Yep. We traded Kobe Jones.

Ace E.Anderson
11-06-2012, 10:02 AM
It's not Hill's fault at all for Roys lazy positioning. And I'm not doubting Hill's instincts, but his late game shot the other day was a set play. He wasn't winging it with instincts.

The play actually called for another pick and roll with D.West, but Hill decided to NOT use the screen and get into the lane.

Hill is a lot better being aggressive from the mid range/posting up/slashing to the basket

Derek2k3
11-06-2012, 10:06 AM
I really think the team is still finding a rhythm. They underwent massive changes on the bench, with Green/Mahinmi/Young/Augustin getting significant minutes together for the first time ever. You can't simply slap a group together and get production.

As the season progresses, they'll become more comfortable playing together. I think we're already seeing that with Green, he was in a much better flow for most of the game yesterday. A notable exception being the pass to Tyler on the 4 on 5 :laugh:

I look for the team to continue to gel/improve. Frank has earned some leeway, lets not call it 4 games into the season. If, in a month, the same issues plague the offense, then sure. But not right now. Takes more than 4 games to gel/replace your leader.

pacer4ever
11-06-2012, 10:07 AM
Really?

I suppose I will have to start defending Vogel like I did O'Brien, like I did Carlisle. The humorous thing is it always gets to this point - just a matter of when.

Wait....people really didn't like Rick? That's messed up if you don't like Rick you won't like anybody ever.

BillS
11-06-2012, 10:27 AM
What happened to the old tradition of waiting for 10 games to make an analysis?

rock747
11-06-2012, 10:27 AM
I am really starting to think we may have taken a step back with the moves this summer... last years team wouldn't have struggled with the bobcats if Granger was out. Granger definetly wouldn't have made the difference last night.

McKeyFan
11-06-2012, 10:28 AM
I think what I'm most annoyed by this season is that I haven't got to listen to our home team broadcasters once. 0/4 for Quinn and Denari :(
Hmmmm.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

BillS
11-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Really?

I suppose I will have to start defending Vogel like I did O'Brien, like I did Carlisle. The humorous thing is it always gets to this point - just a matter of when.

I'd look forward to you prepping your thoughts on Vogel for a look after 10 or 20 games. I have to say I am disappointed so far, in that I am seeing nothing on offense that gives us options to help players get open. Execution might be able to be blamed, but at some point you think after a preseason and enough actual games we'd see what the offense is SUPPOSED to be rather than what it ENDS UP being after hitting a zone defense.

aamcguy
11-06-2012, 10:35 AM
The play actually called for another pick and roll with D.West, but Hill decided to NOT use the screen and get into the lane.

Hill is a lot better being aggressive from the mid range/posting up/slashing to the basket

That is one of several possible and intended outcomes of the PnR play....

vnzla81
11-06-2012, 10:36 AM
It looks to me like the bench got worse with the new additions, not only that but the FO decided to bring more projects instead of bringing players that you already know what you are going to get from them.

By the way for those that are saying that Danny would make the offense and the team in general run better I guess you forgot about last year were the offense was still crap with Danny in it, that's what people call "smashmouth" basketball, the must ugly way to play basketball there is.

aamcguy
11-06-2012, 10:54 AM
It looks to me like the bench got worse with the new additions, not only that but the FO decided to bring more projects instead of bringing players that you already know what you are going to get from them.

By the way for those that are saying that Danny would make the offense and the team in general run better I guess you forgot about last year were the offense was still crap with Danny in it, that's what people call "smashmouth" basketball, the must ugly way to play basketball there is.


Last year our offense wasn't pretty, but it was effective. See here: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/year/2012

Compare that to our numbers this year. Our offense is operating the same way, but we're not doing the things we were doing well last year. We're turning the ball over too much, shooting even worse from the field, and shooting worse from the free throw line. Last season we defended well, limited turnovers, and shot very well from the free throw line. Our physical style means we had higher than average trips to the free throw line. We also rebounded at a very high level on the offensive end. Which means that though our FG% wasn't necessarily the greatest, we often got multiple looks in the same possession. (Also multiple chances at a trip to the line.)

The only thing we're doing well this season for these somewhat hidden stats is rebounding well. But we're not making our second chance baskets and we're not converting enough at the FT line. You know against the Bobcats, we missed 11 free thorws? Despite shooting 26 3's, we STILL got to the line 27 times and we missed over a third of them. We didn't shoot very well against Toronto either.

I just looked at the FT stats of our two recent games and we did very well at the line there, but we didn't shoot the ball well and we gave the ball away.

What we did last year was limit offensive mistakes and play solid defense. It worked, but Danny was a big part of that.

Ace E.Anderson
11-06-2012, 11:00 AM
It looks to me like the bench got worse with the new additions, not only that but the FO decided to bring more projects instead of bringing players that you already know what you are going to get from them.

By the way for those that are saying that Danny would make the offense and the team in general run better I guess you forgot about last year were the offense was still crap with Danny in it, that's what people call "smashmouth" basketball, the must ugly way to play basketball there is.

Our offense was top 10 in offensive efficiency. A big part of that is because Danny is a very good floor spacer. But with that said, the absence of Danny is far from our ONLY issue with our offensive issues.

vnzla81
11-06-2012, 11:15 AM
Our offense was top 10 in offensive efficiency. A big part of that is because Danny is a very good floor spacer. But with that said, the absence of Danny is far from our ONLY issue with our offensive issues.

The offense has been crappy for a long time the only difference is that last year you had players that were able to hit an open shot in Danny,DC,DJ and Barbosa, now you replace those guys with OK(trying to be nice) shooters that even if they are open they don't hit the shots, the Pacers offense doesn't get the players easy shots, the shots they usually get are really difficult, either an Iso to West were he has to take it through two people, a fadeway shot with 4 seconds left on the clock, or some kind of Iso play were somebody has to make something out of nothing.

Pacertron
11-06-2012, 11:18 AM
The problem is, we don't know when our best player will be back. He may not be back. We need to be able to adjust.

RWB
11-06-2012, 11:30 AM
Can someone remind me what exactly did our guys (besides PG) work on during the summer to become better?

Ace E.Anderson
11-06-2012, 11:59 AM
The offense has been crappy for a long time the only difference is that last year you had players that were able to hit an open shot in Danny,DC,DJ and Barbosa, now you replace those guys with OK(trying to be nice) shooters that even if they are open they don't hit the shots, the Pacers offense doesn't get the players easy shots, the shots they usually get are really difficult, either an Iso to West were he has to take it through two people, a fadeway shot with 4 seconds left on the clock, or some kind of Iso play were somebody has to make something out of nothing.

I agree except DC and Barbosa are better shooters off the dribble as opposed to catch and shoot. Green is starting to come around nd show he can be an above average catch and shoot guy. But with Danny being out, we are missing our best catch and shoot player.

Sure would've liked Mayo to be the one shooting from deep as opposed to some of our other new guys. Lol but I'll wait a few months before I harp on that

Hicks
11-06-2012, 12:21 PM
We don't have the guys to run the triangle IMO. We have a bunch of average passers at best. West and Roy may be above average for this position but that is about it. Danny may actually be one of our best passers, he is a master of the hockey assist.

We also don't have guys who move exceptionally well without the ball. Paul especially is really bad at it.

Yes and no. We have mostly bad to average passers, but the basic passes one would make in the triangle aren't that difficult, relatively speaking, so I can see why the staff might think it's do-able in the long run through enough reps and whatnot. Maybe.

It does fit our personnel in the sense that it's an offense meant to have good spacing and to attack from the post with any position (you can put your PG through C in that side post as long as it's two shooters on the strong side with him to space), which all of our usual starters can somewhat do to really do well.

Where I'm fuzzy on the triangle is I'm not exactly sure what the two weak side guys are normally supposed to be doing to keep the defense honest. I know it's typically a big at midrange and a wing/guard on the perimeter, but what I don't recall is if they're just supposed to spread the floor most of the time versus moving/screening.

Hicks
11-06-2012, 12:29 PM
The toss the ball into Roy, run Paul George by him, and if he doesn't get open let Roy shoot play is one of the dumbest plays in the NBA. It is good for maybe one bucket a game, and we use it a lot more than that. Only way it works more than that is if the other team is really bad at defense or lazy.

The idea is to leave Roy in an iso on the block after George runs through. Suggesting to me that the problem is spacing and/or another defender coming to help on Roy and we're not punishing that. Then of course sometimes Roy just isn't making a shot.

Hicks
11-06-2012, 12:31 PM
Is DJ Augustin not a point guard? I'm not sure that a lack of point guard is as big of a problem as our offense, which looks awful. The spacing is terrible, the movement is worse, etc.

As far as I know/knew he is, but we run an offense that doesn't really need one, so his PG ability doesn't really have anything to do. He just basically gets rid of the ball and tries to hit jumpers.

Someone else, I think Sookie, was saying this elsewhere: For some reason Indiana has a thing for scoring point guards, either making a scorer run the point and/or using an offense that doesn't ask for a point to be a point.

Unclebuck
11-06-2012, 01:26 PM
I'd look forward to you prepping your thoughts on Vogel for a look after 10 or 20 games. I have to say I am disappointed so far, in that I am seeing nothing on offense that gives us options to help players get open. Execution might be able to be blamed, but at some point you think after a preseason and enough actual games we'd see what the offense is SUPPOSED to be rather than what it ENDS UP being after hitting a zone defense.


Fair enough, but you have to ask is it the system or the players. Even with Granger our offense can be limited. Our starting point guard probably shouldn't be playing (due to his injuries) and in general the new guys have been more disruptive than helpful. We need more patience.

In more general terms, I think everyone can or at least should admit the margin of error for this pacers team isn't that great. They need to be healthy and they need all players on the same page in order for them to be a good team.

TinManJoshua
11-06-2012, 01:31 PM
The toss the ball into Roy, run Paul George by him, and if he doesn't get open let Roy shoot play is one of the dumbest plays in the NBA. It is good for maybe one bucket a game, and we use it a lot more than that. Only way it works more than that is if the other team is really bad at defense or lazy.

The problem with that play is that Paul just trots into the lane. Over half the time we run it he doesn't seem intent on being open, just trying to occupy the guy guarding him so they don't double Roy.

Pacertron
11-06-2012, 01:49 PM
What happened to the old tradition of waiting for 10 games to make an analysis?

I'm not one to hit the panic button, and I am not. Because there is plenty of time for improvement. However, a lot of people are excusing this as "we don't have Granger, wait til he comes back then we will see." Granger may not be back. This a very odd mysterious injury here that I am terrified may end up being some sort of a season long situation. And looking at this team as a whole right now, they way the offense is flowing, this does not even look like a playoff team at this point.

We are lucky to be 2-2, and I will definitely take it. The team sorely misses Granger, it now that is more obvious than ever what he means to this team. But we need to be operating as if he is not coming back. I just hope somebody kicks PG in the butt. I was expecting a HUGE year from him as we all were, and he still seems to be diverting to other players even without Granger there to divert to.

But trust me, I am far from panic mode, I am still just so happy to have basketball back, win or lose. I have faith they will turn it around, just a lot more rust on this team than I was anticipating.

Pacer Fan
11-06-2012, 01:53 PM
With Roy and West being large and slow footed, the triangle would greatly improve the offense with the guards we have. It would benefit Hill, Green, Lance and possibly Paul as it does appear his handles are improving. I would be all for it.

vnzla81
11-06-2012, 02:04 PM
Fair enough, but you have to ask is it the system or the players. Even with Granger our offense can be limited. Our starting point guard probably shouldn't be playing (due to his injuries) and in general the new guys have been more disruptive than helpful. We need more patience.

In more general terms, I think everyone can or at least should admit the margin of error for this pacers team isn't that great. They need to be healthy and they need all players on the same page in order for them to be a good team.

You call it "margin of error" I call it "hoping" the Pacers are "hoping" that a lot of things work in their favor, they are hoping that Mahinmi, Green, DJ, Young are better than they were in their previous teams, they are hoping Tyler and Lance play better and become rotation players, now they are hoping that Danny is healthy,etc.

Pacer Fan
11-06-2012, 02:13 PM
I am not concerned of the new guys. As a whole, they are much, much better then what we had last year. I'm concerned of Danny's knee and Roy's mental toughness. I am concerned of the coaching style vs players abilities.

BillS
11-06-2012, 02:16 PM
Fair enough, but you have to ask is it the system or the players. Even with Granger our offense can be limited. Our starting point guard probably shouldn't be playing (due to his injuries) and in general the new guys have been more disruptive than helpful. We need more patience.

In more general terms, I think everyone can or at least should admit the margin of error for this pacers team isn't that great. They need to be healthy and they need all players on the same page in order for them to be a good team.

I guess I feel like the job of the coach is to find ways to help the team compensate for systemic player problems. In other words, a coach mostly can't be held responsible for single-game execution issues but he can be held responsible for an offense that isn't suited for his players abilities. After all, that's why Vogel simplified the offense upon taking over.

I just feel like I'm not seeing anything that was put in place to help players against what should have been a very predictable defense - deny the ball getting to the paint.

Sookie
11-06-2012, 02:17 PM
We don't have the guys to run the Triangle. We don't have the guys to run Vogel's offense.

What exactly are our guys good at? Playing enough defense and getting fouled enough to stay in games even though offensively we're trash?

Yea, that's the problem.

If they aren't good at moving without the ball. And they aren't good at passing. And they don't have a "true PG" or a PG that can create for others (Steve Nash) and they don't have players that can create shots for themselves. They aren't going to be able to run any offense.

I think the first two can be taught to an extent. (Although it's unlikely to be great. I do notice a difference in PG's movement. He's not aggressive, but he moves with a purpose now.) That just leaves offenses that take a little while to implement..and won't look very good until Granger comes back. (Or perhaps won't be efficient.)

Trader Joe
11-06-2012, 02:18 PM
The problem with that play is that Paul just trots into the lane. Over half the time we run it he doesn't seem intent on being open, just trying to occupy the guy guarding him so they don't double Roy.

The problem is the spacing on that play is really bad. The defender has to take a bad angle or just be lazy to be beaten. It shrinks the floor for us, it does not open the floor up. It also makes Roy more susceptible to a double team.

BillS
11-06-2012, 02:22 PM
You call it "margin of error" I call it "hoping" the Pacers are "hoping" that a lot of things work in their favor, they are hoping that Mahinmi, Green, DJ, Young are better than they were in their previous teams, they are hoping Tyler and Lance play better and become rotation players, now they are hoping that Danny is healthy,etc.

Basically, you call it "hoping" because the coaching staff's expectations are higher than yours. They weren't just tossing players out there and praying for an improvement, they made educated decisions based on their experience and what they saw. Given that, "hoping" ends up being a pretty serious slam on their professional abilities.

You never design an offense that is valid only if your players perform at their lowest possible level - that way lies completely failing to use your players' strengths. You design an offense to use players' strengths and compensate for their weaknesses - and, in a system that relies on all players performing in consistent roles, it doesn't take much to cause it to get disrupted. THAT is the "margin of error".

vnzla81
11-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Basically, you call it "hoping" because the coaching staff's expectations are higher than yours. They weren't just tossing players out there and praying for an improvement, they made educated decisions based on their experience and what they saw. Given that, "hoping" ends up being a pretty serious slam on their professional abilities.

The coaching staff didn't bring those guys the FO did and yes I'm slaming the front office, they are hoping Ian is better than he was in Dallas(he was not that good) they are hoping that Green's good 31 good games in five seasons is not a fluke, not only that but they gave this guys long term contracts, they are also hoping that Hill is the point guard of the future and Roy is the center of the future.


You never design an offense that is valid only if your players perform at their lowest possible level - that way lies completely failing to use your players' strengths. You design an offense to use players' strengths and compensate for their weaknesses - and, in a system that relies on all players performing in consistent roles, it doesn't take much to cause it to get disrupted. THAT is the "margin of error".

We are not just talking about offense, "margin of error" could be used for whole team in general.

tfarks
11-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Last year our offense wasn't pretty, but it was effective. See here: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/year/2012

Compare that to our numbers this year. Our offense is operating the same way, but we're not doing the things we were doing well last year. We're turning the ball over too much, shooting even worse from the field, and shooting worse from the free throw line. Last season we defended well, limited turnovers, and shot very well from the free throw line. Our physical style means we had higher than average trips to the free throw line. We also rebounded at a very high level on the offensive end. Which means that though our FG% wasn't necessarily the greatest, we often got multiple looks in the same possession. (Also multiple chances at a trip to the line.)

The only thing we're doing well this season for these somewhat hidden stats is rebounding well. But we're not making our second chance baskets and we're not converting enough at the FT line. You know against the Bobcats, we missed 11 free thorws? Despite shooting 26 3's, we STILL got to the line 27 times and we missed over a third of them. We didn't shoot very well against Toronto either.

I just looked at the FT stats of our two recent games and we did very well at the line there, but we didn't shoot the ball well and we gave the ball away.

What we did last year was limit offensive mistakes and play solid defense. It worked, but Danny was a big part of that.

This is a good post. The reality of it is, execution and current personnel as is, the offense still improves. The variability of shooting the ball is prone to fluctuation, and 4 games is not enough to identify an actual trend. This years Pacers team might not be as efficient as it was last year, unfortunately, but that's just impossible to tell right now. And while we would like to say this team can handle the loss of Granger, UB said it best, this team needs fortune. We simply do not have the depth and system that a team like the Spurs have.

Going forward, there are multiple easily identifiable corrections to the offense that need to be made that have been brought up, and this is a fantastic opportunity to evaluate Vogel on how these corrections are implemented within his scheme. But I guarantee with the talent level on this team, even sans Granger, this is not a bottom of the barrel team in offensive efficiency.
The Pacers absolutely need to cut down on turnovers. Any loss of possession is crucial, repeatedly doing so is the perfect recipe for failure. Just by starting to hit their shots from outside to avoid the congestion, there will be a drop in turnovers from trying to force it into the paint whether its by dribble or pass. When Granger is out there, they usually have the spacing required for this. Players like Green and George have to, and I believe they will, step up to replace this part of the offense. If they don't fear you out there, you will invariably be bottled up.

pacer4ever
11-06-2012, 04:42 PM
Yes and no. We have mostly bad to average passers, but the basic passes one would make in the triangle aren't that difficult, relatively speaking, so I can see why the staff might think it's do-able in the long run through enough reps and whatnot. Maybe.

It does fit our personnel in the sense that it's an offense meant to have good spacing and to attack from the post with any position (you can put your PG through C in that side post as long as it's two shooters on the strong side with him to space), which all of our usual starters can somewhat do to really do well.

Where I'm fuzzy on the triangle is I'm not exactly sure what the two weak side guys are normally supposed to be doing to keep the defense honest. I know it's typically a big at midrange and a wing/guard on the perimeter, but what I don't recall is if they're just supposed to spread the floor most of the time versus moving/screening.

I disagree we have no one to play the lag role. Plus having good post feeders ala Rick Fox are keys that we don't have. We could run the triangle but it wouldn't do much good IMO. Unless we had a few years to learn the offense and get good at it. Gary Payton never really learned the offense and he is smart as they come.

Pacer Fan
11-07-2012, 08:21 AM
I disagree we have no one to play the lag role. Plus having good post feeders ala Rick Fox are keys that we don't have. We could run the triangle but it wouldn't do much good IMO. Unless we had a few years to learn the offense and get good at it. Gary Payton never really learned the offense and he is smart as they come.

Rick Fox is not reasoning to your argument and a younger Payton would not be a good fit for the triangle. He was brought in cause his abilities was dwindling and he was cheap. It wasn't that he couldn't get it, he just didn't have it. The triangle is one of the easiest offenses to run. It is an offense that would be perfect for our lackluster pg position. It is an offense of team assist which the Pacers already do.

Also, Pacers ran the triangle on the right side against the Spurs and did it very well. I don't recall if they scored, but the rotations was there. I know I said It's an easy offense to run and some will argue this, but I feel it is easy and it gives the coach many options.

Nuntius
11-07-2012, 09:07 AM
Without Granger our spacing is gone. Teams do not respect our 3 point shooting and clog the paint which in return makes Hibbert inefficient. We cannot execute our give and go's with Hibs and PG / Hill / Gerald since Hibs is mostly double-teamed and we cannot punish them for that.

Pacer Fan
11-07-2012, 09:21 AM
Without Granger our spacing is gone. Teams do not respect our 3 point shooting and clog the paint which in return makes Hibbert inefficient. We cannot execute our give and go's with Hibs and PG / Hill / Gerald since Hibs is mostly double-teamed and we cannot punish them for that.

This is somewhat true, but Roy has been one on one more times then not and he is struggling to get position for an entry pass. Hill had a discouraging look a few times wanting to pass to Roy in the low post.

BillS
11-07-2012, 10:03 AM
Teams do not respect our 3 point shooting

Heck, my DOG doesn't respect the Pacers' 3-point shooting.

Roaming Gnome
11-07-2012, 10:12 AM
Heck, my DOG doesn't respect the Pacers' 3-point shooting.

Depends if Unclebuck is doing the 3 point shooting... That'll get his attention every time!

Naptown_Seth
11-07-2012, 10:12 AM
MAKE

AN

OUTSIDE

OPEN

JUMPER


Otherwise kiss all paint scoring goodbye except BAMF knocking two guys aside to hit a tough runner/bump fade. 28% from 3 is horrible. You know how many NBA teams shot below 30% from 3 last year? One, the Charlotte Bobcats at 29.5%. The Kings were 31.6, the Wiz were 32. The prior year the Raps were last at 31.6.

So either the Pacers starting shooting the 3 better or they end up with a 25 win season. The math is pretty clear on that. 28% from 3 will put you in the ditch.

Unclebuck
11-07-2012, 10:27 AM
I think the biggest thing that is going wrong is the Pacers are easy to defend. I was thinking prior to the Spurs game, wow even the sub .500 are playing great defense, but really it has more to do with the Pacers being easy to defend.

WhoLovesYaBaby?
11-07-2012, 10:28 AM
What's gone wrong?

It seems obvious. Poor outside shooting. The biggest scorer and outside shooter is out indefinitely. Hansbrough, Augustin, and Young are poor shooters. Hill is struggling at running the offense. PG is not shooting or hitting the 3. nor Lance. The 3 was a major part of the offense last season.

No outside scoring. Not hard to figure out.

BillS
11-07-2012, 11:24 AM
Depends if Unclebuck is doing the 3 point shooting... That'll get his attention every time!

Naaah, he'd just disrespect it in a completely different fashion.

Naptown_Seth
11-07-2012, 11:43 AM
I think the biggest thing that is going wrong is the Pacers are easy to defend. I was thinking prior to the Spurs game, wow even the sub .500 are playing great defense, but really it has more to do with the Pacers being easy to defend.
But they've had wide open outside shots. I mean not even guys running at them, and not off of a pull up dribble but on ball rotations away from double/triple teams.

If anything they looked surprised by the situations and unprepared to be taking that shot. But DJ hitting an open corner 3 is not exactly horrible offense, and Paul is very capable of a Granger make rate if left open.

Frankly you'd expect them to hit uncontested shots at 40% and force the defense to come out and reduce that rate, thus opening up the inside. So they aren't just a bit below level, they are way below their expected shooting rate.

BillS
11-07-2012, 12:13 PM
But they've had wide open outside shots. I mean not even guys running at them, and not off of a pull up dribble but on ball rotations away from double/triple teams.

I'd disagree with this in terms of the Spurs game, they were shooting off the dribble with coverage all night long. Not a lot of open shots Monday night.

Nuntius
11-07-2012, 02:36 PM
This is somewhat true, but Roy has been one on one more times then not and he is struggling to get position for an entry pass. Hill had a discouraging look a few times wanting to pass to Roy in the low post.

Roy is indeed struggling to get in position and hit shots that he normally makes. That's true.

But I cannot help it but think that if we had a legit threat from downtown it would free up the paint and make life easier for West and Roy.

McKeyFan
11-07-2012, 02:54 PM
I think the biggest thing that is going wrong is the Pacers are easy to defend. I was thinking prior to the Spurs game, wow even the sub .500 are playing great defense, but really it has more to do with the Pacers being easy to defend.

Is there a difference between being easy to defend and sucking on offense?

Cousy47
11-07-2012, 02:57 PM
I'm not even sure you need to shoot 3s, just make you man pay or going to double or triple Roy. If there are 2 or 3 people around the ball, somebody is open and should be moving into position to recieve the pass out. I know we give Roy and West grief for not passing out of double teams, but the open man needs to make himself available for the guick pass back. We know they're going to double Roy, so get yourself into view!