Page 2 of 36 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #26
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure it really raises any questions about GHill. He's a 37% career 3pt shooter, compared to Danny's 38%. I think him and Danny have similiar skill sets, in that role of the offense, the only real difference is just height.
    Offensively, I agree, but I'm more comfortable with Danny than Hill when it comes to guarding a wing. And when it comes to being aggressive.

  2. #27
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Am I reading Pacers Digest?
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Holy Cow!
    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why is this stuff surprising to the Lance crowd? There were similiar statements of surprise in the post game thread.

    I won't speak for everyone, but I thought I've made it perfectly clear that the Danny vs Lance debate was really more geared towards Lance's role with the starters vs his role with the bench. I just disagree with a lot of the arguments against Danny, because most of them is just stuff flung at the wall hoping it sticks.
    Yeah, I was going to say, it's a myth that I'm a Lance hater. I'm a Lance skeptic to a point, and I don't like the crap flung at Danny in the name of making Lance seem as ideal as possible, but I continue to see what he's theoretically capable of, and when I imagine a world where he answers my four if's, I get excited.

  3. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  4. #28
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I still don't think Lance is a point guard, by the way. It's just that I don't really think George Hill is a point guard either, and I don't think we need one with this group and with this offense.

    My thinking is that if Lance addresses my big if's he can be a bigger, more dynamic, more aggressive player than Hill at that position, and that's exciting to me.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  6. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,007

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I don't like Lance as a PG because I think you want a certain personality type at PG who you can trust to make the right decision the majority of times. A PG that is more of a thinker and strategist than an instinctual/emotional player. Hill and Lance are kind of opposites in this regard. Lance has the PG skills, but plays more on instinct and emotions, and Hill has the right mentality, but doesn't have the traditional PG skills. I put a lot more weight on the mentality than the skills though. While Hill's skills as a PG are not great, they are good enough.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  8. #30
    Droppin' knowledge, yo. Mackey_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Dragon's Lair
    Posts
    4,090

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    If you move Stephenson to the point, George Hill is still the best option to fill the other wing slot next to Paul George. Essentially, all that would change would be to put the ball in Stephenson's hands more offensively.

    It seems like unnecessary change. This team is good enough as is. No reason to fix what's not broken.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mackey_Rose For This Useful Post:


  10. #31
    bro-hahn kroyff Brohan Cruyff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    26
    Posts
    170

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't like Lance as a PG because I think you want a certain personality type at PG who you can trust to make the right decision the majority of times. A PG that is more of a thinker and strategist than an instinctual/emotional player. Hill and Lance are kind of opposites in this regard. Lance has the PG skills, but plays more on instinct and emotions, and Hill has the right mentality, but doesn't have the traditional PG skills. I put a lot more weight on the mentality than the skills though. While Hill's skills as a PG are not great, they are good enough.
    I think I agree with this, to an extent. As of right now, I trust Hill to get Lance the ball (or at least to get the ball to a place where Lance can get it) when he's in the zone. I'm not certain anyone else would get a touch if Point Guard Lance was feeling it. I suppose I could be stuck in the old Lance Stephenson paradigm, though. It's hard with him to reconcile the three Lances - the Lance that used to be, the Lance that is, and the Lance that could be.

    I'll have to see some things to be convinced there's any reason to change the current order. Which, to be fair, is I think what Hicks was saying.
    "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

    "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

  11. #32
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,141

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    From what I recall Magic Johnson wasn't a Mensa...and he had flash...and he was pretty talented and effective as a PG.

    Afaic Lance is basically a smaller and less talented version of LeBron James...and he is probably the second most talented Pacer at the moment.

    edit: not as valuable as hibbert tho

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  13. #33
    Member pacers74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Plainfield
    Posts
    2,288

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    My opinion of last night was that Lance impressed the crap out of me. Do I want him at PG, not yet. I see flashes of him being the starting PG type player, but I don't think he is there yet. He didn't freight train all the way down the court last night and just throw up any shot. He did his freight train, but with more control. He would get under the free throw line and then look to pass it back out. What I didn't see to much was see him bring the ball up the court after a made shot and set up the offense and have it run threw him. I think he needs to do that more to win me over.
    The one thing I think that has to happen is Lance Stephenson has to be on this team for the 2014 season and beyond.

  14. #34
    Member naptownmenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    4,628

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I don't see any needs to make any changes at this point. I do think that Lance should remain the starter and play some minutes with the second unit as well but as long as he continues playing aggressive but under control, there are no changes needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Larry is not coming back, he didn't have a meeting with Orlando for not reason, yeah he is coming back to the NBA but not to the Pacers, the notion that he is a taking a year off and then come back is absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Trader Joe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    GOOD GOD THAT'S LARRY BIRD'S MUSIC!

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to naptownmenace For This Useful Post:


  16. #35
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    26
    Posts
    30,860

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I guess I just didn't feel like I was watching a point guard last night. I was watching a really athletic creative 2. Which is what he is.

    If you look at how Lance played with the starters, he was like Tony Allen on steroids basically, he got some good putbacks scored a bit in transition and generally let Paul and West gobble up most of the ball.

    Once he hit the bench, he got the ball more but I still felt like he was playing more like a Wade than say big athletic point guard like Westbrook.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-30-2013 at 03:32 PM.

    “WE NEVER SURRENDER, WE NEVER GIVE UP, WE KEEP ATTACKING”- Frank Vogel
    momentarygodsblog.com https://twitter.com/momentarygods

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  18. #36
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,079

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brohan Cruyff View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I trust Hill to get Lance the ball (or at least to get the ball to a place where Lance can get it) when he's in the zone.
    First of all, it's nice to see you posting. You are a new face/name for me, and we need thoughtful contributors.

    Secondly, I disagree
    Lance is far better at getting the ball to people where they want it than Hill is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brohan Cruyff View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not certain anyone else would get a touch if Point Guard Lance was feeling it. I suppose I could be stuck in the old Lance Stephenson paradigm, though. It's hard with him to reconcile the three Lances - the Lance that used to be, the Lance that is, and the Lance that could be.
    This is a mistake and the wrong stereotype. You're not the only person on here saying such things. Lance is far more prone to pass the ball than Hill, really, than anyone on the team. He has always been that way.

    I guess people are so used to a shucking, juking, flashy type players to be a selfish ball hogs that they put Lance in that category. But he is categorically NOT.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  19. #37
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    26
    Posts
    30,860

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Lance isn't a ball hog, but just because a guy is a willing passer doesn't mean he's a point guard.

    “WE NEVER SURRENDER, WE NEVER GIVE UP, WE KEEP ATTACKING”- Frank Vogel
    momentarygodsblog.com https://twitter.com/momentarygods

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  21. #38
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,990

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trader Joe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I guess I just didn't feel like I was watching a point guard last night. I was watching a really athletic creative 2. Which is what he is.

    If you look at how Lance played with the starters, he was like Tony Allen on steroids basically, he got some good putbacks scored a bit in transition and generally let Paul and West gobble up most of the ball.

    Once he hit the bench, he got the ball more but I still felt like he was playing more like a Wade than say big athletic point guard like Westbrook.
    I don't think CJ initiated the offense a single time him and Lance were on the floor together. In fact, he recieved an inbounds pass, and immediately passed to Lance to bring the ball up. Does it really matter whether or not he's considered one, when he's clearly being used as one?

    Maybe it was just because he had it rolling, but he was clearly the primary ball handler with the second unit IMHO.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  23. #39
    bro-hahn kroyff Brohan Cruyff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    26
    Posts
    170

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    First of all, it's nice to see you posting. You are a new face/name for me, and we need thoughtful contributors.

    Secondly, I disagree
    Lance is far better at getting the ball to people where they want it than Hill is.




    This is a mistake and the wrong stereotype. You're not the only person on here saying such things. Lance is far more prone to pass the ball than Hill, really, than anyone on the team. He has always been that way.

    I guess people are so used to a shucking, juking, flashy type players to be a selfish ball hogs that they put Lance in that category. But he is categorically NOT.
    Yeah, I don't think I'm getting my point across well here, and I'm not really sure that I can, but I'll try anyway. I don't think he's a ballhog or selfish (and since I haven't posted much here, let me say now and for the record that I absolutely adore Lance, and was happy as hell that he came on the way he did last year), and I know he can pass the ball well. I'm just afraid that if he's made the primary ballhandler, and he gets on one of those runs he gets on where it seems like he can get to the rim at will, he could get tunnel vision like he has on occasion in the past. But that's honestly not why I think I'd wait to make a change of any kind here - it's more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" thing. So I'm not sure it even matters.
    "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

    "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Brohan Cruyff For This Useful Post:


  25. #40
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,522

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Lance had a great game last night. I think you have to a decent share of his good games and bad games to get an accurate picture of what he will be as a player this year. It's why Hicks qualified this entire thread with a bunch of IFs. Lance played like an allstar last night, but anybody taking it as evidence that that is going to be his average production for the year is jumping the gun a bit. Let's just wait and see.

    I understand many are not doing this, but I think people need to remember that we're looking at a game and not a trend at the moment. If he continues to play this way once defenses actually start paying attention to him then you have yourself a guy who deserves all the praise we can give and all of the money the Pacers are going to throw at him.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  27. #41
    Member owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,190

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think CJ initiated the offense a single time him and Lance were on the floor together. In fact, he recieved an inbounds pass, and immediately passed to Lance to bring the ball up. Does it really matter whether or not he's considered one, when he's clearly being used as one?

    Maybe it was just because he had it rolling, but he was clearly the primary ball handler with the second unit IMHO.
    And Lance only had one turnover. That I find impressive considering some of his activity.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

  28. #42
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    26
    Posts
    30,860

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I mean if the basic argument is let Lance be the primary ballhandler with the bench guys, then yeah ok do it big time.

    If the argument expands into, let's make him the primary ballhandler with the starts, I'm going to say nope

    “WE NEVER SURRENDER, WE NEVER GIVE UP, WE KEEP ATTACKING”- Frank Vogel
    momentarygodsblog.com https://twitter.com/momentarygods

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  30. #43
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,532

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    If Lance progresses the way that he is....why can't Lance be a Wade-like Player in the roster?

    Specifically....the proverbial SG on the floor that also handles some of the ball-handling duties while creating offense for other Players...either in the Starting Lineup or ( more than likely ) in the 2nd unit when GH sits and CJ starts playing.

    IMHO...Lance's progression won't affect GH. I think that GH, Lance and CJ fit how Vogel wants his offense run where the offense isn't run exclusively with a ball-dominant PG but with multiple ball-handlers with extensive ball movement among whoever is on the floor. Having GH or CJ man the proverbial PG spot in the lineup won't matter. Half the time....GH or CJ will be running the offense with the ball in their hands....whereas other times...Lance or PG24 will have the ball in their hands to create offense for others where CJ or GH are waiting at the 3pt line for a kick out of the ball.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  32. #44

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Why not just go with what they have ?? Hill can bring the ball up and initiate the offense. So can PG. So can Lance.

    'Getting the ball in the hands of the point guard' takes time. A few seconds ?? Sure. But when that few seconds mean someone jacking up an ugly shot or making a pass to someone that can take a better shot - it's time well saved. There are options. It's like there's a hot brunette, redhead and blonde. All of them are capable. Why not utilize them all ?? Why settle for just one ??

    But seriously - the more guys that can get the offense going, the better. A lot of good things can come from it. The defense needs to react to it. Maybe catch them off guard for an easy hoop. All sorts of possibilities.

  33. #45
    Member Jon Theodore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Lance Stephenson is a beast and my favorite player to watch, the end.
    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jon Theodore For This Useful Post:


  35. #46
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,532

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    IF Lance continues to demonstrate improved decision-making with the ball in his hands.

    IF Lance can adequately guard the position.

    IF Lance proves to be more consistent than last season.

    IF, and this is the biggest question mark to me, Lance shows more growth in regards to his maturity....

    I think I want him to be our starting point guard later on this season. I think FOR THIS TEAM and HOW THIS TEAM PLAYS OFFENSE, he could be a killer upgrade at that position.

    Of course, in this scenario, new questions and problems would present themselves now and during the summer... primarily regarding George Hill.
    The only consequence that I am concerned about is that IF Lance does all of the above that you mention is that we can lose him to Free Agency.

    I guarantee you that some Team will offer him a guaranteed Starting Spot and the Full MLE just to go play for them.

    I am very sure that Bird will guarantee him the Starting SG spot....but when it comes to $$$$? Remember...we are at $52.5 mil WITHOUT PG24s new Contract ( I have no clue what his Starting 2014-2015 Salary is ) and the 2014-2015 LT is $75.7 mil. Based off of my calculations....I don't think that we can even afford to offer Lance the Full MLE ( which ANY Team can offer him ) without going over the 2014-2015 LT.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  36. #47
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,586

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you move Stephenson to the point, George Hill is still the best option to fill the other wing slot next to Paul George. Essentially, all that would change would be to put the ball in Stephenson's hands more offensively.

    It seems like unnecessary change. This team is good enough as is. No reason to fix what's not broken.

    I agree. The guys who were rolled out last night and last season are the five best guys for the starting position. They continue to get better together. Sure, you can always make changes if you feel that you're going to make the team even better, but I fail to see how the team would be better if you took any of these five guys out of the starting lineup. This lineup just continues to get better and better together. We saw them improve together throughout last season and all the way to Game 7 against Miami, and we saw a great start last night with a Lance who seems like he's going to have an even bigger roll in the offense.

    Change the rolls within the line up if you want, but why would you pluck any of these guys out? I see no justification for taking George Hill out of the starting lineup. This team has been awesome since George Hill was put into the starting lineup at the end of the 2012 season.

  37. #48
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,941

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Honestly, I don't really care about who is coined the point guard and who is not. All I know is that I do want the ball to be in Lance's hands more often. Yesterday's match was a great move forward.

    Hill is an excellent shooter and can easily play off the ball. I want to see him playing a bit more aggressive, though.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  39. #49
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trader Joe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I mean if the basic argument is let Lance be the primary ballhandler with the bench guys, then yeah ok do it big time.

    If the argument expands into, let's make him the primary ballhandler with the starts, I'm going to say nope
    Even if all four of my if's pan out?

  40. #50
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

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