View Poll Results: Are the Pacers a better team without Jermaine O'Neal?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes!

    49 73.13%
  • No!

    18 26.87%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Are we better without JO?

  1. #1
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,417

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Question Are we better without JO?

    I've been extremely reluctant to accept this, but the evidence to the contrary is starting to mount.

    What do you think? Is it possible to be a better team without your All-Star PF?

  2. #2
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    @ your avatar, Shade
    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

  3. #3
    PD original FireTheCoach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    southport, indiana
    Age
    45
    Posts
    628

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    ya know Shade, I think it's kinda hard to answer that.

    First off, he's a former All-Star.... secondly I'll buy the excuse that he's still injured. But he does look totally mediocre these days. JO seems to me to be a halfcourt player on a full court team most nights....

    After listening to Larry talk about JO yesterday, it seems pretty obvious that his playing days in Indy are nearing an end.

    But I'll say tonight that I think we have played our better games without him on the floor.... but if he has a big game Sat night I reserve the right to change my answer on this poll.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Offensively? If that's not obvious to just about everyone at this point, I'm not sure what they're watching. He's just not the player he once was.

    Defensively, I think there's a big loss with Jermaine out of the lineup.

    Chemsitry? You tell me. Pretty solid tiebreaker there, I'd say.

  5. #5
    Member Hailey12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Age
    29
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Yes, the Pacers play better without him on offence. Everything is so predictable when JO plays. First you force it to him (maybe gets stolen because everyone knows its coming). Second if he does manage to get it he backs down for 5 seconds and shoots a fade.

    I will admit his D is decent and he protects the basket well taking charges and blocking shots but I just wish he would just stay on the defensive end and and never shot the ball again.

  6. #6
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,049

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Post defense, post defense, post defense!

  7. #7
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,268

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    JO never reached the ceiling most (in Pacerland) thought he had. Even force-feeding everything thru him and handing him the team on a silver platter didn't do it. He just never got there and it eventually hurt more than it helped to continue doing that.

    He probably has declined some either thru age and/or injury. BUT... I'd also be inclined to say he's also showing that he's been overrated and doesn't have much to offer if you don't put him in the starmaker offense and go out of your way to try and make him look good. And to get his -almost- 20-10 stats, with the amount of offense that had to go thru him to do that, he should've been a 30-10 player.

    You just can't keep forcefeeding a 40% shooting PF the ball for him to get his 20 points... It eventually wears on other players and it wears on many fans who actually follow the details of the game (and not just the point totals).
    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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Greenwood, Indiana
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    After watching last night's game the obvious answer is yes. It only leaves them with one extraordinary shot blocker in Mike Dunleavy, but I'll take it if it kick starts the offense.
    Last edited by tora tora; 01-11-2008 at 04:45 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    I doubt they'll be better without him. But they are probably
    'better off' without him.

    It's time to take the best deal J.O. (coupled w/ others if need be)
    will bring and begin making the transition to the next Pacers era.
    Putting it off is only prolonging the inevitable.

  10. #10
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,843

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    No way are the Pacers better without JO.

    Think about that for a second. Are the pacers better without Foster, better without Dunleavy, better without Granger, better without Daniels, better without Tinsley. NO of course not, so how can they be better without JO.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-11-2008 at 11:31 AM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    The offense could be better if he were not the focus. The defense definitely benefits from having Jermaine in there. Jermaine needs to sag to the defensive side and let the team run without him.

    Jermaine isn't worth what he's paid, and he isn't the guy who can take us to glory. But the Pacers aren't going to get to glory any time soon anyway.

    He'll go off the Pacers roster one way or another within two years. That's the time frame we're dealing with. Until then, he might as well play. I like him.
    Last edited by Putnam; 01-11-2008 at 09:16 AM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  12. #12
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,049

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No way are the Pacers better without JO.

    Think about that for a second. Are the pacers better without Foster, better without Dunleavy, better without Granger, better without Daniels, better without Tinsley. NO of course not.
    Definitive statement, UncleBuck!

  13. #13
    It is ka Thankee sai Major Cold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Garrett, IN
    Posts
    9,117
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    I think because of his contract that yes the Pacers are better off without him.

  14. #14
    10 - 32 - 50 31andonly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,582

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    When JO is out the offense is much more fluent and effective than with him on the floor!

    He's a strong defensive presence, but that's all! Yes, that's all he offers these days, he slows down the offense and goes one-on-one too often.

    I've seen a great team effort against the Suns and would love to see some more of it..
    I really hope he's gone by February..
    Sorry for the hard words but I've seen enough!
    Get a first-round-pick and some-I really don't care-thing else for him!

  15. #15
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,843

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by intridcold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think because of his contract that yes the Pacers are better off without him.
    That is not the question.


    If the question is are the Pacers better off without JO and without his huge contract on their salary cap, then yes, I think the obvious answer is yes they are better.

  16. #16
    Member Doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,631

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    NO! Especially, as noted, on the defensive end.


    I keep thinking that JO will return to form on the offensive side when he's healthy, but I'm beginning to think he will NEVER be healthy again.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

  17. #17
    Never Give Up aero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    2,343
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    well so far the results of the poll beg the differ
    If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
    [/center]
    @thatguyjoe84

  18. #18
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,843

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    NO! Especially, as noted, on the defensive end.


    I keep thinking that JO will return to form on the offensive side when he's healthy, but I'm beginning to think he will NEVER be healthy again.
    That was why I wanted him traded in the summer of 2006. Not trading him then might go down as a huge blunder by Bird and Walsh. I remember bringing this up at the forum party in the summer of 2006 (not sure if you were there Doug) but I mentioned a few guards as possiblities - several agreed with me, a few didn't.

    Really now we are stuck with JO, his trade value is less right now than it was this past summer (2007). He is entering the zero trade value category because of his huge contract and significant injuries. I said this past summer that JO was about through playing because he was so injury prone, he is 29 years old in a 35 year old body`

  19. #19
    Member LoneGranger33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    17,458

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    I think we are worse offensively with Jermaine on the floor, but I really don't think it's his fault per se.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    We may not be better without him, but we're not notably better wit him. That's pretty bad, considering he's our $20M 'franchise player".

  21. #21

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    IMHO... JO is still a really good player. He is not a JOB offense player. He needs to be somewhere where they play a half court game more to his skills. We need a 2 guard that can shoot the ball (AKA:Redd) We would need to move Granger to the 4 and Dun at the 3 with Foster, Murphy at the 5. I think we need Tinsley at the point and for him to shoot less. Bringing in a very good 2 might solve the problem as Tinman might be inclined to pass more to a better shooter. Yes, we would miss JO's interior defense but our offense might flourish a little more. Its not necessarily are we better without O'Neal, the question should be "Would we be better with a really good outside shooter in place of O'Neal". I would trade for the best 2 I could if given a choice. This would probably require a 3 way deal of some kind due to JO's contract. Feel free to attack this post!
    Last edited by aceace; 01-11-2008 at 12:47 PM.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    J.O. actually had a great December. I was surprised by how good it was looking at the numbers. He was 19/9/3/3 49%, 87% free throws for the month. I was surprised by that, especially the field goal percentage. He's just been horrible in November and January. Maybe he was just in the Christmas spirit.

  23. #23
    Tyrant maragin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,216

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    I said no, but I would like to take a shot at being better with what we could get in trade.

  24. #24
    Formerly QuickRelease NapTonius Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    4,782

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    On offense - Probably

    On defense - Probably not, although, I've never really thought JO was that great of a defender, so much as he is an excellent shot blocker. Our best post defender by far is Jeff Foster, not JO. Harrison has shown signs of being a good helpside shotblocker, but I would not pin hopes of anchoring the defense on him, since we never know when he'll be in there.

    Financially - Definitely (although many fall under this category)

    Chemistry - Chemistry is such a fragile thing, and hard to define what makes it up, so can't say for sure

    As someone stated earlier, it isn't so much that we're drastically better without him; it's that we're not much better with him. With that being said, it's probably time for this marriage to end.

  25. #25
    Member LoneGranger33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    17,458

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Don't forget, JO takes A LOT of charges too...

Posting Permissions

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