Page 17 of 36 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #401
    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 Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."
    Opening this thread is for sure proving it....

  2. #402

    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
    I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."
    I wasn't necessarily suggesting you or CableKC, but I was told I'm "making **** up" by suggesting we don't know what that lineup can do because PG, Roy, and DG are different players now. Not only does that comment negate the significant improvements made by PG and Roy, but it suggests DG is the same player he was.

  3. #403
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,798

    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
    Opening this thread is for sure proving it....
    The purpose of this thread seems to be regarding some comparison between Lance Vs. GH at the starting PG spot...and not your favorite topic at hand...Lance Vs. Granger.
    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.

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


  5. #404
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,798

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Steagles View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I have said all along I see Lance starting as a point guard one day. Another thing I'm very adamant about was what I said about Hill's contract- that it was grossly overpaid. IF Lance continues this production, I think it would be in the Pacers best interest to trade Hill, resign Lance, and start him at point. I don't know how the player movement would work, but I like Lance much better at point for the Pacers, and that's not even taking into account the ridiculous contract Hill got.
    I'd rather trade Copeland for an Expiring than trade GH if there was a need to clear Capspace ( $3mil off the books in 2014-2015 should do it )....heck, I'd even throw in OJ as well as long as we get an Expiring Wing Player back that can do an adequate job as 10th Man in the rotation at the Wing spots. This offense requires ball movement that GH is more than capable of facilitating. I have no idea why we'd eliminate that skillset from the lineup.
    Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013 at 03:40 PM.
    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.

  6. #405
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,159

    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
    A lot of people here don't like V. judging people's motives. I think you are wrong to judge his motive here. I think it is very possible to want Granger coming off the bench and Lance finishing games for completely basketball reasons.
    I agree that it's absolutely possible to want Granger coming off the bench and Lance finishing games for completely basketball reasons. But we're talking about V. here and let's be real. This has nothing to do with Lance for him. It has to do with his dislike for Granger.

    Am I judging his motives? Absolutely. He has given this forum enough reason to do so. Am I being unfair? Probably. But not as unfair as he has been on our players those last few years.
    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. #406
    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 CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The purpose of this thread seems to be regarding some comparison between Lance Vs. GH at the starting PG spot...and not your favorite topic at hand...Lance Vs. Granger.
    There was no comparison between Lance/Hill the suggestion is to start Lance at point guard to open space for DG so he can start because he deserves it and nope that is not my favorite topic, I would actually love to talk about something else but the people with the mancrush won't let it go and keep opening threads about it(note that I'm not the one opening the threads).

  8. #407
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,524

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo 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
    That's probably the one big reason that comes to mind why I might still prefer Danny starting over Lance, even if Lance is shooting this well: Both would fit well with the other starters, but I think Lance helps the bench crew more than Danny could.

    To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?
    Lance has arrived, and will not slow down. After playing well last season as basically a rookie, the improvement this year was quite obvious to see coming. If anything, lance will get even better as the year goes on, not regress
    David "And One" West

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  10. #408

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd rather trade Copeland for an Expiring than trade GH if there was a need to clear Capspace ( $3mil off the books in 2014-2015 should do it ). This offense requires ball movement that GH is more than capable of facilitating. I have no idea why we'd eliminate that skillset from the lineup.

    I'll say this is where we disagree. The only reason I believe Lance needs to start is because I believe GH is deficient in ball handling and passing. He's a very good player, but would be much better suited as a backup. IMO he's a perfect backup guard because he can play either the one or the two, but he doesn't have the skillet I want to see in a starting pg - even considering we don't run a ball dominate system. He doesn't need to be Steve Nash but he has to be able make teams pay for pressuring him full court. And he can't - he doesn't have the vision or ball handling skills to make teams pay. Instead we run our offense against a shorter clock.

    I find the suggestion that the offense needs GH to facilitate, but it can do without Lance (a much better passer and ball handler) to be ....... confusing.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  12. #409
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,524

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I think some of you are looking too much in what the "experts" predicted about Lance. He wasn't ranked in the ESPN top 100, which was and is still laughable. I implore everyone to watch him play, enjoy it. Who cares if you thought he couldn't excel at this level. Being drafted in the second round means nothing 3 years later
    David "And One" West

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  14. #410

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lance has arrived, and will not slow down. After playing well last season as basically a rookie, the improvement this year was quite obvious to see coming. If anything, lance will get even better as the year goes on, not regress
    How exactly was he a rookie last year?

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Mad-Mad-Mario For This Useful Post:


  16. #411
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,159

    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
    rm1369 is right, things have changed a lot since DG played in 2011-12. In 11-12, Paul was fourth in FG attempts (Granger, West, Hibbert) with 639 attempts. Granger shot the ball 941 times, which was 302 more times than PG. West was second in FG attempts with 716, so Granger shot the ball 225 more times than the next highest player.

    Now Paul is leading the team in FG attempts and has morphed into one of the best players in the NBA. Lance is also getting a ton of attempts. We don't need Granger to shoot the ball at a ratio that is drastically higher than the next highest player. That's just not who we are anymore. Granger is facing a significant change when he returns.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2012.html
    Why are shot attempts so important for some people? For me, it's about who is handling the ball. If the ball is in Paul's and Lance's hands and also goes to our bigs in the post a lot then I don't care who is taking the shots.
    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

  17. #412
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,524

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How exactly was he a rookie last year?
    It was his first year he got minutes every game. His first two years, he rarely got to play. I consider last year Lance's rookie season.
    David "And One" West

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  19. #413
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,018

    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
    Why are shot attempts so important for some people? For me, it's about who is handling the ball. If the ball is in Paul's and Lance's hands and also goes to our bigs in the post a lot then I don't care who is taking the shots.
    Handling the ball is important, but it's still just one aspect of the game. Who shoots is still pretty important. Never again will Danny get 200 more shot attempts than the next highest player like he did in 2011-12. Never again will he shoot the ball 300 more times than PG. My point was that Danny's role with the team will be very different than it was in 11-12 when he last played.

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


  21. #414
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,798

    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
    There was no comparison between Lance/Hill the suggestion is to start Lance at point guard
    You are partially correct....the suggestion by Hicks was that Lance should be the Starting PG.

    Here is the original Post by Hicks:

    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.
    Where does Hick's OP...in any way...references Granger?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    to open space for DG so he can start because he deserves it and nope that is not my favorite topic, I would actually love to talk about something else but the people with the mancrush won't let it go and keep opening threads about it(note that I'm not the one opening the threads).
    Yes, this thread has typically devolved into the regular Lance Vs. Granger debate. Hicks would have to speak for himself, but for me.... there is a difference between starting Granger because "one thinks that he deserves it" as opposed to Lance simply being a better fit with the 2nd Unit.

    I look at it this way:

    Option 1 ) Put the Best Lineup on the floor with Lance playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Granger will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an average 2nd unit:

    - Play GH/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
    - Have Granger play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

    Option 2 ) Put the 2nd Best Lineup on the floor with Granger playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Lance will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an above average ( and IMHO a far more effective ) 2nd unit:

    - Play GH/Granger/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
    - Have Lance play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

    I can see the argument for putting the "best lineup on the floor as much as possible" but I have no problem with putting the 2nd best lineup on the floor ( which I don't think is a HUGE dropoff with Granger in the starting lineup compared to Lance ) and creating a much more effective 2nd unit with Lance leading the way while ensuring that Lance ( not Granger ) finishes the game.

    What I want to do is to have Lance be utilized the same way that Manu ( when he was healthy and relevant ) was used by Pops....as a 6th Man that got Starter minutes but played as much with the 2nd Unit as he did with the Starters and ultimately finishing games.

    Keeping in mind that I want Lance to finish games......I am inclined to create an overall effective Team on the floor that can compete for 48 minutes a game, as opposed to one that can only effectively do that for 30 mpg.
    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.

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


  23. #415

    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
    Why are shot attempts so important for some people? For me, it's about who is handling the ball. If the ball is in Paul's and Lance's hands and also goes to our bigs in the post a lot then I don't care who is taking the shots.
    The shots were brought up as an indication that you can't just look at the 2011 lineup and say everything will operate the same. It won't and shouldn't. It's especially a consideration for DG because he became a volume shooter. Any suggestion that that isn't a concern for his reintegration into the starting lineup is naive, IMO. Players mentality is hugely effected by touches etc. That's a big part of chemistry. I'm on record as saying I have concerns about Lances reverting back to a ball dominate guard if that is what he is asked to do for the team. Some have agreed with that concern - and I believe you did as well. The mentality to shoot isn't much different, IMO.

    Are you suggesting you wouldn't have a concern if the Pacers lost a couple games where Lance or GH lead the team in shot attempts instead of PG?

  24. #416
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,018

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where does Hick's OP...in any way...references Granger?

    He doesn't have to mention Granger by name for Granger to directly be involved in his idea. If you're starting Lance at PG, benching Hill, and bringing Danny in to start at SF, then Danny is very involved in this scenario. The discussion just shifts from Danny vs. Lance to Danny vs. Hill.

    It gets to a point where it just seems like people are trying to come up with any idea to get Danny back into the starting lineup. Lance is playing great, so let's try to move Hill out of the lineup instead. What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup? He's been a clutch stud since moving into the starting position late in the 2011-12 season. Hill is a better player than Granger right now until proven otherwise. So even if Lance by chance became the PG (I don't see that happening), Hill should still be his back court mate with Paul staying at SF.

    Is this about doing what's best for the team, or is it about trying to come up with any possible way to get Danny back into the starting lineup? It's fair to wonder.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013 at 04:39 PM.

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  26. #417

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You are partially correct....the suggestion by Hicks was that Lance should be the Starting PG.

    Here is the original Post by Hicks:


    Where does Hick's OP...in any way...references Granger?


    Yes, this thread has typically devolved into the regular Lance Vs. Granger debate. Hicks would have to speak for himself, but for me.... there is a difference between starting Granger because "one thinks that he deserves it" as opposed to Lance simply being a better fit with the 2nd Unit.

    I look at it this way:

    Option 1 ) Put the Best Lineup on the floor with Lance playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Granger will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an average 2nd unit:

    - Play GH/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
    - Have Granger play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

    Option 2 ) Put the 2nd Best Lineup on the floor with Granger playing most of his minutes with the Starters where Lance will be the 1st Wing off the Bench and thus creating an above average ( and IMHO a far more effective ) 2nd unit:

    - Play GH/Granger/PG/West/Hibbert for 30 mpg
    - Have Lance play more minutes with CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland

    I can see the argument for putting the "best lineup on the floor as much as possible" but I have no problem with putting the 2nd best lineup on the floor ( which I don't think is a HUGE dropoff with Granger in the starting lineup compared to Lance ) and creating a much more effective 2nd unit with Lance leading the way while ensuring that Lance ( not Granger ) finishes the game.

    What I want to do is to have Lance be utilized the same way that Manu ( when he was healthy and relevant ) was used by Pops....as a 6th Man that got Starter minutes but played as much with the 2nd Unit as he did with the Starters and ultimately finishing games.

    Keeping in mind that I want Lance to finish games......I am inclined to create an overall effective Team on the floor that can compete for 48 minutes a game, as opposed to one that can only effectively do that for 30 mpg.
    There is absolutely no reason to not have PG or Lance on the floor with the bench. A combination of Watson / Lance or PG/ DG / Scola / Mahimi should be a pretty damn good unit (assuming Granger is good enough to consider starting over Lance) and easily obtainable without moving Lance to the bench. It also: puts what you consider the best lineup on the floor against the other teams best lineup for the first 7-8 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters and keeps the team from being yoyo'd if Danny has lingering healthy issues. I still don't understand why Lance has to come off the bench to have have an effective bench unit. Lance comes out for a couple mins as you start to bring in the bench, while PG continues to play. You then switch Lance and PG for several minutes until the starters come back in. What am I missing?

    The only issue is if you want to do hockey line type substitutions - which I am totally against. All five starters shouldn't be off the court at the same time.
    Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013 at 05:14 PM.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  28. #418

    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
    He doesn't have to mention Granger by name for Granger to directly be involved in his idea. If you're starting Lance at PG, benching Hill, and bringing Danny in to start at SF, then Danny is very involved in this scenario. The discussion just shifts from Danny vs. Lance to Danny vs. Hill.

    It gets to a point where it just seems like people are trying to come up with any idea to get Danny back into the starting lineup. Lance is playing great, so let's try to move Hill out of the lineup instead. What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup? He's been a clutch stud since moving into the starting position late in the 2011-12 season. Hill is a better player than Granger right now until proven otherwise. So even if Lance by chance became the PG (I don't see that happening), Hill should still be his back court mate with Paul staying at SF.

    Is this about doing what's best for the team, or is it about trying to come up with any possible way to get Danny back into the starting lineup? It's fair to wonder.
    I can't read this thread without honestly wondering would anybody be making these suggestions if it was anybody but DG involved. I highly doubt there would be this many people that thinks its a good idea to to screw with the starting lineup of a team that was so close last year. Especially when the primary target is removing the young up and comer from the lineup to put in a guy that is over 30, didn't play last year, and is currently injured. I just don't get it.

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  30. #419
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,798

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'll say this is where we disagree. The only reason I believe Lance needs to start is because I believe GH is deficient in ball handling and passing. He's a very good player, but would be much better suited as a backup. IMO he's a perfect backup guard because he can play either the one or the two, but he doesn't have the skillet I want to see in a starting pg - even considering we don't run a ball dominate system. He doesn't need to be Steve Nash but he has to be able make teams pay for pressuring him full court. And he can't - he doesn't have the vision or ball handling skills to make teams pay. Instead we run our offense against a shorter clock.

    I find the suggestion that the offense needs GH to facilitate, but it can do without Lance (a much better passer and ball handler) to be ....... confusing.
    I'm not saying that the offense NEEDS GH to facilitate the offense when he's on the floor with the Starting Lineup. I'm saying that Vogel's offense ( at least for the Starting Lineup that plays a majority of the game together on the floor ) isn't predicated or based on one single Player ( like GH or even Lance ) facilitating the offense and dominating the ball on the offensive end. After the ball gets past the half-court line...GH sometimes handles the ball, PG sometimes handles the ball, heck...even West and Hibbert handles the ball....all of which are more than capable of initiating the offense. This is because there is no need for the Starting lineup of GH/PG/West/Hibbert to have a single ball distributor where the offense entirely flows through a single Player....all are Players that are very good at ball movement while having enough court awareness/chemistry to find scoring opportunities for each other.

    There are legit reasons why you don't want Lance to be completely dominating or controlling the flow of the offense or have the ball in his hands for 30+ mpg when he's on the floor with GH/PG/West/Hibbert. However, the same argument can't be applied to the 2nd unit where CJ and OJ are arguably the best ballhandlers/shot creators in that lineup.

    The bottomline is that we are not fully utilizing Lance his best skill ( creating for others ) when he's playing with GH/PG/West/Hibbert because there simply isn't as much of an opportunity for the ball to be in his hands for the majority of the time that he's on the floor. This isn't IMHO the case when some combination of Scola, Mahinmi, Solo, Copeland, ( and to a lesser degree ) OJ and CH start filtering into the lineup. You need a Player like Lance in that lineup to make them more effective on the offensive end as a whole and why this is one of the main reasons why I advocate Lance running mostly with ( but not exclusively ) the 2nd Unit.
    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. #420
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,159

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    With the minutes Lance and PG play, is there any reason for one of Lance or PG to not be on the floor at all times?
    That's the point. One of Lance and PG should be on the floor at all times. The easiest way to do that without running one of the two into the ground is to start one of the two off the bench. Have you seen what Vogel has been doing in those first 3 games? Lance is the first player to be subbed out and PG plays the whole first quarter. Then Lance comes back in when PG comes out and both of them end the half together. Vogel is trying to have one of them out there at all possible times.
    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

  33. #421

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It was his first year he got minutes every game. His first two years, he rarely got to play. I consider last year Lance's rookie season.
    You get better in the NBA during the offseason. Lance had already had the benefit of 3 years of NBA coaching and 3 NBA training camp. Not to mention getting paid to play thus freeing him from other concerns.

    I hate this mindset with players. Just because a player does see PT doesn't mean they are stunted. They are still freed up to practice all they want without having to worry about school. In Lances case the reason he didn't play was because he wasn't playing well enough to get PT. It makes no sense to wait to call somebodys rookie year the year in which they are good enough to demand PT.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to Mad-Mad-Mario For This Useful Post:


  35. #422

    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
    That's the point. One of Lance and PG should be on the floor at all times. The easiest way to do that without running one of the two into the ground is to start one of the two off the bench. Have you seen what Vogel has been doing in those first 3 games? Lance is the first player to be subbed out and PG plays the whole first quarter. Then Lance comes back in when PG comes out and both of them end the half together. Vogel is trying to have one of them out there at all possible times.
    PG and Lance have averaged 35.3 and 36.3 mins per game respectively. PG averaged 37.6 last year - I wouldn't suggest he was "ran into the ground". 36.3 mins per game would have put Lance at 21st in mpg last year. In a group with a lot of good YOUNG players. I don't see that as running him into the ground. How many minutes are you wanting to take away from Lance and PG to keep from "running them into the ground"?

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  37. #423
    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 CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The bottomline is that we are not fully utilizing Lance his best skill ( creating for others )
    Ok lets see the Pacers are 3-0 and Lance is averaging almost 20 points 7 rebounds 4 assists per game while shooting close to 60% from anywhere, seriously how higher you want his numbers to go if he goes to the bench?

    I guess I'm glad we don't have Lebron in our team because we all know how much he kills it with the bench when he is playing close to 48 minutes a game during the playoffs.

  38. #424
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,798

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is absolutely no reason to not have PG or Lance on the floor with the bench. A combination of Watson / Lance or PG/ DG / Scola / Mahimi should be a pretty damn good unit (assuming Granger is good enough to consider starting over DG) and easily obtainable without moving Lance to the bench. It also: puts what you consider the best lineup on the floor against the other teams best lineup for the first 7-8 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters and keeps the team from being yoyo'd if Danny has lingering healthy issues. I still don't understand why Lance has to come off the bench to have have an effective bench unit. Lance comes out for a couple mins as you start to bring in the bench, while PG continues to play. You then switch Lance and PG for several minutes until the starters come back in. What am I missing?

    The only issue is if you want to do hockey line type substitutions - which I am totally against. All five starters shouldn't be off the court at the same time.
    Can we get past this whole notion of who Starts and who comes off the bench?

    To me, it's irrelevant when both Granger and Lance will get the same amount of minutes as long as we acknowledge that Lance will be the guy that finishes the game or is on the floor during crunchtime.

    If Lance plays the majority of his minutes with the 2nd unit ( as I suggested before, maybe some split of 18 mpg with the 2nd unit and 12 mpg with PG/GH/West/Hibbert ), then he will likely be the 1st Player off the bench unless Lance starts and GH, PG, West and Hibbert. But if there is a way for Lance to Start but play the majority of his minutes with the 2nd Unit....that is fine ( how that works from a rotation POV...I have no clue ).

    My whole point is that I want Lance to play with the 2nd unit for the various reasons I mentioned. Whether Lance is Starting or if he is the 6th Man coming off the bench doesn't matter to me, I just care about who plays the majority of his minutes with....the 2nd unit.
    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.

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


  40. #425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Can we get past this whole notion of who Starts and who comes off the bench?

    To me, it's irrelevant when both Granger and Lance will get the same amount of minutes as long as we acknowledge that Lance will be the guy that finishes the game or is on the floor during crunchtime.

    If Lance plays the majority of his minutes with the 2nd unit ( as I suggested before, maybe some split of 18 mpg with the 2nd unit and 12 mpg with PG/GH/West/Hibbert ), then he will likely be the 1st Player off the bench unless Lance starts and GH, PG, West and Hibbert. But if there is a way for Lance to Start but play the majority of his minutes with the 2nd Unit....that is fine ( how that works from a rotation POV...I have no clue ).

    My whole point is that I want Lance to play with the 2nd unit for the various reasons I mentioned. Whether Lance is Starting or if he is the 6th Man coming off the bench doesn't matter to me, I just care about who plays the majority of his minutes with....the 2nd unit.
    You somehow keep saying it doesn't matter who starts - just as long as Lance don't. I don't get past it because I think it does matter. Not in the sense that someone "deserves" it, but because I want my best unit playing against the other teams best unit. Your suggestion gives the team at least 14 mins a night against the other teams #1 unit without playing its best unit. That is why it makes a difference. I somewhat agree with your premise that you need an additional creator on the floor with the reserves besides Watson, but I'm saying that is very easily obtainable without downgrading the team for 14 mins against the other teams best unit. It just doesn't have to be Lance - it can be either Lance or PG.

    EDIT: I also disagree that DG can or should play the same minutes as Lance. Lance can easily handle the 35 -36 mins he's playing now. There is no way DG will average that amount IMO. 28 - 30 mins should be DGs max at this point IMO.
    Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013 at 05:40 PM.

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rm1369 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
  •