PDA

View Full Version : I'm not trying to cause a stir



Peck
03-05-2005, 09:37 AM
no, really I'm not.

But does anybody know the record for the Pacers for the past two years when J.O. has not played?

I honestly don't know what it is, but if my memory is right I thought we did fairly well without him.

able
03-05-2005, 09:42 AM
last year with either Ron or JO Out we had about 500 records, with boht out unmentionable records
This year with JO out we have a losing record but don't forget it is not opnly JO out atm, Ron and Mel are out to.

If you are saying that Rick's offense through JO till dead do us part is not as good as it might seem when we are complete, the I agree 100%

I think that with Mel out, the offense should be more like it was last night, in which case JO is the perfect distraction a role he surely doesn't mind.
Even WITH Mel at times Rick calls to many plays, and they all go through JO.

I think that if AJ was allowed to play more freely (something he even commented on earlier) then he would probably not look as bad as he does.

To think we are better without JO is of course a weird statement.

skyfire
03-05-2005, 10:16 AM
The Pacers aren't a better team this season without JO, but they are a slightly less predictable one. Looking for a post feed on every play is the quickest way to make it not effective.

With JO as our only post player we are just too predictable on offense. Ron's face up post game, strength and shooting touch compliments JO's back to the basket post game to a tee.

Would the Pacers victory % with Ron but not JO, be higher than our with JO but not Ron ratio? Dunno how meaningful this statistic would be, maybe a measure of which of our starters we can best cover for.

Guessing here as to the order of which supposed starters absense would cause the biggest chance of a loss:
1. Mel (with the rise of Freddie at PG this might not become such an issue)
2. Ron
3. JO
4. Foster
5. Reggie

I still think if this team can ever get everyone on court and healthy, they will do great things. The addition of vets like D2 and Curry (in a coaching/advisory role) gives us a better balance between young and old, whereas it was previously Uncle Reggie and all the young'ns. I'm confident that when RC is able to use all of his players and have a proper rotation he will be able to find a better balance on offense.

ABADays
03-05-2005, 10:27 AM
I don't want to sound too negative here because I am very happy with both players. But I did state in an earlier thread I was getting sick of the two man game Tinsley and JO were playing. Boooooorrrrriiiiinnnnnngggggg!

diamonddave00
03-05-2005, 01:00 PM
Last night Pacers beat a Blazer team thats 22-34 playing without their best player Zach Randolph , also minus starting guard Nick Van Exel and sf Ruben Patterson. Nice win .

It was a much needed win but I'm not basing if we are better without Jermaine on that game. We will have at least 5 games now to see what they look like without him.

Luckily the next 2 games on the road still appear winable. Lakers struggling but at home with Kobe will be difficult. But winable.

Jazz , next they are struggling mightily without Carlos Boozer . Catch them at the right time.


The home game vs the Warriors. Warriors another below .500 team , even without Jermaine should be winable.

Road game at Cleveland. This will be a hard one to win. LeBron and Ilgauskis will be hard to contain. Far better team at home then road. Currently losers of 5 straight.

Then 2 home games returns matches with Jazz and Lakers.




Of those only a win over the Cavaliers and maybe Lakers in LA would be considered upsets without Jermaine.

Appears a weak schedule without Jermaine may still leave the Pacers in the playoff hunt. In my opinion even without Jermaine we should win 4 games.

After those 7 the schedule gets tougher in my opinion. Back to back with Nets , then Spurs , Pistonsand Bulls on back to backs. Bucks then Miami to end March .

Until this team consistantly beats quality teams without Jermaine, the record without Jermaine is meaningless to bring up.

If he's out and Pacers beat Spurs, Magic, Cavs, Bulls , teams with better records then we can bring the record up. Then it has a little more weight.

Ragnar
03-05-2005, 01:02 PM
Usually it is the good teams we beat and we lose to the crappy teams.

sweabs
03-05-2005, 01:22 PM
Last night Pacers beat a Blazer team thats 22-34 playing without their best player Zach Randolph , also minus starting guard Nick Van Exel and sf Ruben Patterson. Nice win .

Last night Blazers lost to a Pacer team that's at .500 playing without their best player Jermaine O'Neal, also minus starting guard Jamaal Tinsley and all-star SF Ron Artest.

:devil:

Indyfan
03-05-2005, 01:41 PM
Last night Blazers lost to a Pacer team that's at .500 playing without their best player Jermaine O'Neal, also minus starting guard Jamaal Tinsley and all-star SF Ron Artest.

:devil:

Thanks for pointing that out!!! I think we all forget how much we are missing with our 3 best players out! We should be an underdog to almost everyone, so every win is a big one for us. With the players we have available now we have to play a very good game to with few mental lapses or mistakes to even give ourselves a chance to win.