Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 125

Thread: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,374

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    No one has ever won a title before the all star break. Ever. Pretty sure no one will. You are who you are in the playoffs.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  3. #27

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Losing Lance DOESN'T take us out of title contention. Replacing him with RODNEY STUCKEY... DOES. Look, when good players move on it's a business, I get it. But on some level it's also exciting (unless they're franchise changers like KD). Because it becomes a time where you get to see what your front office is "really", made of. And what they can come up with as a replacement. But IF, we adjourn our off season with Rodney Stuckey at SG, and Hill and Hibbert still here. Then I think it's time maybe to break up this front office.
    Whats so bad about Stuckey? Why not just have him split time with Miles or have Miles play more if he's so bad? I get it, Stuckey isn't an all-star, but is he really terrible? (No seriously is he? I didn't watch Detroit play, Kstat, Shags help me out here).

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

    sav

  5. #28

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention because we were never in title contention.
    took the eventual champions to 7 games in the ECF, is this supposed to be green?

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


  7. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,374

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    I was talking about us for this season. Even with Lance we were not title contenders this season. We never were at all last season either, there were at least 6 WC teams that were better than us. Two years ago, maybe, I have my doubts, but maybe.

  8. #30

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whats so bad about Stuckey? Why not just have him split time with Miles or have Miles play more if he's so bad? I get it, Stuckey isn't an all-star, but is he really terrible? (No seriously is he? I didn't watch Detroit play, Kstat, Shags help me out here).
    Lance isn't Elite, but has potential yet to be realized. Stuckey? Is a role player. Nothing more. He's hit his ceiling. There's no "great secret of unlocked mysteries or ouija board hidden wonders" with Rodney. He would've been great as a sixth man. But replacing a young talent like Lance? No. Lamb, Jackson, Knight, hell even Mayo would all be better replacements. If this is how it ends, Larry has truly failed. Especially since Turner was supposed to be our plan B. Why not give him a shot? He can slim down to about 208, get faster, improve his shooting accuracy. Far more potential there than Stuckey. If Turner was plan B, Stuckey is what..... plan C, D?

  9. #31

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lance isn't Elite, but has potential yet to be realized. Stuckey? Is a role player. Nothing more. He's hit his ceiling. There's no "great secret of unlocked mysteries or ouija board hidden wonders" with Rodney. He would've been great as a sixth man. But replacing a young talent like Lance? No. Lamb, Jackson, Knight, hell even Mayo would all be better replacements. If this is how it ends, Larry has truly failed. Especially since Turner was supposed to be our plan B. Why not give him a shot? He can slim down to about 208, get faster, improve his shooting accuracy. Far more potential there than Stuckey. If Turner was plan B, Stuckey is what..... plan C, D?
    Adding a role player isn't exactly a terrible move.

  10. #32

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Adding a role player isn't exactly a terrible move.
    It is when you're replacing a starter. Hell, Turner is at least a former #2 pick. Stuckey isn't a young talent who we can grow, and see what he becomes. It's not like we're bringing in a D-league star to see if he can raise his game. We're bringing in a 28 year old guard who really isn't all that great at starting for a team. Turner was at least given the chance to be number 1 for AN NBA TEAM. And he produced with 17ppg. Stuckey was never given the chance to be number one because he isn't that great offensively. When is our FO gonna realize the shooting guard position needs a shooter? Just being 6'6 doesn't qualify you for the job.

  11. #33
    Member idioteque's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    washington dc
    Age
    28
    Posts
    9,869

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hell, Turner is at least a former #2 pick.
    Well, with that criteria in mind, let's just replace Lance with Adam Morrison.

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


  13. #34

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is when you're replacing a starter. Hell, Turner is at least a former #2 pick. Stuckey isn't a young talent who we can grow, and see what he becomes. It's not like we're bringing in a D-league star to see if he can raise his game. We're bringing in a 28 year old guard who really isn't all that great at starting for a team. Turner was at least given the chance to be number 1 for AN NBA TEAM. And he produced with 17ppg. Stuckey was never given the chance to be number one because he isn't that great offensively. When is our FO gonna realize the shooting guard position needs a shooter? Just being 6'6 doesn't qualify you for the job.
    Just because you are a role player doesn't mean you can't start.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BlueCollarColts For This Useful Post:


  15. #35

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by idioteque View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, with that criteria in mind, let's just replace Lance with Adam Morrison.
    At this point, I would rather have Turner back. I think I'd enjoy watching him play next to PG instead of Stuckey. Wasn't that the plan anyways? If Lance leaves, well........ we have ET? That's something to get excited about. He's young, and can handle the starting position because he's started for Philadelphia for awhile. Stuckey has never started for a whole season. His game is also not as polished. Turner has mid-range, 3 pointer looked good with us, and he can rebound and pass well and post up. From what I can tell with Stuckey, he's good at taking/making tough shots within 12 feet. But beyond that there's not much there.

  16. #36
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,424

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because you are a role player doesn't mean you can't start.
    For some reason, some people don't understand this concept, or the concept that you don't have to start your 5 best players. Getting the most out of a unit isn't a simply math equation where you grade talent on a scale of 0 to 10 and the highest total is the best unit. There are questions of fit and roles. Sometimes the best unit doesn't have the most talent because it has the right mixture of talent and fit to become greater than the sum of it's parts.

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


  18. #37

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For some reason, some people don't understand this concept, or the concept that you don't have to start your 5 best players. Getting the most out of a unit isn't a simply math equation where you grade talent on a scale of 0 to 10 and the highest total is the best unit. There are questions of fit and roles. Sometimes the best unit doesn't have the most talent because it has the right mixture of talent and fit to become greater than the sum of it's parts.


    Evan Turner is a more than capable 20ppg scorer. If he was our plan B I could live with that. But Stuckey? My god....

  19. #38

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Evan Turner is a more than capable 20ppg scorer. If he was our plan B I could live with that. But Stuckey? My god....

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BlueCollarColts For This Useful Post:


  21. #39
    Member IAmHoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    24
    Posts
    225

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Pacers were never a title contender. Just a pretender.

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


  23. #40
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,424

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Evan Turner is a more than capable 20ppg scorer. If he was our plan B I could live with that. But Stuckey? My god....
    Ok, did I say anything about Turner or Stuckey?

  24. #41

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by IAmHoosier View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pacers were never a title contender. Just a pretender.
    We took the eventual champions to 7 games in the ECF, stop trolling please.

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BlueCollarColts For This Useful Post:


  26. #42
    Indiana Pacers Forever Pacer Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    ya
    Posts
    3,871
    Mood

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by IAmHoosier View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pacers were never a title contender. Just a pretender.
    .

    Frank Vogel says "Killer instinct, start strong, build a lead and then step on their throats."

  27. #43
    thx4tehmRys Danny! daschysta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geist, Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,953
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    We're absolutely still contenders. PG is way better than he wad then, and Roy can absolutely be at his 2nd half of the year that season form without Lance freezing him out of the offense. Plus Miles is a better shooter than we had on that squad. Unless West massively declines, which I doubt we'll be 50 plus wins again and a dark horse. Some people over rating Lance and ignoring the chemistry issues he contributed to will happily eat crow next year.
    Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to daschysta For This Useful Post:


  29. #44
    Member pogi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    493
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We took the eventual champions to 7 games in the ECF, stop trolling please.
    That was two years ago! Then last year, Miami bent us over, took turns on us, and afterwards told us to go sit in the corner like good little boys. And the one guy that played with any fire during that whole traumatic experience, whether anyone admits it or not, just signed to another team. Maybe there's a chance we overachieved that year? And last year the east was so bad, that despite our downward spiral, we backed into the 1 seed; only to be almost taken out by an under .500, 8th-seeded team missing their best player.

    Honestly....think about it. When have we beaten a truly great team in the playoffs?

    Orlando?....nope
    Atlanta?....they're the epitome of mediocre
    New York?....considering how they missed the playoffs this year, maybe they too overachieved last year
    Washington? Two of their best players were new to the playoffs, and their bench consisted of has-beens and throw-always.

    I'm hoping the window hasn't closed, but i'm not giddy about how the team looks, as of now. West' sage will soon catch up....unless proven otherwise, Roy will disappear sometime during the season.... I need to see if Paul learns to stop being like like Carmelo and over chuck with his shooting, plus get better handles....and George show more passion and fire.
    Last edited by pogi; 07-16-2014 at 09:43 PM.

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


  31. #45

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    The reason why is because of Paul George

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LeRyan07 For This Useful Post:


  33. #46
    Gotta Play Big
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,759

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    ...because we have not been in title contention. We showed signs of being a great team capable of winning in the first half of last season. After that we were fortunate the east was so weak...and found ourselves back in the ECF because of it...only to get spanked by a Heat team that was destroyed (thankfully) in the finals. IOW, we were most certainly not in real contention this year. Maybe last year but even then Miami soundly spanked the Pacers when they needed to do it. We were never a real threat.

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


  35. #47

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by pogi View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That was two years ago!
    Yes, and read the opening post again- he is comparing next year's team to our team 2 years ago, arguing that if it was a contender (and it was) then this one will be too.

    I don't fully agree, but I'm clarifying the disconnect
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  36. #48
    Release Psycho T pwee31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,171

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Kinda wrote something similar right before the Stuckey news broke

    http://inkonindy.com/2014/07/16/will...ce-stephenson/

  37. #49

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    I just don't understand how a team can take the eventual champions to 7 games in the ECF and not have been a contender.... It just makes no sense to me.

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BlueCollarColts For This Useful Post:


  39. #50
    Member RyanPelley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Belleville, Indiana
    Age
    26
    Posts
    205
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    Quote Originally Posted by idioteque View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, with that criteria in mind, let's just replace Lance with Adam Morrison.
    The city of Indianapolis could not handle his beauty.

    Then again, by comparison, Bird probably wouldn't look like a muppet anymore.

Posting Permissions

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