Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

    Hi everyone...sorry I didnt make my normal Sunday posting, but Im making up for it now.

    We currently are 9-9 as I sit and type this on Dec 4. We've shown improvement in some areas, but some steady and consistent problems have become apparent to all of us. Rather than point those out again, today i want to talk about what the coaches can do to solve them, at least as I see them.

    Problem 1, as has been discussed alot on here, is our lack of defense at the point of attack. Our point guard defense is poor, and in my way of thinking thats the single biggest weakness we have on our team by far. Let me be clear: This is the single most important defensive position on the floor, by far. By not having a point guard who pressures the ball and forces the opposing guard to have to work to advance the ball, we are one of the easiest teams in the league to run half court offense against. Our extremely soft defense on the ball lets the opponents point guard run any play in the playbook they have, lets them easily make the first pass in whatever set they want to run, lets the opponents PG communicate with the opposing coach too easily, and lets them have extra time each possession to make an extra pass or screen that eventually leads to an easier shot. Our defense at the point of attack is horrid, no matter what any stats may say. The Pacers dont take anything away from the opponent defensively, all we do is react instead of dictate. This has been a huge factor in some of our blowout losses especially, and really in all of the games. A top point guard defender is a critical missing piece we have missing, maybe the most critical weakness of all.

    So what is the solution to problem 1? I still say its playing Marquis at the point as a starter, with Tinsley seeing spot minutes against the opponents second unit. Yes I know how good JT is offensively, but him not picking up opposing guards until they near the 3 point line is driving me nuts....the Pacers defense on the perimeter is charmin soft, and JT is a main culprit. Armstrong cant handle big minutes, Sarunas actually has played decently at the 2 spot but isnt any better than JT at defending quick penetrating guards, and Greene is still raw and unproven. We desperately need someone who can pressure the ball in the backcourt, hound the opponents pg as they cross the center line and force them to struggle to initiate offense....this solution alone over the course of the game can have a cumalitive effect, and may help us completely change how the opponent's coaches have to strategize against us, from the plays they can run against us to how they have to substitute. No matter who plays, our point guards having to back so far off defensively as JT and Sarunas are forced to do due to their lack of athleticism is a huge problem thats got to be solved. Their offensive advantages arent outweighing their faults, at least to me. It pains me to say this because I enjoy Tinsley at the offensive end, but he is such a huge negative defensively that I dont think he is worth it at this point, playing the way he is currently.

    Problem 2: Lack of ability to finish on the break. Like is mentioned in the fast break thread, the pacers are running more, but are extremely inefficient in converting. Our problem isnt starting the break, its running the lanes well enough with proper angles and spacing consistently enough to always get a good shot.

    Solution to problem 2: Better coaching and teaching, and better, more fundamental play from our point guards. The Pacers dont run wide enough generally on the break, they run to much in a straight line to the rim. Even in younger levels of basketball players are taught to get wide and angle in toward the rim, but yet the Pacers seem to struggle with this for some reason. Our spacing typically is terrible. Maybe a coaching solution would be to run a numbered break, and actually control more of where guys are supposed to go than give them the freedom to read the situation on the fly, I dont know. Part of this problem in my view also lies in the hands of our point guards, who often (Tinsley mostly) who 90% gives the ball up too quickly and early on a 3 on 2 situation. Our point guards need to keep the ball until they reach the foul line area, make a jump stop, and feed the ball to a finisher at that point. Too often we end up making too many passes unnecessarily and it causes us problems. When JT gives the ball up near the half court line to a wing, it discimbobulates all the other lanes and angles, and causes us to have to improvise, which we arent very good at. We need to stick with the fundamentals more of how to run a 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 situation, instead of being so unconventional. I can explain this more in detail if need be.

    Problem 3: We are among the worst in the league at fg percentage. Now, when a team struggles shooting, it can be for a number of reasons. Maybe they take bad shots, maybe they just have poor shooters, maybe their offense is easy to defend, maybe they dont fast break enough, or whatever. The bottom line is, we are a poor shooting team in general.

    Solution to problem 3: Other than get better shooters to play for us, I dont think there is alot Carlisle can do to help us much here. Obviously, converting more fast break chances as in the above problem will help some, but the main solution he can control is to make a concerted effort for us to get to the line more. We arent the greatest foul shooting team either, but we need to figure out ways to shoot alot more foul shots than our opponents do in order to offset our shaky jump shooting. Coaching wise, that means RC has to convince guys like Daniels, Jackson, Granger, Harrington, and Oneal to not always settle for the easy open jumper, but instead to make the extra pass or to put it on the deck and take it hard to the rim. We also need to run some stuff offensively that creates chances to drive in a more open way. Possible, some "4 out 1 in" type scheme could at times help us. (That was for you Jay lol) Our main offensive weapons scheme wise have been alot of "flex" action and alot of isolations, which usually lend themselves to taking some midrange jumpers, which isnt our strength. I also think biting the bullet and playing Harrison some, in order to give us a big guy to run offense thru when JO isnt in the game would be helpful, even if its for limited minutes. Lastly, I wish RC would tell Foster to dunk the ball instead of laying it in and missing it, but thats another entire article lol.


    Notice lastly that I didnt put rebounding as one of our 3 major weaknesses. We miss so many shots from the field, and defend so poorly sometimes, that it makes our rebounding look worse that it really is. When we ever can make 8 or so more shots a game, that is that many less defensive rebounds our opponent can get. Our lack of shooting and finishing baskets around the rim is making our rebounding numbers look worse sometimes than they really are. On the defensive end, if our point guard could defend better, we wouldnt have to cheat and rotate so much with our bigs, and they could "stay at home" more often, and that would help our defensive rebounding numbers, which would help our fast break chances, etc etc.

    In summary, if we can solve our point guard defense, learn to finish the fast break better and more efficiently, and get to the line and convert more often, I think we have the framework to go on a run in the next few months and become a dangerous team. If we continue to miss chances to score, break even or worse at the line, and play horrible point of attack defense, then we will just go as far as our offense can take us, which will make us an inconsistent mediocre team. No matter what we do, I know we arent championship level yet, but we can be better than what we are so far, if we can solve these problems.

    If you agree with my assessment of the problems, but disagree on my solutions, please lets discuss your ideas too and get a good dialogue going.

    JMO, as always.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

    Nice analysis and regarding problem 1, I have never seen JT paly a good game at both ends of the floor. I don't think he has the stamina to go all out and I am not suggesting that he is not in shape. I just think it is his musculature. Quick athletic PG will always give him problems but JT is much the same as Mark Jackson and no one expected Mark to defend fast PGs or to play up tempo.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

      TBird, nice analysis, and I agree that those 3 problems exist, but I'm not sure they are the most important, and definitely not the only ones...

      I've noticed there is a common thread running between your 3 points:
      Low basketball IQ (LBIQ), and Coaching

      Problem 1: PG defense at point of attack
      Sure, the PGs have a hard time guarding. But still, most of the breakdowns coming from the point are with pick-n-rolls, where any PG gets stuck, and help needs to come over. The weak side has to recognize and be ready to help, and rotate, and cover the lanes, and whatever...

      Solution: There are a wide variety of solutions to being beat on the point of attack, even with LBIQ players. To name 2:
      1. Switch always. Deal with mismatches later. This is easier for LBIQ players. It may cause mismatches, but at least everyone knows what to do, and who to guard.
      2. Zone. The Pacers seem to me like a classical zone team, when considering the athletisicm. Although zones are tough for LBIQ players - it can work many times, as other NBA teams also have LBIQ players who notoriously have a rough time vs zones.

      This is more a coaching problem - not recognizing the kind of players you have - and trying to make them do things they cant do.

      Problem 2: Fast break efficiency
      Ok, that's obvious - it's a FAST break, meaning you have to do everything FAST. Not just run or dribble, but also think and pass. That's a huge problem for LBIQ players who need more time to figure it out. If you hold the ball too long on the wing, you killed the break. If you decided to go "all the way" too early, you'll charge into a defender that recognized it. I'm not even starting about making that "special" high-IQ play that make the defense crumble.

      Solution: there is none, really - except playing with higher basketball IQ guys. Coaching can come in with strict guidelines, like pass quickly, run to the corners, look for the trailer, etc, but I'm guessing they've already gone thru it hundreds of times. LBIQ players just dont get it, and the coaches go mad...

      Problem 3: FG percentage
      Sure, you play a iso-type game. Oneal 1on1, Harrington 1on1, Tinsley 1on1, Jackson 1on1 or Daniels 1on1. Hardly ever pick-n-rolls, hardly ever baseline screens, and worse of all - slow passing. When LBIQ players get the ball they think they need to score, and score now. If they pass the ball it's only cause they're stuck and have nowhere to go. Even if they do make the play, they have no more than 50% FG, and when the play goes sour (50% of the time) that leaves a bad FGA, which is still converted at times, but at a low FG%. Apart from all that, there are no shooters on the team. Nobody can make an outside shot consistantly (over 50%), even if it's uncontested. The number of "easy" baskets the Pacers get in a game is extremely low. There are players who "can" make the tough shot, and sometimes even do - but they can't make it all the time (or even 50% of the time). If they were, they'd be Michael Jordan - and even He had a below 50% FG when he went iso.

      Solution: once again - none. You can't teach unselfishness. You can't teach thinking faster. You can't teach being pass-first oriented. You can go with what you have, which is above average iso players each trying in his turn to be hero of the day - or - you can try different offensive schemes which will only confuse the LBIQ players. That may improve your FG% over time, but will cause you more turnovers.

      In any case - you have a team that will be inconsistent. You will win or lose no matter what the opposition looks like, and you'll feel like you can win every game "if everyone were playing their A game", and you'll generally feel underachieving, cause you have such good players, but on some nights you lose to the crappiest teams. But those feelings are misleading. Yes, you may have some wins against good teams, but in general - you are a pretty lousy TEAM with above average individual players, who don't have enough basketball IQ to play together successfully. On top of that you have a smart coach who's been tuned out by the LBIQ players and he's affraid of using extreme measures with them, and therefore uses a double standard regarding his players favoring the ones that give him more trouble - trying to educate the unwilling...

      I can go on with more problems of LBIQ players, like:
      4. Very weak mentally
      5. Easily distracted from the game
      6. Low FT% (don't know why, but there IS a correlation)
      7. No sense of teamsmanship - chemstry problems
      etc. etc.




      Now I know this will be controversial, but I'm gonna list it anyway...

      Basketabll IQ - from lowest to highest (ommitting the others):
      1. David Harrison (extremely low)
      2. Stephen Jackson (extremely low)
      3. Marquis Daniels (very low)
      4. Al Harrington (very low)
      5. Jermaine Oneal (low)
      6. Jamaal Tinsley (low)
      7. Jeff Foster (average)
      8. Maceo Baston (average)
      9. Danny Granger (high)
      10. Darrel Armstrong (high)
      11. Sarunas Jasikevicius (very high)
      12. Rick Carlisle (very high)

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

        Originally posted by NPFII View Post
        T

        Now I know this will be controversial, but I'm gonna list it anyway...

        Basketabll IQ - from lowest to highest (ommitting the others):
        1. David Harrison (extremely low)
        2. Stephen Jackson (extremely low)
        3. Marquis Daniels (very low)
        4. Al Harrington (very low)
        5. Jermaine Oneal (low)
        6. Jamaal Tinsley (low)
        7. Jeff Foster (average)
        8. Maceo Baston (average)
        9. Danny Granger (high)
        10. Darrel Armstrong (high)
        11. Sarunas Jasikevicius (very high)
        12. Rick Carlisle (very high)
        I don't see this is all too off target. Using your definition of LBIQ anyway. Maybe a little exagerrated toward the low end on some guys. For example I might suggest JO as average and I don't know if I'd have Marquis and Al as VERY low, but they sure haven't shown me anything approaching high.

        Taking the LBIQ term away, I still think you bring up a good point in the tendency to be individually as opposed to collectively oriented in playing style. When you add that to the fact that the team is constructed in such
        away that we lack in key fundamental areas (i.e. perimeter shooting and point of attack D), and you have a recipe for a mediocre or worse team.

        T-BIRD, I think your analysis is spot on. However, I'm beginning to lose more and more faith that we have the talent and collection of players that could really improve these areas even tinkering with coaching decisions and foci.

        For example, I am becoming more convinced each time I see Quis play that he could not handle starting at point. I don't think he has the handle for it nor am I certain he's as good as some of us may have perceived him to be on D. Not that he's bad on D. Certainly there are some guys he would likely do reasonably well on but he can be beat at times and he'd often be on smaller quicker players who obviously handle well.

        That leaves us with our same crop unless Greene ever gets off the bench to show if he has anything to offer. Problem is, as you note, that Tins in addition to his defensive shortcomings is not all that proficient leading the break.

        Again, this would defy what some of us perceive to be a strength of his, but you are correct that he frequently fails to comply with tested fundamentals of heading up an open court situation. In fact, I am starting to question if Sara is not superior at this. The half court O definitely runs better with him in there.

        I'm attempting to be patient but am drifiting toward the opinion that I'd gladly ship out any of our starters for a good deal. I just don't think this team can aspire to much more than a .500 record.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

          I have stated before that this team lacks an identity. They traded players and talked about becoming more up-tempo but that can't happen unless the players on the court want it to and more importantly the coach thinks the players on the floor can handle it mentally and physically. Even with our roster changes a good portion of our minutes go to holdovers (JT, Jax, JO, Foster, Al).

          With Jack, JO, Foster, and Al playing a lot of minutes RC doesn't believe they can handle up-tempo physically (athletic enough to finish, stay healthy, play at high level when fatigued, etc). RC doesn't trust Tinsley mentally or physically it seems. Therefore the entire team reverts back to a half-court approach which they know well and have had success with in the past (pre NBA rule change). I think they know this won't work over the long haul with the way the NBA is changing. Most fans have recognized this as well and are frustrated watching the same players try to fit a new system and then revert back.

          I still very much believe we can win with JO and Al. But they need a backcourt that can defend, push the ball, and hit open shots. They also need another leader type on the floor. DA seems like this role fits him, but we need this role to be on the court 35+ minutes a night. JT and Jax are not that type. I know JO and Al have bonded together b/c they tend to avoid another team voice, but I still think it is needed.

          So we need to find this player(s)/voice. This player doesn't appear to be on our roster.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

            Originally posted by thunderbird1245
            Problem 1: Our point guard defense is poor...By not having a point guard who pressures the ball and forces the opposing guard to have to work to advance the ball, we are one of the easiest teams in the league to run half court offense against. Our extremely soft defense on the ball lets the opponents point guard run any play in the playbook they have...The Pacers dont take anything away from the opponent defensively, all we do is react instead of dictate.

            We desperately need someone who can pressure the ball in the backcourt, hound the opponents pg as they cross the center line and force them to struggle to initiate offense....this solution alone over the course of the game can have a cumalitive effect, and may help us completely change how the opponent's coaches have to strategize against us...

            Problem 2: Lack of ability to finish on the break...the pacers are running more, but are extremely inefficient in converting.
            I was going to hold my analysis of my boyz until after game #20, but today's QoD plus this thread has made me rethink holding off (mainly 'cuz everyone else seems to be discussing the very same issues I was gonna bring up! ).

            As to problem #1, you are 100% on the money in your assessment of the situation. However, I'm not sure if Quis @ the Point is the answer. From what I've seen of his play, he's not that good of an on-the-ball defender. I believe our best on-the-ball defender is Armstrong, and as has been suggested by others @ IndyStar/Pacers forum, a backcourt of Armstrong and Sarunas is actually our most productive and (believe it or not but IMO) most difficult backcourt to score against.

            Now, so we don't get confused (or no one chokes on that assessment) let me be clear: by "most difficut", I'm not saying these two lockdown their man by any means. But what I am saying is w/Armstrong doing exactly as you have suggested - pressuring the ball at the point of attack before allowing the opposing PG gets to half-court to setup the offense - I have noticed that opposing teams aren't quick to score when these two are in the backcourt because the "pressure" disrupts the offense just enough to throw them off and take them out of a rhythm (like it's suppose to). For most teams, that works! But when you're up against a finesse player like Kobe, all you can hope for is to keep your best defender on him and hope the help defense comes to stop him. But there again, if the ball is slowed at the point of attack, you don't have a Kobe going off and jackin' up 52 pts because the ball would rarely get into his hands. Pressure defense in the half-court tends to eat up alot of the shot clock and causes players to rush things. If done correctly, a good on-the-ball defending PG can cause all kinds of problems. So, yes, on this point I totally agree w/you.

            On problem #2, here again I couldn't disagree if I tried. As much as I like Jeff Foster, he's never been a scorer. He'll get his points off garbage layups much as Dennis Rodman did, but that's it. You're asking a helluva lot for him to put the ball on the floor, step out and take a shot from the field. Still, he is who he is. We have him for that one special ability - rebounding! But man, if he could only put back a decent layup on a consistent basis...

            It's clear to me this team still hasn't found a real answer of what to do @ the 5 spot. Reinserting Foster into the starting line up has allowed JO to focus more on scoring and shot blocking, but it sure would have been nice to have had that one other big body down in the paint who you knew would really stick the ball for the score on the dish or off. rebound. Foster just wasn't getting it down in that regard. Frankly, he's just not strong enough to handle the likes of Bynum or fast enough to keep pace w/the likes of Kwame. Hence, David Harrison, foul prone as he is, would have been a "big" help last night.

            Now, not to discredit Baston because I thought he (when paired w/Sarunas) played pretty darn good, but the problem is he's all dunks and no jump shot. We need another "Brad Miller" type player who can pull his defender out from underneath the basket and actually hit a short-range jump shot. So, the question becomes this:

            "Do we keep Foster w/JO because Foster doesn't need the ball in his hand to be effective, or do we pull Baston into the starting five and let JO play Center and Baston @ PF (or vice versa)?"

            Ideally, Baston would be great playing alongside JO because he doesn't need the ball in his hands either to be effective and he can make a layup (or shall we say he can really jam the rock!! ), BUT his effectiveness when paired w/JO will only yield results IF every play was NOT "feed the low-post". In other words, Baston thrives when playing in a motion offense. In the three games I've watched him play, he really surprised me w/his vertical leap! The man can fly!!! He's always in motion...always moving. The problem for him as I see it is slow it down, and he has problems offensively. Therefore, he's better off staying w/the "run-n-gun" group than w/the starters. Still, I'd like to see how he performs alongside JO and Big Al once to start a game.

            As for scoring efficiency, that will improve over time. I like the fact the Jax2 isn't settling for 3PA so often. He's mixing up his game alot more. Problem is he has begun to settle into being the #3, 4 or 5 scoring option even when the primary scorers are out. Part of that is RC; when Granger rotates in he becomes the #1 or 2 option(s) when JO/Al are out (that is until Sarunas find his man, Baston! Then it becomes a high flying affair!! ). I don't have a problem w/that; I'd just rather that Jax2 be alittle bit more aggressive w/his game. I think he's playing too timid. Maybe he's still feeling the affects of the night club incident (or it's still heavy on his mind. It's almost as if he is being too cautious at times and deferring to others more often than he ususally does.)

            Anyway, that's my 2-cents worth. Hopefully, returning home will help settle things down alittle...give them more practice time.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

              TBIRD -

              Pretty good analysis. I'm really surprised that your discussion of problem and potential improvements hasn't invoked more play among the posters. We usually like to discuss problems and ways we believe they can be resolved.

              I'm totally onboard with your #1 problem. Our backcourt defense really stinks in the half-court. As NPFII states, some of it is due to our inablity to handle the pick-and-roll. However, the majority of our PGs simply cannot stay in front of their men, even when a pick is not involved.

              Poor backcourt defense almost always results in an improved shooting percentage and more FTs for your opponent and more fouls on your big men as they are forced to react to dribble penetration into the lane.

              So, I also believe that defensive skills in the backcourt are an absolute necessity.

              I also agree that we finish poorly on fast breaks. At first, I thought the solution was just to give it time and and more opportunity for the players to adjust to each other. But I'm beginning to question the skills of our players. I've seen way too many poor choices in passing and spacing, and way too many instances of the finisher not catching the ball. I do think it's time for the coaches to take a hard look to evaluate which on-court opportunities should be pushed and which ones should be halted in favor of falling into our half-court offense.

              This team has a bundle of serious problems.

              For example, we rank near the top in 3FG%, 3FGA and 3FGM. That's great. But combine that with the fact that our overall FG% and points per shot rank near the bottom of the league, and it tells you that we don't shoot half-bad from the perimeter (despite the perception that we need additional shooters), but that we must really suck at getting decent mid-range and short-range looks at the basket. It may also speak poorly of the quality of our half-court sets provided by our coaches and the ability of our players to run them.

              Another statistic that, IMO, shows poor ball movement and an inability to attack the rim is the fact that, despite forcing a faster game pace, we are in the bottom ten in FTA and FTM categories. It doesn't help that our FT% is also one of the lowest in the league.

              We rank in the top 10 in offensive rebounds, but expressed in percentages, we snag less than 50% of all rebounds. That indicates that we are one of the poorest defensive rebounding teams.

              Our turnovers is in the bottom 10 as is our assist-to-turnover ratio. Our opponent's steals also puts us in the bottom 10.

              So, we have a team that coughs the ball up way too often, can't get to the free throw line and when it does can't hit them, and that also sucks at shooting the ball. Oh yea... and one that can't seem to get its fair share of defensive rebounds.

              That paints a pretty bleak picture, doesn't it?

              But improve a few of these areas, and that's the difference between a winning and a losing record.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                Why are you people overlooking the fact that the Pacers are 28th in the league in field goal percentage? That's a big reason for the rebounding deficit and giving up so many fastbreak points.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                  Originally posted by Quis View Post
                  Why are you people overlooking the fact that the Pacers are 28th in the league in field goal percentage? That's a big reason for the rebounding deficit and giving up so many fastbreak points.
                  Yea, but look at it from another (perhaps Foster's) perspective. No way we would be near the top of the league in offensive rebounds without all those misses.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                    Yea, but look at it from another (perhaps Foster's) perspective. No way we would be near the top of the league in offensive rebounds without all those misses.

                    Or, if we converted on our fast breaks we'd be near the top of the league in FG%.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                      Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                      Most forums are full of posters who are happy to advise NBA coaches on how to do their jobs. But T-Bird takes it to a new level. I think T-Bird actually believes that he could coach the Pacers better than Carlisle. It's really quite funny. His articles used to annoy me because they tend to talk down to the readers, but anymore they just seem funny. It is funny to think that there T-Bird out there in Cyber-space working feverishly on his coaching analysis and thinking to himself, "If Larry Bird just reads this he'll try to get in touch with me so he can hire me to coach the Pacers".
                      I like t-birds posts, a lot! And he doesn't come across to me as you portray him. I think you're reading between the lines too much.

                      I usually like your posts too, but this one just seems to be an high class attack on another poster, but why? You don't have to read him. And if you disagree why not say where? Add to the discussion, that seems to me to be what T-Bird is trying to start. Me, I'm not knowledgeable enough to add anything to most x and o posts so I don't. However I ready enjoy them because I learn things.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                        I find TBird's offerings very informative. For example, his detailed post on how to defend the pick-and-roll. I knew of two basic methods... over and under. However, TBird provided several variations of each.

                        I also don't think his posts talk down to readers; they simply spew facts to support whatever position that he happens to be taking.

                        But, I'll tell you one thing. If the Pacers decided to make a change on the bench, they could do worse than creating a staff from among our more knowledgeable posters. For example, they could bring Thomas back.

                        Heck, I'd definitely take TBird before Thomas. My apologies TBird... for putting your name in the same sentence as Thomas's. I was merely trying to make a point.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          I like t-birds posts, a lot! And he doesn't come across to me as you portray him. I think you're reading between the lines too much.

                          ..., but this one just seems to be an high class attack on another poster, but why?
                          Yes, maybe it was inappropriate, but I just can't get the vision out of my mind of T-Bird sitting in his easy chair drawing up plays on a greaseboard while watching the game on TV.

                          I don't deny that he's a great fan, and really cares...I just suspect that he might spend a little too much time in fantasyland where he is one of Rick's assistants.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                            Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                            Most forums are full of posters who are happy to advise NBA coaches on how to do their jobs. But T-Bird takes it to a new level. I think T-Bird actually believes that he could coach the Pacers better than Carlisle. It's really quite funny. His articles used to annoy me because they tend to talk down to the readers, but anymore they just seem funny. It is funny to think that there T-Bird out there in Cyber-space working feverishly on his coaching analysis and thinking to himself, "If Larry Bird just reads this he'll try to get in touch with me so he can hire me to coach the Pacers".
                            Don't hate on the guy just because he has valid points on the way things are going w/the team and offers "suggestions" on how some of those problems could be resolved. If anything, give the man his props for being smart enough to see what those being paid the big bucks perhaps don't see.

                            As for the notion that coaches (or members of the Pacers franchise who are close to the coaching staff) don't read this or other Pacers' message boards, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Can't tell you the number of times the team has had some kind of problem that was discussed in here or over there and all of a sudden that very problem was addressed in much the same way it was "suggested" by we so-called "arm chair coaches & quarterbacks".

                            Case and point: Many of us screamed about getting Foster back into the starting lineup. Strange that a few days after this very discussion started getting ramped up by the fans all of a sudden Foster's right back among the starters. Coincidence? Maybe...It was bound to happen anyway you say? Perhaps, but I believe the franchise listens to the fanbase alot more than folks think. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if in the coming games we see alot more of the Armstrong/Sarunas/Baston trio, as well as, find David Harrison's name among the active players again real soon.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 3 key areas to improve us right now

                              Originally posted by Roy Munson
                              I don't deny that he's a great fan, and really cares...I just suspect that he might spend a little too much time in fantasyland where he is one of Rick's assistants.
                              What's wrong with that? If it was me, and I knew as much as T-Bird does I wouldn't fantasize about being one of Rick's assistants. I'd fantasize about him being my assistant. I'm mean what the heck, if you are going to fantasize do it right! (grin)

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X