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 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 49 of 49

Thread: Are we better without JO?

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    north side
    Posts
    21

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    hecks no
    Last edited by The Hero; 01-11-2008 at 12:52 PM.
    Let's go Pacers

  2. #27
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,053

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Don't forget, JO takes A LOT of charges too...
    He leads the NBA in taking charges

  3. #28
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,613

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Don't forget, JO takes A LOT of charges too...
    I'd guess that he's close to leading the league. Really. The last 2 years he was near the top, was out a bit more than he has been so far, and it seems like his take rate has gone up this season even. It's gotta be 1.5-2 per game. That's BETTER than a steal, you draw a foul on a guy AND take the ball from him cleanly.

    Now on the ball he's not great, but he's good enough to live with. Pair him with other defenders of his caliber and you've got a shut down defense (ahem, see a few years ago).


    Offense - different story, though as pointed out he did have a solid month there (think it really spanned mid-DEC to mid-JAN). 49% from him is more than enough to get it done. The offense going through him is great IMO, his assists are climbing to an elite level. He's a good passer, not great, who has shown tons of comfort finding other players.

    He has one issue right now - he can't make an open mid-jumper and he's struggling to beat even modest post defenders in close. That's a major problem. But he hasn't forced it, he hasn't had a "I'll take the next 6 attempts" run at any time this year. So he takes 2 of 5 at some point, that's not so bad. He's supposed to be involved after all, just like Jeff must sometimes show that he can hit a jumper. Heck, a lot of his jumpers come on ball rotation to him when he's open, it's part of the flow, he's just blowing it.

    So the situation is that they need JO to be great scorer JO and he isn't. The rest of his game is fine right now. It's no different than if Troy or Mike aren't hitting the 3. That's what they need to be doing. You don't fault them taking it, you fault them missing it.

    If there is a better option that JO is keeping on the bench then of course he's hurting the offense. The problem is there isn't. Even Troy isn't consistently hitting his jumpers either as a trailer or swing man on ball rotation.

    I would like to see Shawne in that swing/top of key role with JO at C when capable.


    Salary - this is one reason I say move him. The team is stuck I think, so that means clear things out and start rebuilding. There aren't many serious anchor pieces to keep IMO so just move whatever you can and look to build off your draft pick. I'd love to see JO stay, but how can this team get better without his cap space available to fix OTHER talent issues?
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-11-2008 at 01:47 PM.

  4. #29

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    The Pacers are obviously a better team on offense without JO. For many reasons. That just seems a settled case at this point.

    On defense, he would be missed, but he would be missed more if he rebounded better or blocked out more.

    If the Coach would direct JO to play a different game offensively -- different from his prevailing and predictable post-up game and 16 foot fades -- that might help. It should happen, but don't hold your breath. (And first that coach must direct JT to play team ball at the end of games.)

    The JO contract is obviously a bad deal.

    In a sense, the question turns on what we would receive in trade for Jermaine. If we could obtain a top 15 pick, an expiring contract(s), and a talented young player, while recycling the contract into manageable pieces in the process, you've got to do it.

    The thing is, there are (hopefully?) other teams who will assign a higher value to JO than JO is worth to the Pacers now. Find such a team and capture that differential in perceived value, and move forward. And do it by the deadline.

  5. #30
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Ya'll make me laugh.*
















    * Except for, of course, LG33.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  6. #31

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    He does take alot of charges. But somehow I'm thinking we could
    find someone a bit cheaper to take care of that stat.

    I doubt the folks in San Antone spend much time monitoring
    or even giving ***** about the number of charges Duncan takes.

  7. #32

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    I've given this one lots of thought. My answer is this:

    1) If it's the same beat up JO who's been in and out of the line up, then I'd have to say, yes! The team does play much better without the "85%, gimpy JO" out there.

    2) If it's a healthy JO who as JOB said during yesterday's "Jim O'Brien Show", who is the team's only big who can produce on both sides of the ball, then I'd have to say w/o question, "NO!"

    I've seen the sluggish JO and I've seen the quick moving JO. When he first returned the last time JOB/team medical sat him out for 10 days, that was the best I'd seen him play all season! So, he can do it when healthy. The thing is, most fans won't give him due credit because we've all equated his productivity to his paycheck - even I've done it - and forget about the injury factor. We figure that if he's being paid tens of millions he should be able to produce even on a bum ankle or knee, but that's not reality. Still, we have that right to perceive that that's what he should be doing - getting out there, running the court, bagging w/the big boys, scoring 18-20 ppg, avg. 10-12 rpg, etc.

    I'll admit, I want JO to be that player I know he can be, that player we all expect him to be, but the truth is right now he can't be that player. But I'll take a JO that's 65/85% any day of the week because that JO can still do some things to disrupt an offense and would still demand attention while out on the court. Do I prefer that JO? No.
    Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-11-2008 at 04:00 PM.

  8. #33
    Step aside, King James BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,463

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    I answered 'no' strictly based on a comparison of the team with JO available or not available. No trade scenarios or contract relief.

    Disregarding contracts and the like, I would use JO either as a backup or on the first team but he would not be allowed to shoot unless he was dunking or completely open from the middle of the floor. A baseline shot from post-up would put him on the bench the rest of the game...whether he made the shot or not. If he scores 50ppg that way, great. Scoring is not what I want from him anyway...

    If another player passed to him in the context that they would not pass to Jeff Foster or another lame offensive player, I would consider benching that player...or he would earn a point toward sitting for awhile.

    Also, if he does not get at least 9 boards a game, I would bench him for the next game.

    To me, all this means is that JO needs to get his shots within the flow of the offense or pickup garbage shots only.

    The guy is pretty good on defense, so that's hardly ever the concern.

    Now, if you factor in the sad fact that only 3 players in the entire league are paid more than our part-time "super-star", then things take a very sharp turn...

  9. #34
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,585
    Mood

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Immediately, as in does he play the next game or not (ignoring the injury)? Absolutely NOT!

    Long-term, big picture? Almost certainly YES.

  10. #35
    Protect the Promise. HOOPFANATIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anderson
    Age
    49
    Posts
    247

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Hey I finally got a trade to go through on Trade checker!!! Hooray for me. Too bad nobody would do it.



    Indiana New York Trade Breakdown
    Incoming Players
    David Lee
    6-9 PF from Florida
    9.9 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
    Quentin Richardson
    6-6 SG / SF from DePaul
    6.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 29.0 minutes
    Eddy Curry
    6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
    14.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.6 apg in 28.1 minutes
    Outgoing Players
    Jermaine O'Neal
    6-11 PF from Eau Claire (HS)
    15.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 31.8 minutes
    Protect the Promise!!!!

  11. #36
    Step aside, King James BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,463

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hey I finally got a trade to go through on Trade checker!!! Hooray for me. Too bad nobody would do it.



    Indiana New York Trade Breakdown
    Incoming Players
    David Lee
    6-9 PF from Florida
    9.9 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
    Quentin Richardson
    6-6 SG / SF from DePaul
    6.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 29.0 minutes
    Eddy Curry
    6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
    14.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.6 apg in 28.1 minutes
    Outgoing Players
    Jermaine O'Neal
    6-11 PF from Eau Claire (HS)
    15.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 31.8 minutes
    Get-r-Done. Throw in David Harrison or one of our 25 small forwards and it might happen.

  12. #37
    '12 PD Sunshiner awardee Kemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A-Town , Indiana
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by aceace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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!

    sounds good and all EXCEPT that Tinsley is still in the equation... Id rather keep oneal than tinsley ANY day.. we will not suceed as long as mell mell is running the offense... PERIOD !!
    Quote Originally Posted by naptownmenace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Plumlee reminds me of a young Dale Davis. Good rebounding and he contests shots well on defense and his offensive game is very raw just like DD's was coming out of college.
    "If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions."

  13. #38
    '12 PD Sunshiner awardee Kemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A-Town , Indiana
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    ALSO to add :

    Do you REALLY think JO would want to leave his cushy job??

    Think about it ... There is no other team in the NBA he could get traded to.. in which they would allow him to get away with not practicing...

    SPEAKING OF ....

    You wanna know why he is always injured , and is playing like an nba star 10 years older in his twilight years? BECAUSE HE DONT PRACTICE WITH THE TEAM !!
    He thinks he can just suit up and play 39+ mpg .

    His body is so out of conditioning , from what it should be , that he is always hurt, and is not playing like the same JO we all at one time come to enjoy..

    Bottom line is Larry needs to take off the kid gloves...... grow a pube .... and put his foot down.. (sorry for the colorful language) ...

    Right now let JO stay on the bench and heal.. till he is at 100% .. THEN make him start participating in every practice... ya know we DO have trainers that can condition him at a slower pace till his body can "handle" it ..
    ALSO don't play him so many damn minutes for awhile..
    Keep him right around the 28-30 mpg. mark .. till he is capable of being able to play a it more without fear of another injury..

    ALSO ... how can JO develop ANY kind of chemistry with the team.. when he doesnt PRACTICE with the team? ya see he is so used to being the "go to guy" that he feels he has to have ALL the offense ran through him.. (it doesnt help JOB buys into this philosophy ) .. and in turn the team as a whole plays awkward when JO is on the floor... ITS A PROVEN FACT.. that they play as a "team" when he is injured (with the exeption of mel mel lol) JT is a whole nother cancer... so ill refrain from talkin bout him in this post.. lol this is about o'neal...
    Anyways he is the one who doesnt have the chemistry goin for him right now, and it is hurting the team..... badly...

    I dont want to get rid of JO... but something has to give.. Either he buck up and be a professional and do what needs to be done and practice and get himself in condition... or he will end up declining into obscurity to where he becomes a non-factor.... and gets himself traded into a situation in which he wont be "big man in the locker room" anymore..



    just my 2 cents worth
    Last edited by Kemo; 01-11-2008 at 11:44 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by naptownmenace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Plumlee reminds me of a young Dale Davis. Good rebounding and he contests shots well on defense and his offensive game is very raw just like DD's was coming out of college.
    "If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions."

  14. #39
    Member OnlyPacersLeft's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    94
    Posts
    3,098

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    as much as i love JO...and he's my fav player. Yes we are...we can run without JO...with JO he is just way too slow to keep up. I think he should sit...looks like we are tanking anyway.
    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

  15. #40
    Member BoomBaby33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    On The Westside
    Posts
    771
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Not that this is a huge difference, but W/O him we ONLY give up 1.9 more points a game per 100 possessions. At the same time, we score 2.6 more points W/O him. What he gives us on the defensive end, he takes away on the offensive end.

    All this being pointed out, and contrary to all the +/- believers, the only +/- stat that counts to me is this stat:

    With JO, we are 9-19
    W/O JO, we are 5-2

    What other stat do you even need?

    Offensively, he is a chemistry killer. Defensively, Jeff, Danny, and even Troy at times (surprisingly), do the dirty work on the defensive end in the post, just as well as JO does.

    I just hope that Obie claiming we are "going small" means JO's days are done here in Indy.


    http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13D.HTM

    There are some pretty startling stats below that prove his "D" isn't the "be all end all", as well.

    Jermaine O'Neal
    Indiana Pacers
    2007-2008 NBA Season
    Player Stats | 5-Man Units | By Position | On/Off Court | Clutch Play

    On Court / Off Court stats
    Many stats are shown on a 'per 48 minute' basis
    Stat
    ON Court
    OFF Court
    Net
    Minutes
    953
    837
    53%
    Offense: Pts per 100 Poss.
    103.3
    105.9
    -2.6
    Defense: Pts per 100 Poss.
    105.8
    107.6
    -1.9
    Net Points per 100 Possessions
    -2.5
    -1.7
    -0.8
    Points Scored
    1977
    1831
    +146
    Points Allowed
    2026
    1847
    +179
    Net Points
    -49
    -16
    -33
    Effective FG%
    49.0%
    48.8%
    +0.2%
    Effective FG% Allowed
    50.2%
    46.7%
    +3.6%
    Assisted Field Goals
    62%
    55%
    +7%
    Assisted FG% Allowed
    62%
    59%
    +3%
    Own Shots Blocked
    6%
    6%
    +0%
    Shots Blocked
    7%
    6%
    +1%
    Rebounding
    Offensive Rebounding
    26.5%
    29.9%
    -3.4%
    Defensive Rebounding
    73.8%
    72.1%
    +1.7%
    Total Rebounding
    50.2%
    51.0%
    -0.8%
    Stats
    Free Throws Made
    15
    20
    -5
    Free Throws Attempted
    20
    27
    -7
    Free Throws Made by Opp.
    21
    29
    +8
    Free Throws Attempted by Opp.
    26
    37
    +11
    Turnovers, on Offense
    15
    16
    +1
    Turnovers, on Defense
    17
    15
    +2
    Net Turnovers
    2
    -1
    -3
    Fouls Committed
    22
    27
    +5
    Fouls, Drawn
    20
    22
    -2
    Net Fouls
    -2
    -5
    -3

  16. #41
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,585
    Mood

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Interesting, BB33.

  17. #42
    Member mb221's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    GWood, IN
    Age
    30
    Posts
    296

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I just hope that Obie claiming we are "going small" means JO's days are done here in Indy.
    Actually, I took it to mean JO would be playing at the 5 with a lineup of Tinsley, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal.

  18. #43
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,585
    Mood

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by mb221 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually, I took it to mean JO would be playing at the 5 with a lineup of Tinsley, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal.
    I agree; I don't think it means JO is on the way out (at least not for this reason).

    I could see JO WANTING out because there's not even a Jeff Foster or Troy Murphy starting with him to take some of the physical pounding.

  19. #44
    Member Hailey12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Age
    28
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Nice to see JO back in tonight against the Kings. I still think they are better without him, but Travis in there made a bigger difference. Although we do force it in to him way to much and they make it so obvious. It was pretty unbelievable that he kicked it out to Dun for a 3 late in the game. But, if he does that more often he could win me back as a fan.

  20. #45

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    The Pacers beat Sacramento by 6, so the Pacers' +/- ratings ought to by tilted mostly toward the plus. In fact, every player on the Pacers has a + for the game except O'Neal, who has -12.

    Here are the three big guys and their +/- and minutes

    Murphy 13:14 +18
    Foster 2:15 +5
    O'Neal 34:46 -12

    The Pacers won!

    Jermaine doesn't have to do too much for the Pacers to win a game. He is an asset to the Pacers even when, ESPECIALLY when, they play as a team and Jermaine is allowed to contribute rather than expected to dominate.
    Last edited by Putnam; 01-13-2008 at 08:57 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)

  21. #46
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,753

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Immediately, as in does he play the next game or not (ignoring the injury)? Absolutely NOT!

    Long-term, big picture? Almost certainly YES.
    That's where I am too.
    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

  22. #47
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's where I am too.
    Agreed.

    I interpret this question as "do we play better basketball without JO?" instead of "is the Pacers franchise better off without JO?"

    They are two completely different questions. And, IMO, have completely different answers.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  23. #48
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,753

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by JayRedd View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed.

    I interpret this question as "do we play better basketball without JO?" instead of "is the Pacers franchise better off without JO?"

    They are two completely different questions. And, IMO, have completely different answers.
    Yup, same here. Though I have to say that I REALLY would like him to sit down more minutes or completely for sometime at this point, because I just don't think he's 100% and that is hurting him and the team. Just my .

    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

  24. #49
    '12 PD Sunshiner awardee Kemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A-Town , Indiana
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: Are we better without JO?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yup, same here. Though I have to say that I REALLY would like him to sit down more minutes or completely for sometime at this point, because I just don't think he's 100% and that is hurting him and the team. Just my .

    Regards,

    Mourning

    I agree with you man...
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Don't get me wrong , I like Jermaine , he is a stand-up guy.. and when he is healthy , an important piece to the Pacer's puzzle...

    I would rather see him not play at all , and sit out most of the regular season , at LEAST untill maybe 5 games till the first playoff game...
    He really is a liability when he is not 100% .. not only to the offensive chemistry , but to his market value , and his health ..
    Quote Originally Posted by naptownmenace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Plumlee reminds me of a young Dale Davis. Good rebounding and he contests shots well on defense and his offensive game is very raw just like DD's was coming out of college.
    "If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions."

Posting Permissions

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