Much better than I thought it would be , I really was shocked with what Bill Walton said about us
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/national_media.html
Though the Pacers finished with the best record in the NBA, that hasn't necessarily translated into their assumption of the favorite's role heading into the NBA Playoffs. To find out what the national media really thinks about the Pacers' chances, we polled a cross-section of television analysts, national newspaper columnists and magazine writers. What follows are their thoughts, expressed exclusively to Pacers.com.
David Aldridge, ESPN:
I don’t really have a favorite going in. I think the Pacers are one of the four or five teams that can win it, but I don’t think anyone is playing so well right now that you’d say they’re definitely the team to beat. I do think – and I’ve said this all year – that Indy is the team in the East that has the best chance, by far, to actually win this year. I like them, San Antonio, Minnesota and Detroit, and the Lakers are in there somewhere. The gap has narrowed between the elite teams, and there really is no gap where Indiana is concerned.
Ric Bucher, ESPN The Magazine:
I picked the Pacers to lose to the Spurs in the Finals at the beginning of the season. Part of that was based on the fact I was sure they'd have made a deal to improve at point guard. Five months later, I still expect them to be in the Eastern Conference finals to meet the Pistons. I think they could make a series with any Western Conference team competitive, but I don't see them winning it all -- or making it past Detroit, actually -- for a couple of reasons.
# They are: No legit offensive director. I won't say point guard because there have been championship teams who didn't have a great point, but they all had someone who could initiate their offense, penetrate, control the tempo and make consistently smart decisions. I would've loved to have seen the Pacers make a deal for a guy like Brent Barry, who isn't a pure point guard but can make those kinds of plays and decisions.
# No clear hierarchy. Who is the overall leader of this team? Reggie? too old and inconsequential at this point. Jermaine O'Neal? I love how he's developed, but he still shows his immaturity in tough situations to believe he can lead. Artest? Love his intensity, but I don't see him organizing the Pacers or making plays that make everyone else better. A championship team needs someone not only who is willing to step up and take the responsibility of winning a game, but is so lock-solid the rest of the team believes he can and will get the job done.
What they do have going for them is that every title-contending team has a flaw. The Spurs can't shoot free throws, the Lakers can't defend quick point guards or the pick-and-roll, the Pistons have the offensive liability of Ben Wallace and streaky perimeter scorers and the Kings' D has deteriorated. I'm less worried about the Pacers not having a bona fide point guard than I am about the fact that I don't know who their leader is -- and I'm not sure they do, either.
Marty Burns, Sports Illustrated:
I think the Pacers have a shot. But I wouldn't bet my Larry Bird rookie card on it. To me, the Pacers just don't have enough offensive firepower to contend with the likes of the Spurs, Lakers, T'Wolves and Kings. Sure, Indiana has the NBA's best record. But let's face it: the East stinks. It's easily been worth four or five additional wins. Meanwhile, Indiana has yet to prove it can win a big game at an L.A. or at Sacramento or at San Antonio. The other problem for Indiana is Detroit's emergence. The Pistons are playing so well right now, especially defensively. Indiana has home court, but Detroit is peaking at the right time. I'd give Indy a 50/50 chance right now just to get out of the East. The good news for the Pacers is that they don't have to beat out four or five Western teams to win the NBA title. All they have to do is beat one. Barring a Shaq Attack, the Pacers have the team defense to muck up the gears of those other Western machines. Throw in the fact that the first two Finals games would be at Conseco, and it could get interesting.
Sean Deveney, The Sporting News:
The Pacers are definitely the league's Rodney Dangerfield here -- no respect. They have the best record, but I don't think anyone is really taking them seriously as a title contender. As far as why ... well, I think it is a matter of size. Size wins in the playoffs. Jermaine O'Neal is, obviously, excellent, but can he match up against Garnett, against Tim Duncan, against Karl Malone and Shaquille O'Neal? I like what Jeff Foster does for the team, but I am not sure it is enough when you start talking about the monster frontcourts in the West, or even the Pistons' new frontcourt with Rasheed Wallace. Of course, you look at the numbers, and the Pacers have handled themselves well against the West -- but over a seven-game series? I am not so sure.
David DuPree, USA TODAY:
I think the Pacers are legitimate and that either they or Detroit can compete with any team from the West. The Pacers play defense, both on the perimeter and inside; they have scorers; they have the low post guy in Jermaine O'Neal who will make you double-team him and they have a solid bench. They are also disciplined enough that they won't panic under pressure. There aren't many teams out there who have legitimate candidates for coach of the year, MVP (O'Neal), defensive player of the year (Artest) and top sixth man (Harrington) like they do. And finally, having the best record in the entire league speaks volumes. That is not a fluke or luck.
Steve Kerr, TNT:
They've earned the homecourt and they've proved they're one of the best teams in the league. Now they've got to go and do it. The big thing for them, like any team that hasn't been there, is they've got to get over the hump, emotionally and mentally. They've got to prove themselves they can do it. They lost in the first round last year, so they've got a long way to go to get to the Finals. But I think they have the talent and the defense, especially, to get there.
Chris Sheridan, The Associated Press:
How can anyone not take them seriously? Their record doesn't lie, and a 20-8 non-conference record is nothing to sneeze at. The Pacers won't be taken lightly by any team from the West should they get that far. I think the biggest question is whether they can defeat the Nets or Pistons in the conference finals, and I would expect them to have big matchup problems against both those teams. As weak as the conference is, I still believe the East's top three teams are held in higher regard nationally than they were the past two seasons.
Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune:
I don’t think they’re perceived as a big threat to the supposed Big Four of the league – the Lakers, Minnesota, San Antonio and Sacramento – even though they have a good record, and I know they have a good record against the Western Conference. There’s still some doubt about the team because of the loss of Brad Miller. I think people look at the Pacers and say, “They were better, talent-wise, last year.” They didn’t play up to their talent and there were a lot of questions about the coaching and what-not but, with Miller playing off O’Neal, that high-low thing freed O’Neal to be a better player. I think the feeling is, when the playoffs come, you don’t have to guard all the Pacers players. And with Reggie, you get the sense he was sort of taking it easy during the regular season. Now, is that just because he’s slowed down, or can he turn it on again and hit big shots? If he can’t the notion of people is Artest is still too erratic and O’Neal will end up having to do it himself. There’s just not enough there. That said, I still believe people think they’ll be in the conference finals. My guess is people don’t think they’re the favorite in part because of the way they got blown out by Detroit the first time they played them with Rasheed Wallace.
Bill Walton, ABC/ESPN:
They definitely are contenders. They finished with the best record in the NBA, which lends great credence to everything they've done, from (Larry) Bird to (Rick) Carlisle, to the stability on the court that these players did not show last year. This is a team that, at the start of the playoffs, would have seemingly a guaranteed spot in the conference finals. They've got it all. They've got a dominant post player and go-to guy, tremendous defense, a flawless work ethic, a spectacular perimeter player at both ends of the court in Ron Artest, a versatile game-changing, game-breaking reserve in Al Harrington, you've got a legend in Reggie Miller and you've got a point guard the team loves. So what's not to like about this team, other than the fact they didn't get it done in the last three playoffs? But this is a new team. And more importantly, it's a new direction. Never discount what Larry Bird means to a basketball team, whether he's playing, coaching or sitting at the President's desk upstairs.
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/national_media.html
Though the Pacers finished with the best record in the NBA, that hasn't necessarily translated into their assumption of the favorite's role heading into the NBA Playoffs. To find out what the national media really thinks about the Pacers' chances, we polled a cross-section of television analysts, national newspaper columnists and magazine writers. What follows are their thoughts, expressed exclusively to Pacers.com.
David Aldridge, ESPN:
I don’t really have a favorite going in. I think the Pacers are one of the four or five teams that can win it, but I don’t think anyone is playing so well right now that you’d say they’re definitely the team to beat. I do think – and I’ve said this all year – that Indy is the team in the East that has the best chance, by far, to actually win this year. I like them, San Antonio, Minnesota and Detroit, and the Lakers are in there somewhere. The gap has narrowed between the elite teams, and there really is no gap where Indiana is concerned.
Ric Bucher, ESPN The Magazine:
I picked the Pacers to lose to the Spurs in the Finals at the beginning of the season. Part of that was based on the fact I was sure they'd have made a deal to improve at point guard. Five months later, I still expect them to be in the Eastern Conference finals to meet the Pistons. I think they could make a series with any Western Conference team competitive, but I don't see them winning it all -- or making it past Detroit, actually -- for a couple of reasons.
# They are: No legit offensive director. I won't say point guard because there have been championship teams who didn't have a great point, but they all had someone who could initiate their offense, penetrate, control the tempo and make consistently smart decisions. I would've loved to have seen the Pacers make a deal for a guy like Brent Barry, who isn't a pure point guard but can make those kinds of plays and decisions.
# No clear hierarchy. Who is the overall leader of this team? Reggie? too old and inconsequential at this point. Jermaine O'Neal? I love how he's developed, but he still shows his immaturity in tough situations to believe he can lead. Artest? Love his intensity, but I don't see him organizing the Pacers or making plays that make everyone else better. A championship team needs someone not only who is willing to step up and take the responsibility of winning a game, but is so lock-solid the rest of the team believes he can and will get the job done.
What they do have going for them is that every title-contending team has a flaw. The Spurs can't shoot free throws, the Lakers can't defend quick point guards or the pick-and-roll, the Pistons have the offensive liability of Ben Wallace and streaky perimeter scorers and the Kings' D has deteriorated. I'm less worried about the Pacers not having a bona fide point guard than I am about the fact that I don't know who their leader is -- and I'm not sure they do, either.
Marty Burns, Sports Illustrated:
I think the Pacers have a shot. But I wouldn't bet my Larry Bird rookie card on it. To me, the Pacers just don't have enough offensive firepower to contend with the likes of the Spurs, Lakers, T'Wolves and Kings. Sure, Indiana has the NBA's best record. But let's face it: the East stinks. It's easily been worth four or five additional wins. Meanwhile, Indiana has yet to prove it can win a big game at an L.A. or at Sacramento or at San Antonio. The other problem for Indiana is Detroit's emergence. The Pistons are playing so well right now, especially defensively. Indiana has home court, but Detroit is peaking at the right time. I'd give Indy a 50/50 chance right now just to get out of the East. The good news for the Pacers is that they don't have to beat out four or five Western teams to win the NBA title. All they have to do is beat one. Barring a Shaq Attack, the Pacers have the team defense to muck up the gears of those other Western machines. Throw in the fact that the first two Finals games would be at Conseco, and it could get interesting.
Sean Deveney, The Sporting News:
The Pacers are definitely the league's Rodney Dangerfield here -- no respect. They have the best record, but I don't think anyone is really taking them seriously as a title contender. As far as why ... well, I think it is a matter of size. Size wins in the playoffs. Jermaine O'Neal is, obviously, excellent, but can he match up against Garnett, against Tim Duncan, against Karl Malone and Shaquille O'Neal? I like what Jeff Foster does for the team, but I am not sure it is enough when you start talking about the monster frontcourts in the West, or even the Pistons' new frontcourt with Rasheed Wallace. Of course, you look at the numbers, and the Pacers have handled themselves well against the West -- but over a seven-game series? I am not so sure.
David DuPree, USA TODAY:
I think the Pacers are legitimate and that either they or Detroit can compete with any team from the West. The Pacers play defense, both on the perimeter and inside; they have scorers; they have the low post guy in Jermaine O'Neal who will make you double-team him and they have a solid bench. They are also disciplined enough that they won't panic under pressure. There aren't many teams out there who have legitimate candidates for coach of the year, MVP (O'Neal), defensive player of the year (Artest) and top sixth man (Harrington) like they do. And finally, having the best record in the entire league speaks volumes. That is not a fluke or luck.
Steve Kerr, TNT:
They've earned the homecourt and they've proved they're one of the best teams in the league. Now they've got to go and do it. The big thing for them, like any team that hasn't been there, is they've got to get over the hump, emotionally and mentally. They've got to prove themselves they can do it. They lost in the first round last year, so they've got a long way to go to get to the Finals. But I think they have the talent and the defense, especially, to get there.
Chris Sheridan, The Associated Press:
How can anyone not take them seriously? Their record doesn't lie, and a 20-8 non-conference record is nothing to sneeze at. The Pacers won't be taken lightly by any team from the West should they get that far. I think the biggest question is whether they can defeat the Nets or Pistons in the conference finals, and I would expect them to have big matchup problems against both those teams. As weak as the conference is, I still believe the East's top three teams are held in higher regard nationally than they were the past two seasons.
Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune:
I don’t think they’re perceived as a big threat to the supposed Big Four of the league – the Lakers, Minnesota, San Antonio and Sacramento – even though they have a good record, and I know they have a good record against the Western Conference. There’s still some doubt about the team because of the loss of Brad Miller. I think people look at the Pacers and say, “They were better, talent-wise, last year.” They didn’t play up to their talent and there were a lot of questions about the coaching and what-not but, with Miller playing off O’Neal, that high-low thing freed O’Neal to be a better player. I think the feeling is, when the playoffs come, you don’t have to guard all the Pacers players. And with Reggie, you get the sense he was sort of taking it easy during the regular season. Now, is that just because he’s slowed down, or can he turn it on again and hit big shots? If he can’t the notion of people is Artest is still too erratic and O’Neal will end up having to do it himself. There’s just not enough there. That said, I still believe people think they’ll be in the conference finals. My guess is people don’t think they’re the favorite in part because of the way they got blown out by Detroit the first time they played them with Rasheed Wallace.
Bill Walton, ABC/ESPN:
They definitely are contenders. They finished with the best record in the NBA, which lends great credence to everything they've done, from (Larry) Bird to (Rick) Carlisle, to the stability on the court that these players did not show last year. This is a team that, at the start of the playoffs, would have seemingly a guaranteed spot in the conference finals. They've got it all. They've got a dominant post player and go-to guy, tremendous defense, a flawless work ethic, a spectacular perimeter player at both ends of the court in Ron Artest, a versatile game-changing, game-breaking reserve in Al Harrington, you've got a legend in Reggie Miller and you've got a point guard the team loves. So what's not to like about this team, other than the fact they didn't get it done in the last three playoffs? But this is a new team. And more importantly, it's a new direction. Never discount what Larry Bird means to a basketball team, whether he's playing, coaching or sitting at the President's desk upstairs.
Comment