Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

  1. #1
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,921

    Default Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    ....or what would you do differently?

    #1
    I'd have to say my complaint with the Pacers would be they never take an immediate shot at improving the team unless there is no downside ((IE: Dale Davis at or near vet minimum $$ prorated to final 1/3rd of the season). ...Or things had gotten so bad there was no reason not to do something or they downright HAD to do something (Chicago trade)).

    IOW, dollars are played close to the vest in that regard. That part could be understandable BUT dollars are not played close to the vest when it comes to overpaying our own for the future to the point that it handcuffs us into having zero flexibility to improve our immediate lot. Therefore, I don't see money as the overriding issue. There's money there, it's just questionable to me how it is allocated.

    Some could argue Bender was a 'championship' gamble. IMHO, Bender was another move for the future. He would never help the existing (at the time) team to a championship. He could only hurt them because he offered nothing that they needed while in their immediate window. And he came at a price, not just a blown draft pick.

    Our major moves and signings always seem to be for benefits several years down the road, not the immediate future. IMHO, that is why we end up with unbalanced rosters because the future doesn't always work out as planned.

    IOW... We're a team that is always built for "next year". Is it any wonder we are always saying "Wait'll next year!"?

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  2. #2
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,454

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    I couldn't agree more.

    I love this franchise, I think we are one of the best franchises in the NBA, but I am sick of the "wait till next year" mentality. We are always building for the future. But you know what's funny? The future never comes, it's always "the future"

    For once I'd like to lay everything on the line, and make a move that would impact a current season, and give us a great shot to win a championship.

    I've always thought that the mentality has been to build a team that will always just be competitive.

    I want an NBA championship more than anything for this franchise. That's the only thing that matters in the NBA. That's how your judged by other franchises. 61 wins is nice for the Pacers, but in all honesty, no one gave a damn around the NBA that we won 61 games last year. There is nothing more overhyped than regular season victories. What people pay attention to is who won the championship, not who won the most games.

    The mentality of Indianapolis professional sports is "wait till next year"

  3. #3

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerFanAdam
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I couldn't agree more.

    I love this franchise, I think we are one of the best franchises in the NBA, but I am sick of the "wait till next year" mentality. We are always building for the future. But you know what's funny? The future never comes, it's always "the future"

    For once I'd like to lay everything on the line, and make a move that would impact a current season, and give us a great shot to win a championship.

    I've always thought that the mentality has been to build a team that will always just be competitive.

    I want an NBA championship more than anything for this franchise. That's the only thing that matters in the NBA. That's how your judged by other franchises. 61 wins is nice for the Pacers, but in all honesty, no one gave a damn around the NBA that we won 61 games last year. There is nothing more overhyped than regular season victories. What people pay attention to is who won the championship, not who won the most games.

    The mentality of Indianapolis professional sports is "wait till next year"

    I totally agree. We always have good teams, but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters. Indianapolis teams always seem destined for the Eastern Conference Finals/AFC Championship, but never any further.
    Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

  4. #4
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,709

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by TruWarier
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters.
    I have a real problem with statements like that. But instead of listing all the games in the playoffs that the Pacers did play very well, by that I mean they played very well in games "when it matters". I won't make such a boring list. Just let me say every game in the playoffs "matter".

    Seems to me you are suggesting the games "only matter when they lose"

  5. #5
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,921

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by TruWarier
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I totally agree. We always have good teams, but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters. Indianapolis teams always seem destined for the Eastern Conference Finals/AFC Championship, but never any further.
    Not to derail my own thread... but if the Colts are a team of destiny for the AFC Championship somebody better tell 'destiny'. I can count two times making it in the 20 years or so that they've been here

    And the times they didn't make it, they haven't even been close whether that is not even in the playoffs or getting manhandled the previous round to the championship.

    But I digress....

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  6. #6
    Well lubricated Skaut_Ech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

    I agree with you guys. Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

    I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results.

    (I won't get into the minutae of what's occurred in the past, but it seems we get ourselves in the mix with trade talks, so people can say, hey, they're trying to do something, but ulimately the trigger is never pulled because our players, who the other team wants, have too much "potential". The first time that happened in the modern era that I remember was with Barkley around 96? 97? He openly admired the Pacers for years-something which held over to his broadcasting days- and I kept thinking, this is a deal that could mean something, but we didn't want to give up anything that constituted a risk, to get him. I WILL say, I think we made a ballsy move when we picked up Dampier. That is about the only time I can think we made a "win-now" move.)

    I think part of the problem is that you can't build a team assuming a group of players will all mature at the same time, as you guys said, as if the rest of the league will be in stasis. You USED to be able to do that. Back in the dynasty Lakers/Celts days.

    I think the models of Miami and Minnesota show the yin (good) and yang (bad) of the current model of getting a dominant player, then surrounding him with complementary guys.

    But I'm getting off the subject a bit.

    I think this team is always built for the future, too. It's great from a business sense. Always good enough to put fans in the seats, not controversial enough to make people turn away from the team, but as a fan, it gets old.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not to derail my own thread... but if the Colts are a team of destiny for the AFC Championship somebody better tell 'destiny'. I can count two times making it in the 20 years or so that they've been here

    And the times they didn't make it, they haven't even been close whether that is not even in the playoffs or getting manhandled the previous round to the championship.

    But I digress....

    -Bball
    True, they have only reached 2 times. I guess I should just say, one win and out.

    Yes, every playoff game does matter. But it seems like in the Eastern Conference Finals, something always happens to the Pacers where they lose. Injuries, bad refs, the list can go on. It seems like the team that is really competing with us throughout the season, always makes the big move to put them over the top, while we stay put.
    Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

  8. #8
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skaut_Ech
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.
    I will be 21 this May. I agree with PacerFanAdam, who is actually 2+ years younger than me.

  9. #9
    Cheeseburger in Paradise Los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    9,690

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skaut_Ech
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

    I agree with you guys. Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

    I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results.

    (I won't get into the minutae of what's occurred in the past, but it seems we get ourselves in the mix with trade talks, so people can say, hey, they're trying to do something, but ulimately the trigger is never pulled because our players, who the other team wants, have too much "potential". The first time that happened in the modern era that I remember was with Barkley around 96? 97? He openly admired the Pacers for years-something which held over to his broadcasting days- and I kept thinking, this is a deal that could mean something, but we didn't want to give up anything that constituted a risk, to get him. I WILL say, I think we made a ballsy move when we picked up Dampier. That is about the only time I can think we made a "win-now" move.)

    I think part of the problem is that you can't build a team assuming a group of players will all mature at the same time, as you guys said, as if the rest of the league will be in stasis. You USED to be able to do that. Back in the dynasty Lakers/Celts days.

    I think the models of Miami and Minnesota show the yin (good) and yang (bad) of the current model of getting a dominant player, then surrounding him with complementary guys.

    But I'm getting off the subject a bit.

    I think this team is always built for the future, too. It's great from a business sense. Always good enough to put fans in the seats, not controversial enough to make people turn away from the team, but as a fan, it gets old.
    I'm quoting this post because I think it deserves to be quoted.

    Nice job, Skaut.

  10. #10
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,454

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I have a real problem with statements like that. But instead of listing all the games in the playoffs that the Pacers did play very well, by that I mean they played very well in games "when it matters". I won't make such a boring list. Just let me say every game in the playoffs "matter".

    Seems to me you are suggesting the games "only matter when they lose"


    Yes, every game in the playoffs "matters", but some games have alot more importance than others.

    Winning games early in playoff series' is one thing, winning them when it's do or die is totally another.

    Let's just take the 2002 WCF's between the Lakers and the Kings. The Kings were able to take leads in that series, but when it was literally do or die in game 7, it was the Lakers that showed up. Game 7 had far more importance than any of the games the Kings won.

    I'll always say that the Pacers should have had 1 NBA championship from 1994-1999. In 2000, the Pacers reached their potential, and were just beat by a better, more powerful team.

    That's why I've always had a problem with Reggie being labled as "the greatest clutch performer of all time." I don't think clutch is just hitting a couple of buzzer shots, Clutch is willing your team to victory, putting everything on the line in a do or die game. Jordan, Bird and Johnson, those are the best clutch performers of all time, they willed their teams to championships. I've just always felt that most of Reggie's "big moments" were in early games in playoff series.

    I hate to knock Reggie, but him and those Pacers teams always seemed to have their best games early in playoff series from 1994-1999. Again, I'll state that in the year 2000, Reggie and the Pacers did everything they could, but were simply beat by a more powerful team. And of course in 1996, Reggie was injured for the first 4 games against Atlanta, then played his *** off in game 5 against the Hawks, but unfortunately, we fell short. And in 2002, Reggie went above and beyond in game 5 against NJ, but that isn't one of the window years I am referring to.

    OK, what are 3 of the biggest Pacers playoff moments in franchise history. I'm not saying THE 3 biggest moments, just 3 of the biggest.

    One is the miracle Rik Smits shot against the Magic in game 4 of the 1995 ECF's. Huge win, but did it help the Pacers win the series? No, they were smoked in game 7.

    Next is Reggie's 25 fourth quarter points in game 5 of the 1994 ECF's. Huge moment, but it didn't win the series for us. Him and the Pacers had a chance to shut the Knicks out at MSA in game 6, and then lost game 7 in NY. You have to back a performance like that in game 5 with a win to close out the series, and the Pacers didn't

    Then there is the shot against Chicago. Again, a great moment, but when everything was on the line in game 7, it was Jordan and the Bulls that willed the victory.

    I'll always be bitter that we didnt get one championship out of 1994, 1995, 1998, or 1999. We faded in those years when everything was on the line. The loss to NY in 1999 was embarassing. Thankfully Reggie redeemed himself from an embarassing 8 point performance in game 6 of 1999 with a 34 pt performance in game 6 of 00.

  11. #11
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,709

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    You know the reason why the Pacers have never won the NBA championship. It is not because they haven't been able to win the games that "matter"

    They have not won it all because I don't believe there was an individual season when they were the best team for that given year. Simple as that and we all know the best team wins in the NBA 99% of the time

    2004 - Pistons were better.
    2000 - Lakers were better
    1999 - Spurs were better. The Knicks likely weren't better than the Pacers, but the Spurs were
    1998 - Bulls were better, more experienced
    1995 - Magic beat the Pacers, but I think the Rockets were better than the Pacers.
    1994 - First time the pacers have ever won an NBA playoff series. They weren't quite ready yet

    I cannot honestly suggest that in any of these seasons I metnioned that they were better than the team that won the championship. In fact I don't think they were at all.

  12. #12
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,454

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know the reason why the Pacers have never won the NBA championship. It is not because they haven't been able to win the games that "matter"

    They have not won it all because I don't believe there was an individual season when they were the best team for that given year. Simple as that and we all know the best team wins in the NBA 99% of the time

    2004 - Pistons were better.
    2000 - Lakers were better
    1999 - Spurs were better. The Knicks likely weren't better than the Pacers, but the Spurs were
    1998 - Bulls were better, more experienced
    1995 - Magic beat the Pacers, but I think the Rockets were better than the Pacers.
    1994 - First time the pacers have ever won an NBA playoff series. They weren't quite ready yet

    I cannot honestly suggest that in any of these seasons I metnioned that they were better than the team that won the championship. In fact I don't think they were at all.
    You know, outside of 2000, the Pacers had a great chance to win those 5 other series. We could go round and round over who the better team was in each of those series, but the fact is, the Pacers had their chances to win all of those series, but didn't deliver.

    When you're up 3-2 on a team, and have 2 chances to put them out, like the Pacers did with the Knicks in 1994, and you don't do it........you blew it, it's that simple. You had your chances to win and didn't do it.

    We should have been able to find out if the Rockets were better in 1995. We would have given them a hell of a series. Don't forget we beat the Rockets in Houston in 1993-1994, and 1994-1995. You've made the point of "experience" playing a factor in the Pacers losing in 1994 and 1998. Well who had the experience in 1995, the Pacers or the Magic? Wasn't it the Pacers that had been to an ECF's before? Wasn't it the Pacers who had played in a game 7 before? The Magic had never won a playoff series before 1995.

    You bring "experience" up in dealing with the Pacers-Bulls. Experience is overrated. Who had the experience in the NBA finals last year, the Pistons or the Lakers? The Lakers had won 3 NBA championships, that PIstons team had never seen the finals before. Again, the fact remains that the Pacers had their chances to win that series in 1998 and didn't. Anytime teams go to a 7th game, it's hard to say one team is that much better than the other.

  13. #13
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,962

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skaut_Ech
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

    I agree with you guys. Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

    I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results.
    Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  14. #14
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,921

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    So far I find myself agreeing with both PacerfanAdam and Uncle Buck in varying degrees in their ongoing debate. I think it is time to make a food run, think about it, and get off the fence.

    It's an interesting debate tho.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  15. #15
    Cheeseburger in Paradise Los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    9,690

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    If you think back, the SJax deal was still a look to the future. It was a deal for a new 6th man - a guy who could be Reggie's successor "next year or the year after."

    It wasn't a bold improvement - it was just one more step in a long line of lateral moves. It wasn't a mistake - DW is guilty of very few of those - but it wasn't a bold move to put us over the top either.

  16. #16
    Harmonica
    Guest

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Los Angeles
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you think back, the SJax deal was still a look to the future. It was a deal for a new 6th man - a guy who could be Reggie's successor "next year or the year after."

    It wasn't a bold improvement - it was just one more step in a long line of lateral moves. It wasn't a mistake - DW is guilty of very few of those - but it wasn't a bold move to put us over the top either.
    Well, we'll never know, will we? Mr. Artest made sure of that.

  17. #17
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,962

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    I think IT was a direct move to improve the backcourt immediately.
    Okay, so he way supposed to be the 6th man, but one with MAJOR minutes and only to give Reggie "legend" starts this season, so I don't really aggree with your assessment here.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  18. #18
    Long time fan diamonddave00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Castle de Verde (Greencastle)
    Posts
    1,362
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    In my mind the Harrington for Stephen Jackson was a major move toward a championship this season. In last years series vs the Pistons , Pacer guards were outplayed and out scored by the Piston by a wide margin.

    The thought was Bender would man the backup minutes at forward that Harrington had played. During the Piston series the Pacers suffered long scoring droughts. With Piston inside defense Jackson was seen as the scorer off the bench to end those with out side scoring. Plus he was brought in to be a more athletic and stronger defender on Richard Hamilton.

    As an "old timer" Pacer fan "potential " is great but often goes undeveloped. As such put me down as a fan who prefers a win now attitude. Teams windows for championships are brief.

    You can build a championship team and a freak injury or occurance ( like the brawl) can end that hope quickly.

    I trust Donnie Walsh , but am beginning to wonder if he will ever bring us a championship. I appreciate being a contender every year but would like to see an NBA Championship, sometime in the very near future.

  19. #19
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    We were good enough to win last year. We weren't saying "at least we have next year" during the course of the season. We were true contenders, but the pieces just did not fall into place.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  20. #20
    Cheeseburger in Paradise Los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    9,690

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think IT was a direct move to improve the backcourt immediately.
    Okay, so he way supposed to be the 6th man, but one with MAJOR minutes and only to give Reggie "legend" starts this season, so I don't really aggree with your assessment here.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    All good points.

    I definitely can see your side of this. So I'm now about 50/50 on the Jackson topic. My mind isn't 100% changed, but I'm swayed.

  21. #21
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,921

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We were good enough to win last year. We weren't saying "at least we have next year" during the course of the season. We were true contenders, but the pieces just did not fall into place.
    Actually, I think last year makes my point. Last Dec we were good enough to win a championship but we were standing pat and we had some deficiencies.

    Meanwhile, Detroit made a 'win-now' move before the trade deadline. They immediately became the team 'on paper' to beat. They could counter us. After a few games, they became the team 'on the court' to beat. The Pacers were again on the outside looking in.... and were only a playoff series deciding game from saying "Wait'll next year!"

    Yes, it was close. Yes, the Prince play in game two was big BUT let's not forget that Reggie layup wasn't to win... that was only to tie. We were trailing that game. I still feel we had a better chance against the 2000 Lakers than we did against the 2004 Pistons. I had hope but I didn't have a good feeling at all about how we'd deal with Detroit.

    Last year was the Pacers last 10-15 years in a nutshell. Almost good enough but someone else made a move to improve while we stood pat and in a sense went backwards because of it. In hindsight it just shows that not only can teams leapfrog you in the summer, they can also do it mid-season.

    I'm ready for a fresh approach. One that championship teams seem to be using would be a start.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  22. #22
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,709

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerFanAdam
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know, outside of 2000, the Pacers had a great chance to win those 5 other series. We could go round and round over who the better team was in each of those series, but the fact is, the Pacers had their chances to win all of those series, but didn't deliver.

    When you're up 3-2 on a team, and have 2 chances to put them out, like the Pacers did with the Knicks in 1994, and you don't do it........you blew it, it's that simple. You had your chances to win and didn't do it.

    We should have been able to find out if the Rockets were better in 1995. We would have given them a hell of a series. Don't forget we beat the Rockets in Houston in 1993-1994, and 1994-1995. You've made the point of "experience" playing a factor in the Pacers losing in 1994 and 1998. Well who had the experience in 1995, the Pacers or the Magic? Wasn't it the Pacers that had been to an ECF's before? Wasn't it the Pacers who had played in a game 7 before? The Magic had never won a playoff series before 1995.

    You bring "experience" up in dealing with the Pacers-Bulls. Experience is overrated. Who had the experience in the NBA finals last year, the Pistons or the Lakers? The Lakers had won 3 NBA championships, that PIstons team had never seen the finals before. Again, the fact remains that the Pacers had their chances to win that series in 1998 and didn't. Anytime teams go to a 7th game, it's hard to say one team is that much better than the other.

    I never said that the Pacers did not have a great chance.

    But please tell me in what series were they favored. My guess is the only series in which they were favored was in 1999.


    You talk about blowing it, or not winning the big game. To me that is garbage. THE PACERS SIMPLY WERE NOT AS GOOD AS THE TEAM THAT WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP. Pacers have never been favored to win the whole thing when the playoffs started. Never have been. And to be clear the reason they have not been is not for any other reason than the have never had the best team.

    I hate having to say this, it is depressing to admit they have never had the best team.

    If the Pacers ever get the best team in the NBA (and I'm not talking regular season record) they will win the championship.

    Whether you love or hate the NBA you cannot argue that the best team wins the championship almost 100% of the time.

    Of course injuries can change "who the best team is"


    let me say this though, from what I saw prior to 11/19, if the Pacers get Artest back, and if, if, if things fall into place they very well have the best team in the NBA. And when they do have the best team they will win.

    There is a huge difference between having a chance to win and being favored to win.

    NBA is very predictable

    One other thing about last year. Pacers might have had the best record, but injuries or no injuries the Pistons were a better team after the Sheed trade. What was their record, 20-4. They were simply a better team than the Pacers.

    Now the injuries to J.O and Jamaal took away any real chance for the Pacers to win

  23. #23
    Cheeseburger in Paradise Los Angeles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    9,690

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We were good enough to win last year. We weren't saying "at least we have next year" during the course of the season. We were true contenders, but the pieces just did not fall into place.
    That's true, I really felt that way as the season unfolded. And I even came to really like our line-up and especially Artest. I think a "don't mess with what isn't broken" and a "just be patient" attitude was the odds-on favorite way to play the cards for a win this year.

    But - again, this is hindsight talking - I really regret that the Pacers stood pat on a certain player. I'll never really forgive him for what's turned out to be a real roller-coaster of a season - and it hasn't stopped with him. It's made me question everything about the team, from the top down, and Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are included here. The "IFs" just keep on coming. In this case, it's "IF dw and lb behaved completely out of character and made a wild bold move, THEN we may have avoided this whole mess."

    Oh yeah, I feel obligated to add this:


  24. #24
    Harmonica
    Guest

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Last year was the Pacers last 10-15 years in a nutshell. Almost good enough but someone else made a move to improve while we stood pat and in a sense went backwards because of it. In hindsight it just shows that not only can teams leapfrog you in the summer, they can also do it mid-season.
    Backwards? How is that? From what I saw the night of 11/19, we were man-handling the NBA champions on their homecourt. Seems to me we took a step forward in the off-season, unless you consider not getting rid of Ron going backwards.

  25. #25
    Harmonica
    Guest

    Default Re: Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Los Angeles
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But - again, this is hindsight talking - I really regret that the Pacers stood pat on a certain player. I'll never really forgive him for what's turned out to be a real roller-coaster of a season - and it hasn't stopped with him. It's made me question everything about the team, from the top down, and Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are included here. The "IFs" just keep on coming. In this case, it's "IF dw and lb behaved completely out of character and made a wild bold move, THEN we may have avoided this whole mess."
    Well, they did try on three separate occasions to move Ron in the off-season. Where they slipped up, in hindsight, is that they wanted to get equal or near-equal value in return.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •