Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Lineups

  1. #1
    teY dennaB toN
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,606

    Default Lineups

    In the post-game show on FSN, SJax was asked how he felt about playing SF. His response was that he'd play anywhere to help the team win, but he was a "natural-born 2". Right now, our starting line-up essentially has 3 guys playing out of position (Sarunas at the 2, Jackson at the 3, and O'Neal at the 5). Plus, Granger has been getting the majority of his minutes, if not all, at the 4.

    Now, with AJ getting banged up tonight (sprained ankle) and the emergence of my man-crush (Granger), doesn't it make sense to shuffle the line-up slightly?

    I know our current starters have produced a few solid wins in a row, but assuming AJ is going to miss a few games, doesn't it make sense to switch our starting line-up as follows?

    PG - Tins
    SG - Jackson
    SF - Granger
    PF - Croshere
    C- O'Neal

    6th man - Sarunas
    In the rotation - Jones, Foster

    This way, we get Jackson and Granger playing their natural born positions. We have an uber-sub in Saras, plus a solid big man rotation. To me, this makes a lot of sense.

    Do you think this could be something Carlisle would try? What are the weaknesses with this rotation?

  2. #2
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,298

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    I'd say the weakness is the lack of a ballhandler anywhere except at PG.

    All the same, it's not a bad idea.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  3. #3
    teY dennaB toN
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,606

    Default Re: Lineups

    By the way, I am fully aware that this is probably a way to rationalize getting Granger in the starting 5. I am also fully aware that I am completely biased.


  4. #4
    A Magical Place Hoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Greenwood
    Posts
    4,608
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicoli
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In the post-game show on FSN, SJax was asked how he felt about playing SF. His response was that he'd play anywhere to help the team win, but he was a "natural-born 2". Right now, our starting line-up essentially has 3 guys playing out of position (Sarunas at the 2, Jackson at the 3, and O'Neal at the 5). Plus, Granger has been getting the majority of his minutes, if not all, at the 4.

    Now, with AJ getting banged up tonight (sprained ankle) and the emergence of my man-crush (Granger), doesn't it make sense to shuffle the line-up slightly?

    I know our current starters have produced a few solid wins in a row, but assuming AJ is going to miss a few games, doesn't it make sense to switch our starting line-up as follows?

    PG - Tins
    SG - Jackson
    SF - Granger
    PF - Croshere
    C- O'Neal

    6th man - Sarunas
    In the rotation - Jones, Foster

    This way, we get Jackson and Granger playing their natural born positions. We have an uber-sub in Saras, plus a solid big man rotation. To me, this makes a lot of sense.

    Do you think this could be something Carlisle would try? What are the weaknesses with this rotation?
    I really like that lineup too, but as long as the Tins & Saras backcourt is doing OK I'd just play them together for a while. They seem to have good chemistry.

    I didn't think two PG's in the lineup would work, but it's not been bad at all and Saras is not as bad of a defender as he was made out to be.
    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"

  5. #5
    Member NPFII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Israel
    Age
    40
    Posts
    467

    Default Re: Lineups

    I agree.

    It's a more natural lineup.

    With AJ out this will probably be the lineup in the next games.

  6. #6
    teY dennaB toN
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,606

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoop
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I really like that lineup too, but as long as the Tins & Saras backcourt is doing OK I'd just play them together for a while. They seem to have good chemistry.

    I didn't think two PG's in the lineup would work, but it's not been bad at all and Saras is not as bad of a defender as he was made out to be.
    But, now for the most important question, would you then start Granger at the 3 and bring Jackson off the bench to back-up the 2 and/or 3?

    Saras could slide over to the 1 when Tinsley gets a break...

  7. #7
    Member Frank Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Chaos
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,019

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicoli
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But, now for the most important question, would you then start Granger at the 3 and bring Jackson off the bench to back-up the 2 and/or 3?

    Saras could slide over to the 1 when Tinsley gets a break...
    Yes I like that idea better

    Why Not Us ?


  8. #8
    STRAIGHT UP pizza guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    26
    Posts
    4,011
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    It's a possibility. Sarunas has been playing well from the 2, but, we know that he loves to play the 1. I haven't seen the last two games to watch Granger go crazy on everyone, but I assumed it was from the 3 spot, I guess I could be wrong. He doesn't seem to have the size to guard 4s. I know if he was put on JO, he'd get destroyed, so I just guessed he was at the 3 with JO at 4. Jax, IMO, could join Gill on the bench, or Artest in the trade, but, if we're keeping him, his best position is the 2. So, either Jax or Sarunas has to come off the bench, and I'm not really sure who's best suited for it. However, putting them both at the 2 burries Freddie, and that could lead to problems. Obviously, JO should play the 4, and the 5 is too hard on him physically if he plays it for a long time. I'd much rather see him in the low-post with DG, what a scary combo.

    So, here's how I'd like to see it.

    JTins/AJ or JVicius
    JVicius/SJax/Freddie
    Granger/SJax
    JO/Cro or Granger
    Foster/Cro/Hulk
    BLUE COLLAR GOLD SWAGGER

    @The_Real_CJake

  9. #9
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Lineups

    I think something that MIGHT be a key to our success is having TWO pass-first players in the starting 5 instead of 1 and having Artest out there. That could be the reason our offense is so balanced, and everyone is happy. If you go to Tins/Jack/Granger/Croshere/O'Neal, I'm worried that without that second PG/SG in there to keep the offense going, it may fall apart. Maybe I'm wrong.

  10. #10
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,991

    Default Re: Lineups

    I'm kind of enjoying have two great passers on the floor at the same time to start the game. Saras and Tinsley. I sense that we'll continue to see that at least until Ron is traded

  11. #11
    Member Isaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    26
    Posts
    3,151

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    My question to Saras would be if he would rather come off the bench as a 1, or start at the 2.

  12. #12
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,748

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicoli
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In the post-game show on FSN, SJax was asked how he felt about playing SF. His response was that he'd play anywhere to help the team win, but he was a "natural-born 2".
    And everyone believes him?

    Seems like his best games of the last 2 years have all come at the 3 spot.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  13. #13
    Member Frank Slade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Chaos
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,019

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm kind of enjoying have two great passers on the floor at the same time to start the game. Saras and Tinsley. I sense that we'll continue to see that at least until Ron is traded
    Right I agree...

    I keep hearing within the last hour, each time they run the
    Pacer/Clips highlights... ESPN News is saying that the team told Artest today he will not be activated until he is with another team....

    Why Not Us ?


  14. #14
    A Magical Place Hoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Greenwood
    Posts
    4,608
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicoli
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But, now for the most important question, would you then start Granger at the 3 and bring Jackson off the bench to back-up the 2 and/or 3?

    Saras could slide over to the 1 when Tinsley gets a break...
    Man that's a tuff one, glad I don't have to decide. If I had to answer at gun point I'd say bring Granger off the bench just because he's a rookie.

    I think Rick's done a great job of shuffleing lineups the last 2 seasons. It would be hard for anyone to have done a better job.
    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"

  15. #15
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Lineups

    Tinsley/Saras/Granger/O'Neal/Harrison




    The Tinsley/Saras backcourt is growing on me.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  16. #16
    Diesel_81
    Guest

    Default Re: Lineups

    I would really like to see a lineup of
    PG- Tinsley
    SG- Saras
    SF-Granger
    PF-Croshere(when Foster is healthy he would start)
    C-Oneal

    With Steven Jackson playing both the two and three positions off the bench. He'll never buy into it but he could be so effective in that role as instant offense off the bench.

  17. #17
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd say the weakness is the lack of a ballhandler anywhere except at PG.

    All the same, it's not a bad idea.

    Saras isn't that great of a ballhandler to begin with, so it's maybe a slight downgrade, if at all.

    Sjax is capable of dribbling with pressure, and there's nothing I've seen from Danny to make me think he can't either.

    But on one hand you're right. There are a ton of teams that really like to press all five players, and the Ps need atleast 4 guys that can bring the ball up on the floor together.

  18. #18
    Member Pacers#1Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Age
    25
    Posts
    3,781

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Tinsley/Saras/Granger/O'Neal/Harrison




    The Tinsley/Saras backcourt is growing on me.
    That is a lineup we will see further down the road, maybe next season or the season after that. I do believe we will see it (as long as trades or something else doesn't happen) just not right now.

  19. #19
    Member Ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Age
    43
    Posts
    5,924

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Lineups

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicoli
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But, now for the most important question, would you then start Granger at the 3 and bring Jackson off the bench to back-up the 2 and/or 3?

    Saras could slide over to the 1 when Tinsley gets a break...
    No because Jackson is playing great basketball right now.

    The lineup should be

    PG Tins/Saras Tins and Saras are our only real pg's one of them needs to be playing the point 100% of the time. Now I dont mind Saras also playing some backup sg but we have plenty

    SG Jack/FJ/AJ Jack is playing great right now he should not be coming off the bench Maybe AJ should be ahead of Fred. He cant seem to pass without jumping and AJ seems to be a better shooter.

    SF Danger/Jack Danger should be starting and Jack should play lots of minutes. Let him slide over to SF when Danger needs a break

    PF J.O./Jeff/Danger Danger at pf only when we face small teams but otherwise I would think we are covered.

    C Cro/Jeff/Pollard/Harrison David David David come on big fellah

Posting Permissions

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