Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

    A wise old coach named Morgan Wooten wrote in his "Coaching basketball successfully" book that the only true best time to change your lineup in a major way was after a win, not after a loss. He thought that due to the psychological affects of benching players after losses might spiral, and hurt the attitudes of the player being benched, cancelling out any positives created by the lineup shuffle in the first place. Wooten is the all time winningest high school coach ever, and his book is a must read for all young coaches by the way....a true living legend in coaching young men.

    Having said that, Ive been watching the games when I could, analyzing how our team is structured, looking at our strengths and weaknesses overall, and trying to decide how our team can best fit together with the current pieces we have. Clearly, no matter how you shuffle the deck, this is not a championship roster. We are missing a clear second star player, perimeter shooting, consistent defense in the backcourt, and a physical rebounder and screener. We have many weaknesses that offset our strengths of athleticism and depth. We are near the bottom in points scored, and have been blown out embarrasingly twice. On the other hand, we are young, athletic, and just getting to know each other as a unit. We clearly arent a good enough team the way we are playing to just "play who and how we play" and make the opponent adjust to us....instead we are forced to mix and match depending on who our opponent is and how are inconsistent roster is playing on a given night. Its clear to me and important to me for us to figure out who we are as a team, and develop a plan of attack and style of play that we can hang our hat on, and so far we dont have that.

    We are at least attempting at this time to be a more athletic team. The only problem with that is is that we are overrating the athleticism of the players who play alot of minutes. For their positions relative to the rest of the league, Harrington as a PF isnt overly big, quick, strong or athletic. Granger isnt quick, fast, or as freakish an athlete as a SF as lots of other NBA players at his spot. We play big minutes with the decidedly unathletic point guard grouping of Tinsley (short, slower), Sarunas (very slow, not strong) and Armstrong ( more athletic than the other 2 but not above avg, and old). The lack of defense at the point of attack for me is a giant huge weakness we have, and we dont get nearly enough offensive advantage from that spot to make playing who we are playing at that spot worth the time and effort in my view.

    From a physical and talent standpoint, some of our guys benefit athletically from playing down a spot. As a PF Harrington is undersized and not a good rebounder, but as a "power 3" which is exactly what I think he is, he has a strength and size advantage on his opponent most every game. Granger is an average sized 3 man now woith average athleticism, but move him down to a "2", and he would be guarding a smaller player most nights, and be able to rise up and shoot over the smaller guys defending him. Jackson also always has a physical mismatch when playing inside when he is able to be played in the backcourt. RC seemingly is choosing to play smaller in general, but I now believe with this particular group of players and skill sets that we need to turn that around 180 degrees and become a bigger, more physically imposing team. A team that plays hard, physical, and more aggressive than our opponents. A finesse type of game is fine, but we dont have a finesse type roster.

    I'm ready to propose the "jumbo" lineup full force, and to change our bench rotations slightly to wear we always have a size/strength advantage against almost any lineup the oppenent can put out there. Let these other teams make adjustments to us for a change.

    PG Marquis Daniels
    SG Danny Granger
    SF Al Harrington
    PF Jermaine Oneal
    C A 3 headed monster of Harrison, Baston, and Foster.

    I'd always try and have another big in there with JO as a screener/dirty work type player. In reality, none of those 3 guys listed at center is an answer long term, but its the best of who we have. Surely we could get 16 minutes each out them somehow to fill that spot.

    I'm not advocating getting rid of anybody, just trying to max out the contributions of who our roster is. Hopefully, we can bring in Tinsley as Daniels backup and play him approx 20 minutes per night or so. Maybe playing against the second unit point guards will help him look more effective and not be such a defensive liability. If Tinsley continues to struggle, Id be ready to give those minutes to Oriene Greene quickly.

    Jackson, like last night, is better suited to be a offensive player off the bench. He fits better in that way and can still get his minutes as the primary backup to Granger and Harrington. Jackson should again have a big size advantage playing against some of the backup guards in the league, and can be a post up option for us when JO isnt in the game or is being played at the high post.

    This rotation means a slight change for Harrington and Oneal. It means they wouldnt be paired as the 2 biggest guys on the floor very much if at all. It limits JO's time at center to emergencies only, and limits Harrington's time at PF to only about 10-15 minutes per night max. Most of his time playing this way would be at the SF. If defensive liabilities are occuring playing this way, then on the nights thats happening Harrington would just have to be benched for Jackson/Granger or whomever we had to play to guard somebody. For JO, it means Id increase his minutes to around 36 per night on average, slightly up from where he is now.

    Looks like this on a per minute basis:

    PG Daniels 28/ Tinsley 20, with Armstrong and Greene ready at a moments notice. Sarunas would be inactive. If this move doesnt get more out of Tinsley than we are getting now, then I'd be ready to cut the cord with him too. Playing Daniels at the PG is the single best way I see to get him minutes, get better defensively, and not cut into the minutes of Granger and Jackson.

    SG Granger 30/Jackson 18, with Greene again ready to play if needed. Obviously if Greene was playing alongside Daniels you could interchange the positions with those two if you want to list it that way.

    SF Harrington 24/ Jackson 16/ Marshall or Baston 8.

    PF Jermaine Oneal 36/ Harrington 12. We have to have one of these 2 guys on the floor at all times barring something weird happening.

    C Harrison 16/Foster 16/Baston 16, with Josh Powell standing ready if one of these guys can't hack it. This is clearly the worst part of our roster by the way. I think Id start Harrison at this time only because he can't seem to come off the bench and play very long, so id try starting him to see if he gets in the flow better that way. Harrison can play until he gets 2 fouls, then we can start the parade of center substitutions. Foster is only effective in my view for shorter stretches, and we risk injuries and lack of effectiveneness with him if we play him too long. Baston can hopefully pair with JO some of the time to at least hold the fort for a while inside. This is clearly an area we need to upgrade in somehow someway next offseason.

    Id clearly play some zone some, id definitely emphasize playing physically and strongly, and id especially emphasize, to Harrison, Foster, and Baston to make their fouls count, and that I want to see nobody drive the lane without feeling it afterwards. Im not saying I want us to play dirty, Im saying I want us to play tougher and stronger.

    Im benching the defensively soft and finesse playing Sarunas for now, and Im giving Tinsley an ultimatum to either play better and accept this new bench role or I'll sit him too. Hopefully by starting Harrison we'd get something positive from him, and another reason Im advocating that is to find out for sure what we really have as a player with him. It's time for him to grow up and help us more, or to find a new team to play for.

    These Indiana Pacers.... hopefully the strongest, toughest, meanest group of players in the NBA. I want teams to have to complain about us to the media and the league. I want opposing teams and their fans to fear and hate us. I want us to quit being so soft and be the team the opponents hate to play the most.

    5-5....about what we expected, and about what we should be. But not good enough, and not good enough to settle for. Mediocrity is unacceptable. The sky isnt falling, and I realize patience is a virtue, but we are soft physically, fragile emotionally, and inconsistent in our effort. The changes I recommend I hope would solve some of our obvious problems.

    JMO as always.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

    I like the idea of a jumbo lineup and you are completely right about the fact that we never make teams adjust to us and we are the ones who always adjust and change our game plans. We will never win a championship if we don't have a strength as an offense. The only problem with the lineup you proposed is the fact that smaller and quicker guards will be able to penetrate and get our bigs in foul trouble pretty quick..but I think the way JO has been playing is going to keep PGs and SGs out of the lane.

    I like it and would love to see that lineup. Grangers emergence as a 3 point shooter really makes the line-up viable as well as the fact that Harrington would murder a ton of guys offensively from SF.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

      I'm all for getting Quis significantly involved in the PG rotation. Have been since we got him. What do we have to lose? If it doesn't work you can always go back to the drawing board. Although I like the idea of DA having at least some set minutes in the rotation b/c I think he can be a solid producer in a limited role.

      Harrison? I can see having to play him in your scheme. Hopefully we'd get something for it, but I don't know. I'd expect if that troika were used at C that foster would get more than 1/3 of the minutes, but not that much more than 1/3 necessarily. This also interests me b/c I want to see what Baston can do with a some consistent stints. He might at least be able to give us a little in shot blocking and boards.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

        I agree with your proposed lineup change. One thing that Rick has been known for, is playing to "counteract" the opposing team's lineup. It's a rare occasion when we see Rick actually make a lineup that the other team will have to worry about. With your proposed change, I think we could create matchup problems on both the offensive and defensive end...and I like the possibilities.

        I think we need to give Marquis a chance at PG. That is our biggest weakness on the defensive end. We can't continue to have guys like Mo Williams, Gilbert Arenas, Deron Williams, etc. play career nights against us. On the offensive end, he is very good at penetrating and slashing which could open up opportunities for the rest of our guys. I really think he could thrive in such a role.

        I just want this team to establish an identity. If we were to go big as you have outlined, I think it could help in that regard. Forget all this small ball stuff you're seeing across the league - those Indiana Pacers are going big and they're causing problems. I like the sounds of it - and I think it could truly work. At the very least, I'd just like for Rick to give it a chance or two.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

          Baston is no center. He is a lean, athletic PF.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

            T-Bird, question. How would the move to this approach mesh with or alter the alleged up-tempo philosophy on offense?

            To me it seems like we're ever so slowly settling in to a more "medium" paced offense anyway. In other words, somewhere between a truly fast-paced game and the ultra slog ball we often agonized through last season.

            As you noted, while we are more athletic than before, we still don't have the personnel to go all out up tempo comparatively anyway.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

              Some questions:

              -Would the team still be able to run, or would this lineup put us squarely back in the half-court, pound-it-into J.O in-the-post game. Because I think we've all seen enough of that style of ball. It was moderately boring to begin with and after 3 full seasons of it I don't know if I could bear to watch it anymore.

              -How does this help address turnover problems. And again, don't tell me that slowing down and grinding out every possession is the answer (because I know that would help - but see my first point).

              -I want to like Harrison's game. But if you start him he'll get 2 quick fouls every game, probably in the first 5 minutes most nights. So Foster is going to end up in there anyway.

              -Quis is not ready to be our starter at the point. As much as Tinsley has struggled, you can't just put in Quis all of a sudden just because he's bigger. His perimeter shooting is awful (worse than Tinsley). And who in this lineup is going to make the "scoring pass."

              -Danny would be a great defender at the 2, but on offense he's not anywhere near athletic enough for us. We need a "stud" at the 1 or the 2, and Danny isn't there yet. Our perimeter defense would improve greatly with this new lineup, but in terms of shooting, scoring and playmaking, Quis/DG over Tins/Jax is a wash at best.

              -Finally, asking the entire starting lineup to change position (at the same time) is a recipe for short-term disaster. Yes, these guys can all play those positions, but some haven't been asked to hardly at all this year and would have to re-learn the playbook from those positions (esp. the guards). You'd have even more turnovers at first while everyone adjusts.

              Summary: I'd rather watch this team TRY to play a more up-tempo, transition-based game that is at least fun to watch (when it works) than watch us go back to the conservative, grind-it-out, throw-it-in-the-post game version where we win just enough games to make the playoffs but put the fans asleep (including me) in the process. No thank you sir.

              If we can't have the style of play we've been promised, then trades need to be made before the deadline.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                T-Bird, question. How would the move to this approach mesh with or alter the alleged up-tempo philosophy on offense?

                To me it seems like we're ever so slowly settling in to a more "medium" paced offense anyway. In other words, somewhere between a truly fast-paced game and the ultra slog ball we often agonized through last season.

                As you noted, while we are more athletic than before, we still don't have the personnel to go all out up tempo comparatively anyway.
                Well, you can't get a running game if you are either:

                A. Taking the ball out of the net because the opponent keeps scoring on you.

                B. If you can't get a defensive rebound and outlet the ball.

                With this lineup Id be hoping to at least be able to improve our defense in the half court, contest shots better, allow less penetration, and be able to rebound our own defensive glass better. Hopefully, most of our running game could be fueled by causing just as many if not more turnovers, and by causing more missed shots in the first place.

                Offensively, we'd have to figure out the best way for us to play in the half court.....what plays to run, who to best post up, what combinations to run screen/rolls with, etc etc. But as we are in the bottom third of the league in scoring anyway, I dont see that being a big risk.

                Since I love posting up guards, and since RC can't or won't use Tinsley like that against the starting guards, maybe he'd use him like that with our second unit. Also, Daniels and Jackson can be used more in the low blocks this way id hope.

                We are always going to struggle somewhat offensively due to a lack of perimeter shooting, lack of a really good screen setter, and lack of a good creator in the backcourt. Daniels is in my view our best creator of offense with the ball (Im disappointed in Tinsley so far, I thought he'd be better), so therefore I want Daniels in the game more often with the ball in his hands.

                I really would envision us running alot of "2 out 3 in" type sets, using this lineup. I can explain further if need be if someone wants to talk about it.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                  PG Marquis Daniels
                  SG Danny Granger
                  SF Al Harrington
                  PF Jermaine Oneal
                  C A 3 headed monster of Harrison, Baston, and Foster.

                  Love this lineup. In fact, I suggested this in another thread. The things I like about this are better interior toughness, better rebounding, and much, much better perimeter defense. It would be tough to get off a 3pt shot with this crew, and very tough to drive if Baston and JO are waiting in the paint. Great D.

                  Now, if we face ultra quick guards, we may need to change matchups if it caused us some trouble, but that would be the exception.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                    i would start jackson instead of harrington. harrington-granger at the wings is just not quick enough to match up with most other wing combos. replace harrington with jack, then it's a pretty well-balanced team where everyone is a decent defender, with some outside shooting, and not undersized at all (but not all that jumbo either).

                    problem is, how do you bench your leading scorer and possibly 2nd best player overall? this has been discussed heavily in ub's starting 5 thread i believe, where foster for harrington came up as an alternative.

                    marquise for tinsley is possibly the only option right now if pacers want to improve the defense at the pg spot. i wonder when rick is going to try this... maybe if (when) tins goes down with an injury?

                    harrington and tinsley off the bench could be a huge factor for us, if their egos would allow it. those 2 plus the starters would form a great core rotation.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                      Originally posted by rcarey View Post

                      I think we need to give Marquis a chance at PG. That is our biggest weakness on the defensive end. We can't continue to have guys like Mo Williams, Gilbert Arenas, Deron Williams, etc. play career nights against us. On the offensive end, he is very good at penetrating and slashing which could open up opportunities for the rest of our guys. I really think he could thrive in such a role.
                      Bogut had a very good night yesterday with 12 rebounds (this season high in def and off rebounds), 14 points, 60% shooting and only 1 turnover . Our teams rebounding isn't very good. That's not PG problem. You saw yesterday how Gilbert had killed Cavaliers?

                      But yes, I would give a chance to Daniels at PG. Maybe he would be more productive than Tins and Saras. He doesn't play good at his current position so far.
                      "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                      - Albert Einstein

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                        i think the proposed lineup is worth a shot, though i am not convinced it is the answer. i think its worth trying.

                        i think we'd have a more up-tempo offense with quis at PG than with tinsley. we'd get better defensively which could counteract our own turnovers by creating more defensively. i also think that having him play pg would make his shooting issues less of a factor because he'd be creating and getting other people shots and slashing to the hoop and getting on the line. i don't see any harm in trying because i think we know what we're going to be getting with tins.

                        i think the foster / jo combo is probably the best option. jeff is actually a fairly fast guy (i see harrison as more of a slow-down). jeff would be a slight offensive liability BUT i think his defense, rebounding could make up for that.

                        the major pain is that we have a team of players who don't really work together. along with a bunch of players that can't be moved. i think regardless of the lineup changes, that we will essentially see more of the same the entire season unless we shake up the roster in a major way.
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                          i also think that having him play pg would make his shooting issues less of a factor because he'd be creating and getting other people shots and slashing to the hoop and getting on the line.
                          That's an important point. He is great breaking down a defense with drives in the lane...and getting fouled. He also has a nice mid range game and as a young player is bound to get better.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                            They seem to have built this team with the intention of Tinsley at PG. I'm sorry, but I really don't see how this could happen.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird's 10 game suggestion: A major lineup/rotations change

                              Originally posted by Pitons View Post
                              Bogut had a very good night yesterday with 12 rebounds (this season high in def and off rebounds), 14 points, 60% shooting and only 1 turnover . Our teams rebounding isn't very good. That's not PG problem. You saw yesterday how Gilbert had killed Cavaliers?

                              But yes, I would give a chance to Daniels at PG. Maybe he would be more productive than Tins and Saras. He doesn't play good at his current position so far.
                              The thinking is that Quis at PG will make the lineup bigger because then you have everyone shifting down with either Foster, a good rebounder, or Harrison, a good box-outer in the lineup.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X