Brandon Rush should start over Mike Dunleavy.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

Brandon Rush should be our starting SG and here is why:

Obviously no one knows what our starting lineup would be right now as we don't know who will man C or PF or that we are even done making trades. As of now, here is how I project our depth chart though:

Foster/Hibbert
Murphy/Rasho
Granger/Williams
Dunleavy/Rush
Ford/Jack

Now, we have a bunch of solid players on the bench right there. I would think we are now one of the deeper teams in the NBA. Problem is, we don't have a spark on the bench. Switching Rush and Dunleavy makes a lot of sense. Rush would be much more efficient playing with the first team. He would solidify our defense, and play perfect off of Ford and Granger. As for Dunleavy, he would be the spark off the bench that would get everyone going. I'm not saying Rush should play more, I'm saying Rush would be a lot more effective as a starter and Dunleavy would be a great man to come off the bench - much like Ginobli for the Spurs. The problem is this could potentially take some minutes away from Williams from when Dunleavy and Rush are on the floor together, but to be honest, I expect a trade coming soon that will send Williams and land us a PF, but we will see.

Foster/Hibbert
Murphy/Rasho
Granger/Dunleavy/Williams
Rush/Dunleavy
Ford/Jack

What do ya'll think?

[Gremz]

Intriguing. I think there's a place for Rush to start based on you idea. Looking at the second unit (provided Dun starts) i don't really see anyone who can take control of the game and be dominant. Though perhaps it could give Rush some freedom to find his place in the Nba. With Dunleavy coming off the bench it would provide an energetic offensive spark.

However i would like to see Rush play backup atleast for the first few months of the season, like Reggie did. It would give him more time to bond with the team, and get better adjusted to the coaches' system. I could be wrong, but i don't see the immediate need to put that much pressure on the new guy just yet, especially since Mike and Danny played so well together last season.

A second unit involving Hibbert/Rasho/Williams/Rush/Jack should atleast be able to provide adequate defense to give the starters time to rest up without worrying about the game slipping away

[IndyDave02]

Every year, fans tend to want to place their rookies over their starters. It worked when Tinsley started over Best but then again Best was a career back up PG. Dunleavy is clearly a starter in the league. Rush will have to earn his minutes. I expect him to fill his brother's roll and be an "upgrade" at that position. I think Foster or Nesterovich to start at C for the beginning of the season but Foster will eventually become our back up PF and Hibbert will start by the end of the season. Here is what I see for our depth chart:

START OF SEASON:

C- Foster/Nesterovich/Hibbert
PF- Murphy/Baston/Mc Roberts
SF- Granger/Williams/Daniels
SG- Dunleavy/Rush/Graham
PG- TJ Ford/Tinsely/Jack/(Denier)

** Denier or Graham will be cut unless a trade occurs


END OF SEASON:

C- Hibbert/Nesterovich
PF- Murphy/Foster/Baston/McRobberts
SF- Granger/Williams/Daniels
SG- Dunleavy/Rush/Graham
PG- TJ Ford/Jack/Denier (Tinsley traded before trade deadline)

[count55]

While I would certainly be thrilled if Rush could earn a starting job, and understand the reasoning in using Junior in a Detlef Schrempf-type role off the bench, I think it's far too early to hand Rush the job. It's possible he could earn it in camp, but right now, he's not even officially a Pacer.

Also, handing Tinsley the job before camp didn't work. It created problems with the team and with Travis. Tinsley played well early, then fizzled.

I'm excited about Rush, and I think he will win that job, eventually. I"m just saying that we probably shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.

[APerna]

Rush is very much NBA ready in my opinion. However, to start him over a guy who had a career-year this season right off the bat might cause some chemistry issues.

[huskyfan224]

Dunleavy isn't good enough to start on any other NBA team besides us. He was 9th man on Golden State. We already screwed ourselves for trading Bayless, which was one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed, but Rush is better than Dunleavy, he should start over him.

[mizzoupacers]

From what I saw of him last year at Kansas, I don't think Rush is quite ready to start for an NBA team. Even though he had clear athletic superiority over most of the guys he played against last season, he still shot only about 44 percent from the field. His field-goal pct. was only marginally better than his three-point shooting pct. (granted, his three-point pct. was very good). He also attempted very few foul shots, surprising for a guy with his physicality.

IMO Rush needs to learn a mid-range game, needs to learn to drive to the basket, and most of all needs to learn how to "bring it" every night--he was pretty inconsistent from one game to the next in college. Once he learns those things, then he will be ready to start, and I do think he will eventually start. I also think that Dunleavy is ultimately better suited to be a sixth man than a starting two guard. But for the time being, I'd much rather see Dunleavy in the starting lineup than Rush.

[JarrettJackSG]

There is no way this move should be made. Dun is a player that needs all the confidence he can get, and Rush is a career role player who doesn't really want to ball or demands it...he would be better playing off the bench, and no one would notice him, he'd fit in seemlessly.

[LadiesLuvPGs]

Dunleavy isn't good enough to start on any other NBA team besides us. He was 9th man on Golden State

I disagree. Dunleavy is a much better (and more confident) player now than he was with golden state. he's proved that he is capable of playing both the 2 and 3 positions in the nba. i think he would/could start for:

Cleveland (replacing Wally)
LAC (for Mobley)
Miami (moving Marion to the 4)
Minnesota
NJ (now that RJ is gone)
NO (for Mo Pete)
NY (at any position)
Orlando (for Evans)
Philly (For Green)
Phoenix (for Grant Hill)
Portland (for Webster)
San Antonio (for Finley)
Toronto (at either 2 or 3)
Utah (for Brewer)
Washington (for Stevenson)

If not a starter, easily the 6th man for these and many other teams. it doesn't seem like you have watched MDJr play much with the pacers if you judge him by his time in golden state.

i'm not saying he wouldn't do well for the pacers as the eventual 6th man, like manu with SA, but you have to give him the credit he's due

[huskyfan224]

well i watch the pacers on fsn midwest, i also have witnessed mike dunleavy in person at a pacer game from the 3rd row across the pacers bench. i talked a lot of crap to him and he said something to me. i hate him more than any player to ever play the game.

My least favorite players
1. Mike Dunleavy Jr.
2. JJ Redick
3. Shelden Williams
4. Josh McRoberts
5. any other dook player

do you see what i am getting at. i hate dook and their players. not necessary...count55

[Dgranger33]

I'm not at all a fan of the Portland trade. And I wish we would've kept Bayless or gotten more for him. But anyway, Rush should not start over Dunleavy. I think Rush is overrated, let him prove himself first. I hear all the reports about his athleticism and defense, but maybe he should learn a little bit from Dunelavy before he takes his spot. Don't forget Dunleavy, although a liability on defense, was a very good player for us last season.

To the guy that hates Duke, yea its a "uke," did you purposely leave out Carlos Boozer and Grant Hill? Now I'm no fan of Duke either, they did reject my application, and they do get a lot of the calls. But you can't argue that almost every Duke player comes out experienced and coachable. McRoberts is a long shot to ever crack the rotation, but he's not the worst backup to have. Redick is a mystery we all know that. But Williams is a solid center, and Dunleavy is finally becoming a consistent starter.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

I think ya'll are misunderstanding what I am saying. I do not think Rush is better than Dunleavy and I do not think Rush should play more than Dunleavy. But I think Rush is a better fit for our first team and having Dunleavy used in a Ginobli type way would be very smart.

Dunleavy would still play more, he would just start the game out against either tired 1st team or a inferior 2nd team. He keeps the game in our hands while the other team is resting. Then the Pacers bring out the 1st team and Dunleavy stays on the floor.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

Also, Husky I'm with you man. Tar Heels all the way!

I have a funny story of Mike Dunleavy by the way, I don't think I've ever told it here.

For those of you who don't know, I am a die hard UNC Tar Heel fan. Anyway, a few years ago I was in California, I believe I was flying from LA to SF, but I could be wrong I flew a few times out there. Anyway, Mike Dunleavy was on the plane with me. Being a Tar Heel fan I didn't say anything to him since he was on the Warriors at the time. I still find it funny though, if I had only knew haha.

Now we have 2 Dukies in Dunleavy and McRoberts . I wish we were more like the Bobcats in that sense. :-p

[PR07]

I think we're going to need Dunleavy's scoring in the starting lineup, personally. I don't think Brandon is quite ready offensively to be a starter, but I expect him to eventually take over within the next 3 seasons.

[cdash]

Personally, I dont give a crap what college guys went to. Extra brownie points if you went to IU, but past that, once you are on the Pacers I forget your college past. Now, in Tayshaun Prince's case...I hate him for being on the Pistons and added bonus hate for him having attended Kentucky. If he were to come to the Pacers though...all would be forgiven.

[Scoot McGroot]

I'm ok with Rush starting, so long as he earns it. Ultimately, it does seem like it'd make more sense to start Rush and have Dunleavy as the first man off the bench, but first, we gotta see what we have and whether or not that's a situation that we are set for.

[FreeRon]

I see your reasoning here, but I don't think it's necessary. It's true that there wouldn't be a spark off the bench, but you don't typically move a starter to the bench for the sole purpose of providing a spark unless it's one of those rare cases where a player can't play worth a darn when he's starting but plays like an All-Star when you bring him off the bench. I don't understand that. Dunleavy, though, is much the opposite. He plays much better as a starter. I think it's a confidence thing, as was already mentioned. You also have to remember that it isn't like we're going to take all 5 guys off the court and put the second unit in. Some teams do that, but I don't see that working for us. I think the only time we'll have the entire second unit on the court for an extended period of time would be if the game was already decided. It's not like there's a bunch of duds on the bench, either. Foster's the only guy on this team that makes me cringe when he shoots and he'll probably start. Granted, we do have two rookies and I've never cringed when I've seen TJ, Rasho, Jack, or McRoberts shoot for obvious reasons, I'm pretty confident that our second unit is good enough that someone will step up if need be.

[raoul duke]

LOL, Rush isn't starting over Dunleavy. Mike's our second best player and not far behind Granger if at all.

[PacerAtHeart88]

i think u missed the whole point of what he was sayign tho...
he knows dunleavey is better, but he wants to have a spark off of the bench and rush is probably the better defender out of the two so switch them and have dunleavy just play more minutes than rush off the bench even tho rush starts...

[Wizop]

Every year, fans tend to want to place their rookies over their starters. It worked when Tinsley started over Best

no it didn't. it ultimately ruined Tinsley. he was handed the starting job in training camp without having to earn the position and instead of improving year to year played his best ball that first year. starting him to soon deprived him of the motivation to work on his game.