Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #226
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,638

    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
    Maybe, depends on his options, but one thing is for sure you can't count on it.
    But I can count on the fact that Larry Bird is top notch GM.
    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

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


  3. #227

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We signed him to be our back-up PF but then the opportunity to trade for Scola appeared and now he is our 3rd string.

    What does that have to do with Lance?
    Gives us less flexibility to resign him.

    Btw, I dont think anyone answered my question:

    Could we have extended Stephenson in the off season?

  4. #228

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

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

    Danny Granger is better suited as a 5th option while Lance Stephenson is better suited as a 6th man that can score in bunches and create for others.

    That's why I wanted Lance to get more time with the bench and he has proved so far that he has been playing great with them. The only issue is that Lance is shooting soooo well that he may cancel point #1. That would make him a better fit for both units.

    I really wish that Lance keeps this shooting up and I also wish that Danny shoots that well when he returns.
    That's cute and all, but Danny is no 5th option. He is a chucker, and chuckers are best off the bench (see Crawford, JR Smith, Nate Robinson, etc).

    If you really think Danny Granger is gonna take the 5th most shots when he's out there w/ the starters, then I have to assume you don't know much about Danny Granger.

    If you're so interested in benching Lance for a 5th option/spot up shooter, put the really poor man's Danny (Chris Copeland) in the starting lineup. No? Dumb idea? Well, now we agree.

    You don't mess w/ success, and it's been said ad nauseum that the Pacers starting 5 (you know, without Danny) was 1 of the best in the league, while their bench (also minus Danny) was 1 of the worst in the league. Gee, where should we put him? Seems simple to me.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 3rdStrike For This Useful Post:


  6. #229
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,638

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    $$$$$$
    Once again:

    If any contract of a bench player gets in the way of re-signing Lance, they will be traded. All of our contracts are easily tradeable in case we need to make more room for Lance.
    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

  7. #230
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,786

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Once again:

    If any contract of a bench player gets in the way of re-signing Lance, they will be traded. All of our contracts are easily tradeable in case we need to make more room for Lance.

    As a huge Lance fan, I sincerely hope you're right.

  8. #231
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,638

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Future View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Gives us less flexibility to resign him.
    Every signed contract give us less flexibility to re-sign a player by default. Small contracts in the the 3-4 million range are NOT going to be a factor when it comes to re-signing a part of our core. Our GM is great and he will move those contracts if it becomes necessary in order to keep Lance.
    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

  9. #232
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,835

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Future View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Gives us less flexibility to resign him.

    Btw, I dont think anyone answered my question:

    Could we have extended Stephenson in the off season?
    Yes, but if Lance flopped this year and Granger came back strong they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It looks like that's not going to happen, but there was no reason to limit their options.

  10. #233
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,786

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    The thought of Lance and Paul playing together for the next decade.......


  11. #234
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,835

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let's see. Lance was part of a young core that had the best defense in the league. A unit that was considered perhaps the best in the entire league. Now he's shooting much better and people want to bench him?

    Seriously, where is this coming from? Lance is the second best player on this team so far this year.
    People wanting to "bench" him really just want to see his role increased. His minutes wouldn't decrease. It's not a demotion.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  13. #235
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by speakout4 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if Copeland is the new Gerald Green
    He is.

  14. #236
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,638

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's cute and all, but Danny is no 5th option. He is a chucker, and chuckers are best off the bench (see Crawford, JR Smith, Nate Robinson, etc).

    If you really think Danny Granger is gonna take the 5th most shots when he's out there w/ the starters, then I have to assume you don't know much about Danny Granger.

    If you're so interested in benching Lance for a 5th option/spot up shooter, put the really poor man's Danny (Chris Copeland) in the starting lineup. No? Dumb idea? Well, now we agree.

    You don't mess w/ success, and it's been said ad nauseum that the Pacers starting 5 (you know, without Danny) was 1 of the best in the league, while their bench (also minus Danny) was 1 of the worst in the league. Gee, where should we put him? Seems simple to me.
    1) Our 11-12 starting 5 was one of the best in the league as well.

    2) I have supported the idea of starting OJ or Solo Hill and use them for 5 minutes at the start of each half in order to give Lance more opportunities to handle the ball as a 6th man. Of course, with the way that Lance has been playing it has really become a moot point and I'm perfectly glad with our team's current situation.

    3) Danny Granger is not a chucker. Jim O'Brien is no longer our coach. We're in the 13-14 NBA season. Wake up and don't get stuck in the past.
    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

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


  16. #237
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,786

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by speakout4 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if Copeland is the new Gerald Green
    I don't know. Green at least got a chance to prove he sucked on the court.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  18. #238
    Member Derek2k3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne
    Posts
    1,583
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Future View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Gives us less flexibility to resign him.

    Btw, I dont think anyone answered my question:

    Could we have extended Stephenson in the off season?
    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, but if Lance flopped this year and Granger came back strong they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It looks like that's not going to happen, but there was no reason to limit their options.
    I see this question a lot, and I see this particular answer a lot.

    Yes, the Pacers could have *offered* an extension this offseason. However, it would have been a completely unrealistic offers, because Indiana would only be allowed to offer something like 120% of his previous salary...meaning they could have extended Lance to a contract paying approx. $1.2M, or a fourth of what he'll likely get now.

    Had nothing to do with remaining flexible, and everything to do with the inherent limitations of the NBA extension system.

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Derek2k3 For This Useful Post:


  20. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    People wanting to "bench" him really just want to see his role increased. His minutes wouldn't decrease. It's not a demotion.
    I call bs on that, just say it man we know the true no reason to sugar coat it.

  21. #240
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,638

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I call bs on that, just say it man we know the true no reason to sugar coat it.
    You don't know nothing, actually. You are the only one that wants to bench a player due to your personal dislike. The rest of us are talking about basketball while you talk about your likes and dislikes.
    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

  22. #241
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,835

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I call bs on that, just say it man we know the true no reason to sugar coat it.
    What's to gain by calling me a liar? It's completely uncalled for.

    I want Lance to have a bigger role. I don't, however, want him to take touches away from Paul George or George Hill. Therefore, I want him playing off the bench.

  23. #242

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I call bs on that, just say it man we know the true no reason to sugar coat it.
    I'm a Jeremy Lin fan, and I think the decision to have him come off the bench is a good idea. Because both Harden and Lin need..and should have the ball in their hand.

    We have people here complaining that Lance doesn't get enough touches, but then absolutely refusing the idea of having him play a sixth man Manu/Lin/OKCHarden role.

    If you want Lance to get more touches, to have more control..that means your going to be taking the ball away from Paul George. Anyone think that's a good idea? Didn't think so.

    Have him run the show with the bench? That gives him the opportunity to prove that he can do what y'all are insisting he can do, in a way that can still be controlled. There's a reason Lance was excited about this possibility. Because in the end, giving him that sixth man role will actually involve him more.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  25. #243
    Ain't Happening BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    16,060

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    People wanting to "bench" him really just want to see his role increased. His minutes wouldn't decrease. It's not a demotion.
    Do you want him on the floor at the end of games or not?

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


  27. #244
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,786

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm a Jeremy Lin fan, and I think the decision to have him come off the bench is a good idea. Because both Harden and Lin need..and should have the ball in their hand.

    We have people here complaining that Lance doesn't get enough touches, but then absolutely refusing the idea of having him play a sixth man Manu/Lin/OKCHarden role.

    If you want Lance to get more touches, to have more control..that means your going to be taking the ball away from Paul George. Anyone think that's a good idea? Didn't think so.

    Have him run the show with the bench? That gives him the opportunity to prove that he can do what y'all are insisting he can do, in a way that can still be controlled. There's a reason Lance was excited about this possibility. Because in the end, giving him that sixth man role will actually involve him more.

    Lance is getting plenty of touches while starting and is playing the best basketball of his career. Paul OTOH is having career numbers and is on his way to becoming a top 5 player. I fail to see any problem anywhere. 3 games is a small sample size, but so far, so good.

    Besides, it's not an either/or thing. Lance is young enough that he can play plenty of minutes with both the starters and the bench. With the starters, Lance plays excellent team defense, rebounds, finds open teammates, pushes the ball, and has ever increasing opportunities to both control the ball and score. But as the first three games have shown, he's also had plenty of opportunity to play with bench players and be the primary offensive option with those guys. The reasons (ball control, etc) listed by those who think he should come off of the bench are in fact happening right now with him as a starter. So why change anything?

    This team is at its best with Lance starting and it just continues to get better and better. Lance is a physical player and the identity of our starting unit is that of a physical team. There is zero reason to change anything right now.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013 at 12:41 AM.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  29. #245

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you want him on the floor at the end of games or not?
    1. That has nothing to do with starting.
    2. It depends. How is Danny doing in that game? What are the defensive matchups? How is Lance playing? There are a lot of variables. And I know this is going to annoy most people here, but if Danny's healthy, and Lance isn't significantly out playing him..I expect we'll see Danny in the game at the end.

    Then again, someone else could be having a poor game. Perhaps defensively, we'd match up better with the opposing team with a small lineup +Roy. Or where it might benefit us to take Hill out and go really big (perhaps on a last second shot..).

    I expect Frank to do what's best for the team in that moment. Even if it means making an unpopular decision. It's not a bad thing to have six quality starting caliber players, so long as the team's ego can take it.

    edit: Assuming Danny's is healthy and playing well by post season..the more I think about it..the more I can't believe the Pacer's aren't the favorite to win it all.

    Budding superstar in PG. If Lance keeps it up, we've got another MIP. Danny, West, and Roy all All Stars/former all stars. And Hill is a quality and big point guard. Plus we have the best defense in the league and one of the best coaches. And our bench..with Watson, Scola and whatever one is the sixth player, is significantly improved.

    Assuming this team is healthy, this really isn't a matter of "has a shot at contending" this team is a "Should win the championship" type of team.

    Gotta get better at defending the PnR though..
    Last edited by Sookie; 11-02-2013 at 11:15 PM.

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  31. #246

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you want Lance to get more touches, to have more control..that means your going to be taking the ball away from Paul George. Anyone think that's a good idea? Didn't think so.
    We want lance to complement the starting 4 the way he has. That means that he fits with the group he has been playing with. The starting 5 isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. Danny would be fine with the second unit adding some scoring punch. I'm not understanding what's wrong with that. Danny may not work out with the starting unit even if he is 100%.

    Does the starting unit need more scoring or does it need a facilitator?

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to speakout4 For This Useful Post:


  33. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What's to gain by calling me a liar? It's completely uncalled for.

    I want Lance to have a bigger role. I don't, however, want him to take touches away from Paul George or George Hill. Therefore, I want him playing off the bench.
    Not calling you a lier but I know where are you going with this conversation, we get it you want to start DG and bench Lance.

  34. #248
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,896

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do you want him on the floor at the end of games or not?
    Depends on the game. We don't need to have Lance or Granger at the end of every game. Some games go with Granger, some with Lance. Thats what will happen, regardless who is starting.

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  36. #249

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

    Quote Originally Posted by speakout4 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We want lance to complement the starting 4 the way he has. That means that he fits with the group he has been playing with. The starting 5 isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. Danny would be fine with the second unit adding some scoring punch. I'm not understanding what's wrong with that. Danny may not work out with the starting unit even if he is 100%.

    Does the starting unit need more scoring or does it need a facilitator?
    It really depends on whether Lance's shooting keeps up. If it doesn't, Danny (on paper) helps the starters more.

    And, I always feel that a quality playmaker (who can get his own shot) is better than someone who relies on people getting him a shot, to come off the bench.

    I understand the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. And I especially get it with the uncertainty with Danny. But it could work out better, and it seems like all involved want that situation to play out. (Danny as starter, Lance as sixth man.) Obviously "on paper" doesn't always translate, but it's worth looking at.

    What's the worst thing that can happen? It doesn't work out, and after a few games of trying it, they switch it back? This team has good chemistry. And they're too talented to get too far off track. Plus, this is assuming Danny is healthy shortly. If he's not really contributing until March, obviously it's better to have Lance starting.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  38. #250
    Ain't Happening BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    16,060

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. That has nothing to do with starting.
    2. It depends. How is Danny doing in that game? What are the defensive matchups? How is Lance playing? There are a lot of variables. And I know this is going to annoy most people here, but if Danny's healthy, and Lance isn't significantly out playing him..I expect we'll see Danny in the game at the end.
    Quote Originally Posted by ilive4sports View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Depends on the game. We don't need to have Lance or Granger at the end of every game. Some games go with Granger, some with Lance. Thats what will happen, regardless who is starting.
    If you've played competitive sports and want to maintain good chemistry, you have a group of guys who normally close. The alternative leads to finger pointing. Are there exceptions to that rule? Certainly and it varies by the team. But there is always a rule.

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold 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
  •