The Pacers should finish developing the young guys who have been on the team previously and add Collison to the future development of the team with big minutes, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of winning (or at least stinking less).
Part of the issue here at this point is that the guys who have been our young guys before are now starters and still need a lot more development this year.
Roy still needs work on almost every aspect of his game to develop consistency and enough confidence to be agressive.
Josh (who is about out of the NBA right now, right?) obviously is just beginning to become the player he can be and will need time to adjust to his new role and playing on a part of the court he is not used to playing which will take even more time to master.
Rush, assuming he is still part of any future plans, still needs time to further develop the offensive aspect of his game (I hope he still can, otherwise what a "wasted" opportunity, and I mean that both ways).
AJ Price could also use time to finish developing as well, and I just hope he is given the chance to because I still feel he could be a long term starter on an NBA team that focuses on fundamentals, and I still think he should be ahead of Collison in the rotation even though that won't happen.
Then, there is Hansbrough, who arguably is a rookie once again who now is more raw than he was when he was drafted due to not being on the court for so long and has a long way to go to become a contributor.
And, Collison still needs work, but not the work he will likely get here. He needs to develop a passing game, but in the current system it isn't going to happen (I still hope you are right, but so far it doesn't appear that the passing aspect of the pg position is being changed, the only change being the addition of more PnR without enough capable bigs available to play it effectively).
So, in my view, the young guys the Pacers already had STILL need time to develop despite having reached the very beginning of vet status for the purposes of this discussion. The rookies this year are more raw than any of the guys I mentioned above were as rookies.
Stephenson is possibly the least "born ready" of the three despite being the best scorer. Of all things, if he is not bought out, Stephenson should probably spend the majority of this season on the bench or inactive in my view, and I will label him as most likely to be out of the NBA by the end of his rookie contract, but I wouldn't mind ending up wrong about that because he is a smooth scorer that kind of reminds me of a smaller Jalen Rose.
Rolle is probably the most ready to contribute but possibly has the lowest ceiling of any of the three, and his status of being kept has to be in question at this point, but I think he probably will be. He should probably get the most minutes of the three due to the lack of enough players to adequately cover 48 minutes at the 4/5 positions, but I am not entirely sure that O'Brien will give him minutes barring a complete implosion of Hansbrough. Also, Posey could still surprise, which would reduce Rolle's minutes, but that is unlikely at best.
George is a better scorer than he has shown thus far, and has the potential to play defense at a fairly high level, but he needs actual court time to develop court awareness against teams that play solid perimeter defense to further his development (failure can be a great teacher, and he will fail frequently at this point). That said, I am at a loss as to how he will get that time with the types of players that are in front of him at the combo guard and wing positions without the team going small with an alarming frequency, which I am starting to believe is highly likely to happen due to O'Brien's "our front line is alarmingly thin" comment combining that with his penchant for running two combo guards and two wings with one big. That eventuality would be in Paul's favor, and even if the results suffer because of it, I am in favor of his getting minutes in place of bits and pieces of minutes from a combination of Granger, Rush, and Dunleavy.
If this is "having it both ways", I guess I do want it both ways. Notice I didn't take into account much to do with the former vets, Ford (who probably will get combo minutes this year at AJ's expense because he attacks more and the Pacers will want to maximize his trade deadline value, if he has any), Foster (who will get minutes as long as his back holds up, and should get those minutes if there is any hope of establishing any real PnR even though the punishment he will get from setting those hard picks might knock him out sooner than I would like), Dunleavy (who will get minutes due to being the best offensive initiator from the wing that will keep defenses honest), and Granger (duh). I believe that leaves Solo, Dahntay, and Posey, and they should be practice squad guys unless something truly radical happens, with Solo the second most likely to be cut by the end of pre-season because Posey will be kept as a fourth for the Former Celtic Parquet Reminiscence and Bridge Club so that they don't have to play with a blind.
For me a lot of it depends on who your veterans are and who you are putting the young guys in against.
In almost all cases, starting a rookie who is raw out of college against the top NBA stars is, in my opinion, the best way to crush him. A player has to have the tools to succeed, and just throwing him into the deep end with no NBA-level learning curve is cruel.
You do it if you clearly have a special player or if there is no other alternative at the position, but you don't do it otherwise.
In my mind a player needs to earn minutes in the rotation. The problem with being a general level fan is that we really don't know two things:
- what a coach is looking for during scrimmages/shootarounds/time on the floor
- what a player is actually doing in scrimmages and shootarounds
Fans tend to base their entire opinions on whether a player should be on the floor on what they do in games in specific situations. While this is significant, a good coach should be able to see how a player is doing and decide if his current skillset is something that can be easily counteracted or even exploited by the other team, or if - in the long run - it is better than the veteran the player would be replacing. You can't see those things only during minimal floor minutes, and using critical game time to showcase it is not what games are for.
Which brings me to my final point. I think I've been clear that I feel the purpose of playing games is to win. As much as people say they want player development rather than wins in order to go for the future, how many of those people will buy tickets until that future occurs? In general, whatever other factors may exist, your job as players and coaches is to win. New players in particular need to get a winning attitude if they are going to be successful in those future years. You should not sacrifice your best players' time on the floor in favor of purely developing young players if it means you will lose even one more game.
Let's look at those circumstances, though. In 2008-20099, where we were in almost every game until the last minute, there was little or no non-critical time available to put undeveloped players into the game. In 2009-2010, though, there were a large number of games where there would seem to have been plenty of minutes for young guys. The decision point, I think, rests on whether the coach feels more benefit is gained by having a certain combination of players who will be used through the season on the floor to try to work out their problems, or whether the time is better used for young player development. I think the point at which this line is drawn is the source of pretty much every disagreement between fans and between them and coaches.
Another night, another backside-kicking. They just hit you from so many sides, now, in waves. It's like a cavalry, running down hill and trampling you underfoot. You have no tactical advantage, you're just swinging wildly in the mud, and the best strategy might be to play dead.
They are an absolute onslaught right now.
------------ Matt Moore, CBS Sports "Eye On Basketball", 11/12/13
O'Brien will not donate playing time to younger players for the sake of their development. "I want to develop the young guys but I'm not developing anybody to the point that it might cost us a game," he said. " … We can talk about rebuilding all we want. My job is to win basketball games and develop talent. But the top priority is to win basketball games."
This is always my thinking. I want the young guys to be as good as they can be as fast as they can be... BUT not if it means losing. If we have a better option then we need to go with that. This won't be the same team next year and the roster will look a lot less cluttered... in favor of the talent we may or may not have
Reggie Miller is a God. Period.
Passion. Pride. Pacers.
It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
#31 & Only
Two, you can give young guys all the time in the world and they still won't develop much. So the reason you don't sacrifice now for next year is you could still be in the same spot you were in last year.
That's one reason why young players have to earn more playing time.
My take on winning and losing is this, what's the differential?
I've been of the mind, it's almost neglible with the recent history of the Pacers. So if you play young guys you win 35, but if you play Vets you win well 35, thats when I have a beef.
Goes back to what BillS was saying it depends who your vets are and who your youngsters are.
How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.
Just think about last season we had Luther Head, Earl Watson both of whom were here for only one season and both were experianced players.
In fact you really could make an argument knowing that Earl had zero future on the team that by the end of the season he should have been splitting min. with A.J.
In fact I'm trying to remember the last rookie that we drafted and either didn't give them a couple of seasons before cutting ties with them or cut them prior to their first season. I honestly can't remember right now.
It goes back to the value of winning a game. Is there any value for the pacers winning 36 games vs 22 games for a given season. The argument has been made that the pacers should have bottomed out the past three seasons, win 22, 20, 23 games - why not they didn't make the playoffs anyway - surely they would have gotten higher draft picks along the way and wouldn't they be in better position, wouldn't they maybe be the Thunder of the eastern conference? Maybe but how do you know ehn to bottom out, when to trade the vets, when to play the youngsters.
I guess my overall point is - deciding all this is not as easy as it might first seem. But sure it is easy to look back two or three years and say should have. And I guess that is when I get frustrated when many of you look back three years and say in hindsights what now seems obvious, but at the time it was anything but obvious.
Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-14-2010 at 11:33 AM.
As long as George, Price, Collison (Yes, he counts as a young guy), Josh, Hansbrough, and Roy (Also, still a young guy) are given a chance to produce I have no problem with it. Even won't have a problem if sometimes we see guys like Tyler and Paul barely sniff the court in certain games. I just want them to get a chance to play.
Not really sure Posey has shown me anything yet that shows he deserves minutes...
I'm less concerned about Rush getting minutes even though I like his D, it's not a good sign for him that his option has not been picked up.
Really if you think about it, the "young guys" are dialed in mostly.
Looks like DC, Roy, JMac, AJ, and Paul George are all going to get a steady diet of minutes to start the season. If Hansbrough gets up to speed, he'll be on that list too. Thats 3 starters and 6 guys out of your rotation who are young or inexperienced. Really not much more I could ask at this point.
It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.
Speaking of the future, I'd guess Dunleavy is gone after this year, Posey and Jeff gone or not rotation guys. This is really the year where the young guys will start to take over the team. If this team could go .500 and get the 8th seed it's be a really huge step, not mandatory mind you, but a big step if it happens.
Side note, I don't know either where BRush fits in this.
How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.
Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy
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)
Response to UB: look if we had a team that was competing for playoffs and a championship every year I wouldn't be pushing the coach to play the young guys that much, the difference is that this is a team in rebuilding mode and is in the three years rebuilding process, do you really think that guys like Rasho that knew since the beginning that they were not coming back were playing as hard as they can? Were they following JOB's plans or they were jacking up stats to get a job somewhere else? How they care about the winning attitude you guys keep talking about when they know the won't be back?
I rather have the young guys that have something to probe and know that they could be part of the future playing that a bunch of old one year rental players.
Last edited by vnzla81; 10-14-2010 at 11:47 AM.
If it wasn’t for a few other scenario’s I would say let’s just rename this thread what it should be called “Why did the Pacers start & play Troy Murphy extended minutes every game and often times give Josh McRoberts DNP-CD’s”.
Really over the past few seasons that is what it has come down to, sure there was the Rasho vs. Roy debate but for the most part it is really this.
It really boils down to the quality of the starter vs. the young player and what each of them brings to the floor.
You won’t see many people complaining that Paul George is not getting minutes from Danny Granger however you might see people complaining that he is not getting minutes that are going to James Posey.
But getting back to the main point of the argument (Josh vs. Troy) I see nothing that McRoberts has done in the pre-season that he did not do since December of last season. I would go so far as to say even the spring of the year before but I’ll just concede to last season. The difference is two fold. First he is getting solid consistent minutes and second our style of play has changed.
Is he stronger? Maybe but not that much. Does he know the system better? Probably but again we’ve changed somewhat how the system works so he is learning new again.
So then it boils down to why now vs. then. Anybody who thinks it’s because Josh has greatly improved is just deluding themselves, if Troy were here he would still be starting and we would still have the same argument as last season.
For me it has never been about just playing young players, I assure you I was never advocating playing Jeff Foster over Dale Davis, but it is about the type of players and if young players can produce.
I don't think playing time necessarily leads to development. If you throw all three rookies out there together and they don't know what to do then no one develops and we lose. They just end up getting confused, learning bad habits and getting frustrated...
I'd rather see the vets get the offense flowing and the defense established. Then ease a rookie in. Put him in a situation where everyone else is doing the right thing and he just needs to figure out his role and execute it...
I think that's the current plan for Paul George. He'll have a role in the rotation, but it'll be off the bench and with solid veterans around him. Once he starts to "get it" then his real development will start. It's a matter of learning what he's expected to do within the design of the offense and defense and then gaining the experience to do it well...
But it's really hard to do that with 3 rookies at once. That's why I'm really hoping to see the D league used this year. I'm not sure multiple rookies can learn on the floor at the same time without disrupting each other. And then playing time becomes counter productive to the learning process...
I want to win. I want JO'B to play the players who will get us the most wins. If we win 42 games and George, Stephenson, and Rolle don't play a single minute, I'm fine with that.
At the same time, if it's a toss-up situation between a player who is part of the future (George, Price, Stephenson, Rolle, Hansbrough) and a short-timer (Dunleavy, Ford, Posey, Foster) then I'd like JO'B to default to the younger guy.
I've always been a win now guy. Last season, however, there was a time when we should have pulled the plug on some guys or reduced minutes earlier than we did.
For example, for the last few games of last season Murphy and Watson were still playing 35+ mpg. Why? Also, the benching of AJ for TJ after TJ's first banishment, was inexplicable. In both cases the playoffs were fully out of reach and the youngsters were performing well enough to earn minutes.
"A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman Rushdie