Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 64 of 64

Thread: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In a Gym
    Age
    22
    Posts
    16,880
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    The first time I saw Paul play wasn't on purpose. I was flipping channels( I have an insane amount of B ball games om my cable package)The first time i saw him shoot was when i said I "Holy **** that is the sexiest jumper i've ever seen". Then I started tuning into more Fresno games and just fell in love with the way he plays the game. I dont know if he will ever ave 30,7,6. But i see him aving 26 ,7 ,4 ,2 steals, 1 block at during his prime.

  2. #52
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    I have no idea what he'll end up averaging (assuming healthy), but I will say I see a ton of ability in this kid.

  3. #53
    I have a Member xBulletproof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,671

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    I'm just hoping Paul stays consistent in the effort on defense. I thought Granger had great potential as a defender once upon a time too. I remember very early in his rookie year Granger was playing some wicked defense and Dwayne Wade went for a turn around near the FT line, and Granger came out of nowhere to make him eat it.

    Granger's been better this year defensively, but still hasn't been what I hoped early in his career.

  4. #54

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    K people on this board are blatantly disregarding how good of a player Danny is! He is clearly in the upper region of players in the league. Now what u seem to be looking at is the fact that his shot selection and defense are lacking a lot of the time...well I'm sorry to tell u those things can be fixed. That's his basketball decision and iq which with the right coach can change. I mean seriously he can play three different position if needed the only other players that can do that are the elite like:

    Durant who can probably play 4
    LeBron
    Smith

    ... And for now that's all I can think of. You jus can't find a player like Danny he is a Superstar and very close to Perennial All-Star/Franchise Player. I bet u that u guys would rather have him than Devin Harris who was in trade discussions, Kevin Martin, Jameson and so on. If you take the best player on most of the temas around the league I guarantee u Danny wins over 50% of the time maybe 60-70. He is a great player that we thought we couldn't even get so be thankful and when he gets more talent around him then we can judge. Plus he's been very clutch for us many times accepted a contract that's beneath him and his been very patient. I guess my point is I would rather have him on my team then without him because if u were to take Danny out via fa these team would be horribly worst so give the man his props! Thank You

  5. #55
    You are my Lucifer D-BONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nirvana
    Posts
    7,190

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Wade, LeBron, Kobe, Durant, Howard, Dirk, Manu...

    To me those guys - and certainly some others I'm leaving out - are in the superstar discussion. I don't see DG in that strata. Maybe the next one down. He just doesn't have the impact and consistency to be in that discussion at this point.

    I also feel his offensive game is fairly one dimensional in comparison. He has made some strides driving the ball, but he's essentially a shooter. He's still struggles with handles and passing in those situations. His defense could be better, too.

    I'm glad to have DG. Like him a lot. But he can't affect a game and raise his team's overall level of play to the degree to the guys I consider superstars. Could be that the issue is purely semantic, but that's where I stand on DG relative to elite players in the league.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

  6. #56

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Your right and your wrong too. For one those players u mention are very special, rare players that don't cone around often and what I labeled franchise/ perennial all stars. But like u said dg is one level below them with like Ellis, and others but...yeah

  7. #57
    This Thing Is Working® O'Bird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    210

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Quote Originally Posted by xIndyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ... I thought it might be fun to look at our players and see where they fall in the pantheon of NBA players at each position.
    ...
    , no wonder the pacers suck. right now, our players are not very good. I do not think any coach, including larry brown, could win with this bunch. to have more wins, the pacers need better players, or the player they have now have to get much much much better.
    They have had some real good wins this year; now we’ll see how they respond to adversity. Even with Danny Granger playing like an average NBA player and an apparent inability for the team to make open shots they are the seventh seed in the East, so making the playoffs is within their grasp.

    One thing has been a constant: team defense has been very, very good. That tells you that the players are on the same page as the coach.

    "Your contribution as a coach is defending and rebounding." - Dick Motta

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think ... we will win 60 games by firing JOB.

    I do think it will improve the team by:
    1. creating stable rotations which will create more consistent playing time and thus more consistent play.
    2. providing playing time to younger players who need to develop if they are ever expected to perform like we would like them to.
    3. Move the offense from a spread PF 3 point shooting non-sensical cluster ****.
    4. Improve team morale (I don't think any of our players enjoy playing for this guy.)
    5. Allow the point guards to play to there strengths.
    6. Maybe allow the team to run a pick or roll or 2

    We won't be an elite team, but at least our players may play up to their potential or develop, which is not happening under JOB.
    Unlike most critiques of Jim O’Brien, this one is at least systematic; on the other hand, like most such critiques, it is short on specifics or real-world justifications. It’s been my experience in the past that when invited to add such specifics and justifications, posters have either failed to do so or offered “facts” in support of their opinions that were demonstrably wrong. At the risk of wasting time, I’m going to address each of your points in turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think ... we will win 60 games by firing JOB.
    On this we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. creating stable rotations which will create more consistent playing time and thus more consistent play.
    Here’s an exchange from Hollinger’s chat last week that is pretty close to my take on this.

    Cole (Indianapolis)
    Is Jim O'brien on the hot seat? With the recent Pacers struggles it would seem so, since the Pacers are a talented team.

    John Hollinger**(2:51 PM)
    Really? To me they're a bunch of half-good players. Danny Granger isn't playing well, and that has nothing to do with O'Brien's rotations or anything else -- he's just not having a good year. You can argue that Collison should be playing more, and that Solomon Jones should be playing less, but really ... when you have a bunch of players who are roughly as good as each other, the rotation is going to change a lot depending on match-ups.

    TJ Ford has been much better defensively than Collison, though the offense has been so poor that Collison is at least finishing games now.

    As for “stable rotations”, I guess if I’m a coach I’ve got to be confident that a guy is going to deliver on a regular schedule. What you’re really asking for is for guys to be handed minutes they haven’t earned. I’ll say more about how poisonous this is later.

    As for consistent playing time, I don’t see a problem. The guys with promise are getting plenty of minutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    2. providing playing time to younger players who need to develop if they are ever expected to perform like we would like them to.
    This seems to be the most common argument for firing the coach, at least nowadays. It’s interesting, by the way, that that old standby accusation “no D” isn’t showing up anymore; fans have heard tell that the Pacers are a good defensive team now, and that particular canard can’t be found in the duckyard anymore. As I write this, the Pacers are currently sixth, per possession (their ranking went UP in the loss to San Antonio, the top offensive team in the league).

    Back to playing the young players - anyone with a functioning pre-frontal cortex can recognize that you’ve got to develop a future the team, and the most precious time (but not at all the only precious time) is on-court time.

    The question might be asked: who’s gotten minutes on this team? Minutes per game:

    Danny Granger
    Brandon Rush
    Mike Dunleavy
    Darren Collison
    Roy Hibbert
    Josh McRoberts
    TJ Ford

    This ranking looks about right, and younger players are definitely getting theirs. Tyler and Paul George have been getting burn lately, too, and despite their inexperience, as coach is looking for someone to step up.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3. Move the offense from a spread PF 3 point shooting non-sensical cluster ****.
    (The usual term is “stretch 4” nowadays, though your term would actually be more consistent with the “spread the floor” terminology.)

    Since the only thing concrete that you’ve identified here is that the Pacers use a big to space the floor with three-point shooting, I’m going to have to assume that that is what you’re basing your criticism on. Of course it’s really ironic that you use the “cluster *” analogy, since the whole point is to spread the players out and get a big defender out of the paint, rather than bunch them together, but whatever.

    In fact, almost every team in the league uses a stretch big (either 4 or 5), and all the playoff teams did last year, with the exceptions of Denver and Atlanta. After the hard fall on the tailbone that the Nuggets got in the playoffs, I note with interest, they went out and got Al Harrington, who at this point in his career is mainly a 4. Atlanta fired their coach, and now Josh Smith has already shot 71 threes on the year, compared to 7 in 81 games last season.

    Not only that, but if you look at the minutes of the stretch bigs who played for playoff teams, all of them were in the top five on their team in minutes except for Rasheed, who was sixth.

    So you may find that to be “non-sensical”, but it’s a kind of nonsense that the coaches of the successful teams around the league think is working for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    4. Improve team morale (I don't think any of our players enjoy playing for this guy.)
    “This guy”? Sounds like contempt to me. But if you’re going to adopt that attitude, I’d like to know on what real-world basis you make this claim. Otherwise, you’re just another self-important guy who can talk all about why someone else in the world is a worthless parasite (or would that still be true even if you had a justification for your claim? Prove me wrong).

    I’m not privy to their locker room conversation myself, but I’ll give you one decisive counterargument: they play defense for him. When a coach loses a team, team defense is the first thing that goes. What’s happening is the opposite of that: a big-time buy-in on team defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    5. Allow the point guards to play to there strengths.
    Again, I’d like to know on what real-world basis you make this claim. Looks to me as though playing Collison off the ball is a brilliant way to use his speed and ability to shoot; if you were thinking of something else, you again have not been either concrete or specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    6. Maybe allow the team to run a pick or roll or 2
    It often seems clear that fans of a particular team don’t watch the rest of the league; but sometimes I can’t help wondering if they even watch their own team.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndySDExport View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We won't be an elite team, but at least our players may play up to their potential or develop, which is not happening under JOB.
    This is an astonishing claim. Players are not developing? Are you actually going to say that Roy Hibbert has not developed? I emphatically disagree. Josh McRoberts? Danny Granger went from being a 14 pts-a-game scorer to being a 25-a-game All-Star. People rag on Brandon Rush, but he’s come a long way - it now looks like he’ll be an NBA rotation player through a long career; his first four months in the league had a lot of people calling him a bust.

    I could go on, but I don’t think that I need to persuade most people of this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trophy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think this team can be like the Bucks.
    We don't need a superstar player to make us a good playoff team. We need a good coach who is willing to work with the young players we have and run a system that suits everyone and one where we let the PG (DC) play like he knows and slow it down on the offense.
    I agree that Indiana doesn’t need a superstar to make them a good playoff team. Given the money situation, it’d better be true, and it’s obviously what Larry Bird is counting on. I take it that you mean that Granger is not a superstar, by the way, and I agree with that, too, though not everyone does around here. Bird is also counting on the current roster becoming good enough to attract a superstar, though, because his goal is to play for a championship, and in the end why would you want anything else? When it comes to Larry Bird, I know the answer to that question.

    What makes you so sure that the system doesn’t suit Collison? Looks to me on the contrary as though it’s maximizing his strengths. He hasn’t shot well, but he’s getting to the line more and turning it over substantially less (per possession). The turnover problem is something that simply has got to be solved if Indiana is going to have at least an average offense, and Collison was frankly awful at taking care of the ball in his rookie year.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We need to see a traditional offense and we need to see these players, along with the Rookies, in it in order to evaluate them and in order for them to learn from their mistakes.
    Huh? Why would a “traditional” offense, whatever that means, help players to learn from their mistakes, or for that matter to be evaluated? Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Posey, Dun, Foster and TJ aren't apart of this team for very much longer.
    Not at their current contracts, at any rate. Larry Bird has said, however, that he would consider re-signing his expirings for different (presumably lower) amounts, so there is a good chance that one or more of this group will be staying.

    Of those you mentioned, I think that TJ is least likely to stay. It’s obvious that the coaching staff loves AJ Price, but he can’t get court time with TJ getting 20 minutes a night; he’s caught in the proverbial “numbers game.” Most rosters carry three points in case of disaster, and it’s far from clear that Lance Stephenson has a future as a point guard or for that matter a future with the Pacers; but third string point guards are not the dearest commodity in the pro basketball world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They aren't going to learn from their mistakes, and they aren't going to help us win anything more than our younger players will. Why are they playing?
    Your premise is clearly mistaken (that the vets won’t help the Pacers win more than the younger players), but beyond that they have a lot to teach the younger players, both on and off the court. Mike Dunleavy in particular is an ideal mentor.

    I’ve followed other teams through re-building (successful and otherwise), and I’m here to tell you that, predictable as the tide, fans clamor to have their favorite idealized young players get handed minutes that they haven’t earned, because of what they think that they could be. Even if fans correctly see the potential, they usually don’t see the bad team defense, the missed assignments, the poor spacing, and all the bad things that young guys do to hurt a team. Yes, a guy with potential (like Collison, who is learning on the job), should get some burn. But if you talk to people around the league, especially to coaches, you’ll find an overwhelming agreement - overwhelming, there’s no other word - that players should earn their precious court time.

    Anything else undermines the team short-term and long-term; it undermines management’s relationships with agents and your ability to sign those all-important veteran role players when it comes time to contend; it poisons your locker room because you need those vets to be leaders for you... the list of things goes on, but I’m not writing a book.

    But in fact, Peck, you’re going even farther than that! You don’t even want the vets getting on the floor at all! Sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that decades of NBA wisdom should be turned 180 degrees without a better argument than you’ve made.


    Quote Originally Posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the fact is we have quality team oriented guys ...
    I do, too. Kudos to Larry Bird for that. Stephenson may be an exception, but the risk/reward ratio is pretty favorable on him and his contract.

    Interesting also to note that Bird has repeatedly given credit to O’Brien for “changing the culture of the team”. Also note how damn good the team defense is - you don’t get that with a bad coach.

    Quote Originally Posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't see how any honest appraisal of how good our players are can be made by a simple comparison to where they rank by position.
    This is a worthy argument, one that I for one am sympathetic to. It’s also the primary critique of a lot of the modern statistical approaches to personnel development. But a more fundamental issue is: is it even possible to rank players by position “by a simple comparison”, to use your words.

    Nevertheless, it’s the kind of calculation that goes on every day with league management, with the important difference that they have the power to pull the trigger. And, I think that you will have to agree with me that there is no doubt that some players are better than others, and that their skill-level usually translates pretty well, for the most part, from team to team.

    What’s remarkable - and this is what moved me to respond to xIndyFan’s thread, is that the Pacers are as good as they are, given their players.


    Quote Originally Posted by DaveP63 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because they (the younger players) are either the problem or the solution. We need to determine which. In order to do that, we need somebody who will make a roatation and stick to it. Worry less about matchups and worry more about seeing what's there to work with.
    Why do you think that “what’s there to work with” can’t be seen? And I don’t buy your argument that you need to “make a roatation and stick to it” in order to do that. The coaches work with the players every day; why would their games for some reason be a mystery to men who are used to evaluating and training young talent? More importantly right now: why would sticking with a rotation when it’s not working be somehow a virtue? Asking the question is to answer it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveP63 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right now I think he's trying to ride the veterans to the best possible record (I can't blame him for that. It's his job to win games, bottom line) and the rest of it be damned.
    I agree that it’s his job to win games - beyond that, his boss Larry Bird has repeatedly stated the same. But he’s hardly “riding the veterans”! Should he not be playing Danny Granger? Rush gets the second most minutes, Collison, Hibbert, and McRoberts are fourth, fifth, and sixth. Are you calling them veterans? Probably not. In fact, “riding the veterans” to the contrary, he’s playing a variety of players both young and old rotation minutes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I will count the number of pick and rolls the pacers run against the spurs. Anyone want to set the over/under. I think it is a lot more than most realize. Probably should count for 3 or 4 games just so we get a good number. I will count every pick and roll they run whether it is on a delayed fastbreak situation or if they run 2 or 3 on one play.
    So? What were your results? O’Brien wants what he calls “random pick and rolls” out of the “organized chaos” - he wants to scramble the defense to open up driving lanes and create mismatches; so you should expect to see more pick and rolls in a long possession. Are you going to include pick and pop/fade?


    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But the problem is at power forward and center. I love Foster but he is old and cannot physically play many minutes. Josh just isn't very good - on 75% of the NBA teams he is a 10th man at best. Roy is a decent starter, but if he is your best big guy you are in big big big trouble.
    I think you’re a little harsh here, but the biggest difference in our opinions here, I think, is that I’m looking at the upside, and both Josh and Roy have got plenty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think both Hibbert and Collinson are better than they have looked lately, the system does not take advantage of their talents. They both also have the potential to improve a lot.

    Hibbert: from the couple games I've been able to watch, the P's are absolutely TERRIBLE at feeding the post. He's a low post player, but the other players don't have the ability to get him the ball there.
    So... your argument is that because the Pacers can’t get him the ball, he shouldn’t be used in the low post? You’re saying he’s not being used right, so that’s the only possible conclusion to make from your post. I don’t agree, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We all know how good Granger is, he is just in a funk, as are most of the players. Again I think this has to do with the system.
    More vagueness. Do you have any concrete reason why you think that? Doesn’t that also have to mean that you think the system was great for him two years ago, when he was an All-Star?


    Quote Originally Posted by aaronb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The real question is this though? How do we go about finding the other 6 needed to compete? The "3 year plan" has thus far provided 1 quality guy every 2 years.

    So at the Current rate, assuming everyone resigns and stays healthy. We should be able to compete in or around 2022-2024.

    The trick is for us REAL FANS to stay patient.
    Given what else is in your post, the last line is really ironic. The REAL Pacers fan can be patient until 2022... or later!!!

    I do disagree with you, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right now we have the talent to be a solid playoff team (seeds 3-6)...

    If we kept who we have with additions this team would be bordering on elite with the talent.
    I just can’t agree that the Pacers’ talent is that good - you’re claiming that they have the talent to be the third seed, RIGHT NOW??!!! Better than Orlando/Boston, one of whom is likely to be the third seed at this point? Better than Chicago? Atlanta? Those are some rose-colored glasses you’re wearing, and God bless you for it.

    On the other hand, I can agree with you that “with additions” the “team would be bordering on elite”; but does that really say much?


    Quote Originally Posted by aaronb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Granger, Hibby and Collison are the 3. Nobody else sees the court on a good team.

    You really don't think this team has the talent to be a top 3 team in the East do you? I honestly think the level is much closer to Bottom 3 in the east and bottom 5-7 overall. Similar to what its been for 5-6 years now.
    I think that you’ve got an argument here, as long as you don’t consider the potential that the Pacers’ young players have, and as long as you don’t include team defense in the equation. As I write this, the P’s are sixth in the league, per possession, in defense - and given how young they are, the potential to be even better is clearly there.

    To my mind, that’s the best argument for what a great job Jim O’Brien has done.

    Quote Originally Posted by xBulletproof View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On a good team Brandon Rush will play a Bruce Bowen role off the bench at least. Hit open 3's, and play defense. Except Brandon is a better rebounder and shot blocker than Bowen.
    He’s also a better FT shooter, but the bar in this case is very very low - Brandon has just got to get better at that. On the plus side, he is finally diversifying his offense and putting it on the deck once in a while, and even getting to the line a lot more - meaning that he’s already expanding beyond a Bruce Bowen role.

    Quote Originally Posted by xBulletproof View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think Dunleavy gets time on a good team as well. Despite what people complain about on here, I'd guess coaches would love a guy who was raised by a coach and understands the correct way to play the game.
    I love watching him play, and I think that it’s invaluable to have him on the team, showing the younger guys how to do it right. At this point, though, he’s only average, and it’s not clear that he’ll ever regain what he had before the surgeries.


    Quote Originally Posted by beast23 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We don't really know yet what we have with Roy... to be elite, we may need a starter in front of him...
    Usually people on this board are over-valuing him, as though he’s already arrived. I think that to the contrary you’re undervaluing him. This is one of those situations where it depends what the definition of “is” is - as in, he can be very good, but he’s not there yet. One thing looks certain: whatever his ceiling is, he’s going to reach it.

    In fact, I think we really do know what we have in Roy Hibbert, but he has only begun to fulfill on it. He can post up from both low blocks, and has a varied repertoire there. He can shoot the 15-18, though he has not done that very well in games; that’s a matter of time and touches. He’s an excellent passer for a big man, so you can run offense through him. There have been stretches this season when that has worked well. He can block shots and play excellent team defense; he talks, and his lateral movement and anticipation are hugely improved. His work ethic is outstanding, his leadership ditto.

    He’s had a bad month - well, welcome to rebuilding; he’s a young guy with a lot of new responsibilities on his shoulders. He’ll get there, there’s a lot of cause for optimism. His demotion was overdue, but it is definitely not permanent.

    It may be unprecedented for a center who went to college four years and got taken at 18 to come so far so fast, and still have big upside. I’ve got my fingers crossed for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by beast23 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is no guarantee that George will be a solid starter if Rush cannot gain consistency.
    I’m going to give you that guarantee, and despite his own recent inconsistency. Brandon Rush’s development, by the way, is nicely on track.

    Quote Originally Posted by beast23 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would guess that 3 years from now, half or more of our roster will have been replaced.
    For most teams with this roster, in this phase of the cycle, I’d say that that was a sure bet; on the other hand, though, Larry seems to be very conservative in this respect (he’s the anti-Don Nelson, you might say) - but I still think that you’ll be proved right. the whole point is to develop tradeable assets that either fit going forward or can be plugged into a trade for a star player.


    Quote Originally Posted by pacer4ever View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In 3 yrs Paul will be = with danny or slightly above. He is a pure scorer and to me Danny is just a really great shooter.
    There’s that ******* term “Pure Scorer” again. “Pure Shooter” makes sense, but “Pure Scorer”?! I don’t think so. Nevertheless, it was being used by insiders in the league as long ago as the 1980’s, so I can’t blame you too much (usually it was ironic, though, used for a guy who wouldn’t pass). If it’s used seriously I guess it means something like, “a guy with a complete offensive game, who can shoot from all angles and ranges, standstill or off the dribble, with either hand, who gets to the line and shoots over 80%...”, or something like that. But Paul George is definitely not that, not yet, and may never be. Again, I have my fingers crossed.

    Paul George is going to be an elite defender, and, especially important in today’s game, he’s going to be a first-class team defender. Yes, he got suckered by Manu last night, but rookies are going to take their lumps. Book it, he’s going to be very, very good on D.

    Quote Originally Posted by sunsun View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I dont think Rush still is a BruceBowen-kinds of player any more...
    In this season..except his consistent defence, his has many layup and mid-distance shot on offence this year...
    Great point - the coaching staff were prodding him to develop his offensive game off the dribble and to get into more open spaces on the floor since his first year; remember that he put in a lot of time with them on his handles in the 2008 off-season. Finally he’s starting to bring that onto the court.

    I haven’t heard anyone mention the huge amount of work he’s done on his body this year.

    Also - once again, he’s getting the second-most minutes on the team. The Pacers are currently sixth in team defense; he and his minutes are a big reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Although it would depend on the specific situation I think many of the elite teams would find McRoberts to be very useful for about 20 minutes a game....

    On average I would not consider a 3 seed to be elite. They may be competing for a championship, but they are not favorites.
    You are plainly saying that McRoberts would be playing 20 minutes on a second seed or better, right now, since you think he can do that and you call an elite team better than a third seed. Wow. I’ll just keep it simple: you’re wrong.

    Josh is a work in progress, and I don’t mean to diminish the huge progress he’s made. He’s got a much better body this year, and obviously he’s worked his way into the rotation by working on that and his skills. Yes, he’s been hugely turnover-prone this season; yes, he’s a mediocre rebounder. But we forget how young he still is. Some day, you may be right - but definitely not now, and not this season.


    Quote Originally Posted by hoops_guy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But I see something different in George. The tools, IQ, silky smoothness, youth, shot creating ability, AND the "it" factor. Wow. I saw him in his ups and downs and I started telling my friends to watch out for him. He does all the little things too; something that Danny doesn't do (uses his left hand, knows the extra pass, does TD passes, amazing gambling ability, good rebounding instincts).

    I have a mancrush with his outside shot; it's the prettiest stroke in the league besides Ray Allen when he takes his time and Kobe when he doesn't fade away on wide open shots. He flat out fills the stat sheets and he isn't even close to as turnover prone as I thought he'd be at the pros coming out of the gate. He gets steals, rebounds, and blocks which would get most guys playing time for energy but he also scores. Just wait until he gets it going.
    Just want to acknowledge this - I agree wholeheartedly. As you say, “Just wait until he gets it going.” Yes, the stroke is beautiful, but you’ve got to get it to go in, too.


    Quote Originally Posted by King Phoenix View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    K people on this board are blatantly disregarding how good of a player Danny is! ... That's his basketball decision and iq which with the right coach can change.
    Are you seriously claiming that a coach can change a player’s I.Q.? I don’t buy it.
    :

    "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

    "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

    "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

  8. #58
    Feed the big fella. Infinite MAN_force's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Broadripple
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,255

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Obird. I only skimmed your post, I admit. But are you seriously disputing the fact that Collison is NOT better off in a more pick and roll oriented offense? And that somehow, he is better off playing the role of an off ball player?

    His statistical output was much greater in New Orleans with the ball in his hands, and he is now asked to give it up much earlier. You disregard the fact that this might be bad strategy given the personal strengths of said player?

    Is it possible that Jim Obrien plays his preferred system in spite of the strengths of his personnel? I find this to be not such a ridiculous statement. What do you have to say about that, and please, in a fairly concise manner?
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

  9. #59
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,819

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Bird View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But in fact, Peck, you’re going even farther than that! You don’t even want the vets getting on the floor at all! Sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that decades of NBA wisdom should be turned 180 degrees without a better argument than you’ve made.
    .
    At first I could not figure out where the hell you drug up these quotes from attributed to me then I went back and found that these were Sookie's quotes in reply to one of my posts.

    whew, I'm off of the hook.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  10. #60
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,986

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Bird View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote




    So? What were your results? O’Brien wants what he calls “random pick and rolls” out of the “organized chaos” - he wants to scramble the defense to open up driving lanes and create mismatches; so you should expect to see more pick and rolls in a long possession. Are you going to include pick and pop/fade?



    33 - There is a whole thread on this

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=60050

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  12. #61
    This Thing Is Working® O'Bird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    210

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Obird. I only skimmed your post, I admit.
    Oh... Do you think I should have cut it, pruned it, edited it? The discursus into the sex lives of unmarried adults in the Trobriand Islands was a tangent, I admit, though if I may say so the analogy between that and a motion offense had a certain, shall we say, zing to it...



    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But are you seriously disputing the fact that Collison is NOT better off in a more pick and roll oriented offense?
    It is not a fact, and I think that your grasp of the Pacers' offense is faulty. Collison can set up a pick and roll if he wants to - the point of the offense is to give him the choice to do that when he sees fit. The offense gives him more freedom, not less, to play his game.

    More fundamentally, where does the myth that the Pacers don't run pick and rolls come from? They run a lot of them, in fact, and Collison takes part more than anyone else. All this abstract theorizing would end quickly if people would sit down and do a little counting.

    One more point about this: pick and roll is one tactic among others, and a successful one requires two guys who can do it. If Tyler is going to get more minutes (I’m a fan, for what it’s worth), you’ll see him with Collison and others in it - I saw them run a couple in pre-season here in Houston with Hansbrough and Dunleavy, by the way, both leading to Tyler scoring at the rim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And that somehow, he is better off playing the role of an off ball player?
    He is not in fact "playing the role of an off ball player". He has the ball a lot, and surely that is apparent to anyone watching. He is, and is better off, playing both on and off the ball; more importantly it's better for the team and not just for him. Collison is both quick with the ball and without it, and can shoot from all angles; he's the proverbial "scoring point", but given his speed and ability to shoot with range all over the floor, he’s capable of shedding his defender off the ball and getting to an open spot where he can do some damage with his shot.

    Bigger picture, a change to a more one-dimensional offense where they run everything through him would not utilize, for example, the passing ability of Roy Hibbert out of the low blocks and the elbow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    His statistical output was much greater in New Orleans with the ball in his hands...
    Can’t tell what “statistical output” you’re looking at here, but the statistics that I’ve looked at do not lend themselves to this conclusion, at any rate not to call his output “much greater” in New Orleans.

    Collison’s own points per minute are up. His shooting is down, but he’s also scoring a bigger portion of his points by drawing fouls and scoring at the line. His assists per possession are down, but that’s not very surprising since his teammates aren’t shooting well as a team.

    The biggest advance that he’s made is in turnovers, measured per possession. Last year he was 9th worst among rotation points who played 40 games; this year he is 37th worst among rotation points who have played 20. That’s a huge improvement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ...and he is now asked to give it up much earlier. You disregard the fact that this might be bad strategy given the personal strengths of said player?
    I dispute your premise, and your claim that it’s a fact. Collison is a more versatile and talented player than you give him credit for being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is it possible that Jim Obrien plays his preferred system in spite of the strengths of his personnel?
    No it is not, and once again I dispute your premise. To the contrary, the system is entirely different from last year’s system because it is built around the offensive strengths of the current players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I find this to be not such a ridiculous statement. What do you have to say about that, and please, in a fairly concise manner?
    Okay, I’ll restrain myself. But you’re missing an absolutely phenomenal application of fractal mathematics to team defense.

    Last edited by O'Bird; 01-11-2011 at 02:08 AM.
    :

    "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

    "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

    "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

  13. #62
    This Thing Is Working® O'Bird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    210

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    At first I could not figure out where the hell you drug up these quotes from attributed to me then I went back and found that these were Sookie's quotes in reply to one of my posts.

    whew, I'm off of the hook.
    Oh, gosh, sorry. I'd better cut back down to seven cups of coffee.

    :

    "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

    "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

    "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

  14. #63
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,561

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    O'Bird you quoted me as saying this team had the talent to be a 3 seed right now, when in fact I said no such thing. I said they had the talent to be a solid playoff team, I then said what I consider to be a solid playoff team, and then I said that they are at the lower end of that scale as in the 6th seed.

    As far as McRoberts I think you completely underestimate how good he is at what he does. He doesn't score a lot, and he won't put up amazing stats, but what he does is make his teammates around him better. Any quality team with a quality coach will see that and reward that kind of play. He doesn't do the stuff that the average person appreciates. (no one really appreciated Artest either) Apparently I am the only person that noticed the very game that McRoberts began to have a diminished role that Hibbert began to struggle, and at the same time the team as a whole began to struggle. There are certain types of players that might not put up great stats, but just make your team better. When Daniels was here he was that kind of player, and now it is McRoberts. What those guys do can't be quantified with personal stats. Yes, McRoberts hasn't hit his peak, but I have no doubt that a good coach would find his skills very useful.

  15. #64
    This Thing Is Working® O'Bird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    210

    Default Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    O'Bird you quoted me as saying this team had the talent to be a 3 seed right now, when in fact I said no such thing.
    On the contrary, what you in fact said was very straightforward: "Right now we have the talent to be a solid playoff team (seeds 3-6)". I can only respond to what you actually say, not to what you think you are saying.

    "Talent" is a loaded word, and an ambiguous one. Sometimes it means what a guy's potential is, sometimes what is available now; and even that word "now", which seems at first so simple, sometimes means what a guy has done the last few weeks and sometimes the last few seasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He doesn't score a lot, and he won't put up amazing stats, but what he does is make his teammates around him better. Any quality team with a quality coach will see that and reward that kind of play. He doesn't do the stuff that the average person appreciates.
    I agree with this, for the most part, and indeed that is what he was rewarded for. He has, as the cliche goes, great feel for the game - that's why he won the starting job, and certainly it was not because of any "amazing stats" (though his assist/turnover numbers last year against second and third stringers probably helped). But it doesn't make anyone - except on the other team - any better if you're turning it over, especially if you can't make up for it with your rebounding. You will remember that the crucial benchmarks for him were: run the floor, rebound, take care of the ball. O'Brien made a point of not including shooting.

    Josh faltered against the NBA's starters, but he's only 23, and he's got an outstanding work ethic. I'm a fan; his game is one that, I think you agree, can be enjoyed by basketball purists, for all its rough edges. I predict that he'll be back. Meanwhile, there's a chance for the equally (if not more) intriguing Tyler Hansbrough to prove that he belongs on the front lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    (no one really appreciated Artest either)
    Doesn't winning Defensive Player of the Year in 2004 count? That's league-wide appreciation. And Larry Bird's remark that he would pay to see Ron-Ron play indicates that management, as well, knew what they had. But maybe you're referring to Pacers Digest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What those guys do can't be quantified with personal stats. Yes, McRoberts hasn't hit his peak, but I have no doubt that a good coach would find his skills very useful.
    But that is exactly what happened - he got the starting job, for God's sake, because his skills were found "very useful" - obviously it wasn't because of his "personal stats". He got a pretty long look, too, and showed enough that they've got to feel good about him going forward. We agree, at any rate, that he has not yet "hit his peak".

    .
    Last edited by O'Bird; 01-11-2011 at 08:20 PM.
    :

    "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

    "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

    "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

Similar Threads

  1. NBA Image problem - what or who do you blame?
    By Unclebuck in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 11:04 AM
  2. Defining toughness in a basketball player
    By Unclebuck in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 04:23 AM
  3. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft 4
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 08:33 PM
  4. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 10:23 AM
  5. <Place name of thread here>
    By MSA2CF in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-18-2004, 07:17 PM

Posting Permissions

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