"If God had wanted women to play ball, he would've made them men."
It's mentioned here among his awards.
Can't find any other members of the 1988 second team. And nba.com gives conflicting info, it seems. Maybe someone here still remembers whether it happened or not, I have no idea.
Happy to see Paul get this award but I'm still befuddled as to why he didn't get the MVP award. An absolute travesty, but I'm sure the rest of the NBA will finally learn...
Congratulations to Paul for winning all-rookie 2nd team. While I am at it, for the people who don't believe in Paul's abilities, I want you to read this article by our very own Tim Donahue:
This is why I am very optimistic about Paul George (More so than any Pacer in history besides Jermaine O'Neal. Jermaine could have been great but he just didn't want to be tough and he would break a nail and be out for two months) and why I hold my breath with Lance Stephenson. Paul George has NOTHING holding him back. He has it all upstairs and he has it all athletically. He just 'gets it'. That is why I think he can be a great Pacer.
Something to Think About
by Tim Donahue on May 10, 2011 at 9:40 pm · 1 comment
When looking at a player and trying to determine what their potential is, and, more importantly, whether or not they’ll be able to achieve that potential, I feel the need to consider what I am asking them to change. If I “thin slice” my reaction (stealing ignorantly from Malcolm Gladwell), is the focus on:
A. Skills – What a player can or can’t do. Does he need a better handle? a more consistent jumper? to learn to go to his left? better defensive rotations?
B. Attributes – Who a player is or isn’t?. Does he need to overcome a lack of size or quickness? Does he need to get stronger? Does he need to become more mature? more focused? more consistent? more confident? less timid? get better judgment (on or off the court)? become less selfish? become less passive? better deal with adversity? The infamous – “if he can only get his head on straight”?
It seems to me that if my thoughts go immediately to A – Skills, then it’s someone I can reasonably expect to be able to “coach up” towards their potential. They may not achieve it entirely, but the progress should be there.
If I immediately focus on B, then I’m much less optimistic. Consider the following:
Does the player appear to have trouble behaving properly both inside and outside of the framework of the team?
Is he horribly inconsistent, but that inconsistency doesn’t come from a mechanical problem within his game?
When you describe needed areas of improvement, does it disproportionately trend towards traits inherent to his personality?
When I ask someone to address issues in category A, I’m asking them to become better basketball players. They can get in a gym with a coach, have practical approaches and drills, and see a clear path towards a goal with measurable benchmarks.
When I need someone to change aspects in category B, then – in effect – I’m asking them to become different people. This doesn’t mean that they are bad people, or that they need to become better people. It just means that their limitations on the basketball court are driven by who they are far more than what they can or can’t do.
The former creates both expectations and hope for the team and those players. The latter breeds only doubt.
As we enter the summer and look at current Pacer players expected to return, potential trade targets, free agents, and rookies, take a little time to think about what they bring to the table. Then, when considering what’s missing, ask yourself whether you need them to become a better basketball player, or a different person.
landy fields is highly overrated. It's the NY media that blows him up. Gary Neal on the other hand deserved it. He played great this year
Man I saw Landry play a couple of times in Indy and a few games I watched of the Knicks on TV and for a second round draft pick I thought this guy was the real deal.
Lot's of teams blew their pick's on players that were not nearly as good.
In fact if we had a draft do over I would suspect Landry is easily a top 10 pick.
Not saying he is an all-star or anything but I was impressed when I saw him play and I usually don't like wing players.
The guy who really should be in there is Greg Monroe over Fields and Neal.
He's basically been the 2nd best rookie this year.
He's been robbed here.
I can sort of understand the prejudice in favour of Wall and Cousins over Monroe - more flashy highlights, better averages, even if way less efficient.
But there's no way in hell we can make any case for Neal/Fields over Monroe.
I consider the system and see a player on defense that plays more consistently than the rest of the team. He was the main reason why they went on a run early in the season.
Last edited by Speed; 05-12-2011 at 07:59 AM.
But overall I'd say he's had a better season than Derrick Favors or Wes Johnson despite DNPs, and far better than Eric Bledsoe.
He should be on 2nd team.
With honors come great (greater?) expectations.
"But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."
Hogwash! Where do you come up with some of these outlandish comments you make? Fields' PLAY earned him 1st team not the NY media! AGAIN, Landry Fields was the STEAL of the draft. He had a GOOD rookie season and well deserved the award. There was a reason NY didn't want to include Fields in the Melo deal.
Last edited by Justin Tyme; 05-12-2011 at 10:50 AM.
Proud of Paul, and proud to be a Pacers fan.
Honestly, Paul outplayed Gary Neal.
Last edited by Constellations; 05-13-2011 at 06:32 AM.
Follow me at @Bluejbgold