RealGM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... iem-081103

If you hadn't been taking Indiana seriously as an Eastern Conference playoff team, you certainly need to. Indy's first two games were against fearsome opposition -- at Detroit, then home against the defending champs -- and the Pacers played both games without Mike Dunleavy, who ranked second on the team in scoring with 19.1 points last season.

How'd the Pacers do it? Guard Marquis Daniels has started in Dunleavy's place and, at least so far, has managed to hold down the fort (13.42 PER through two games). The trio of Rasho Nesterovic, Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster has held down the middle now that Jermaine O'Neal plays for the Raptors, while T.J. Ford gave the team a wholesale upgrade at the point.

I just love reading anything positive

ive always hated hollinger and his generally bs statistics, but ive gained some respect for the man. he predicted us as a playoff team before the season started too, so its not just hopping on a bandwagon after the celtics game.

if we can turn tinsley into a rotation player like he said we may be able to, then i think we have a shot at a good seed.

Wayyyyyyy too early to tell.

Detroit is in decline and probably was overrated a bit to start the season.

And the schedule was favorable against Boston: they were on the second night of a back-to-back, while the Pacers had a couple days' rest.

I never thought the Pacers would be one of the worst teams in the East--I think those predictions were just flat-out wrong--but I also want to give it some more time before I draw any conclusions about how good we're going to be this season.

mizzoupacers wrote:Wayyyyyyy too early to tell.

Detroit is in decline and probably was overrated a bit to start the season.

And the schedule was favorable against Boston: they were on the second night of a back-to-back, while the Pacers had a couple days' rest.

I never thought the Pacers would be one of the worst teams in the East--I think those predictions were just flat-out wrong--but I also want to give it some more time before I draw any conclusions about how good we're going to be this season.

I'm going to disagree. The Pistons were the Pistons, you knew what to expect. In fact, they might have been better with all the youth on the bench. As for the Celtics, it was the third game of the year for them, no reason for them to be tired. The Celtics started off 16-0 last season, I'm sure some of those wins were on back-to-back games. They only got beat by double digits 3 times last season(at least in regular season), I believe the Pacers deserve a little more credit than you are giving them. I do agree with you though, it is too early to tell, but don't discredit their 1st two games just because it was their first two games.

And the schedule was favorable against Boston: they were on the second night of a back-to-back, while the Pacers had a couple days' rest.

Very true, and I am sure they will be ready to smack us around next time. I think we will get a good indication of the Pacers tonight. We have al;ways had trouble defending the pick and roll, and outside of Utah, no one runs it better than Phoenix. Nash and especially Stoudamire usually kills us. So if tonight we win or keep it close until the final minutes , then Boston was not a fluke. However, if the Suns spank us by doubble digits, then Boston was an abnormality

DGrangeRx33 wrote:As for the Celtics, it was the third game of the year for them, no reason for them to be tired.

reason or not they were gassed in the second half. they weren't ready for the tempo and were pulling on their shorts as the game wore on.

It's hard to qualify as a shock when you have only played two games and your record is 1-1. We will be the shock of the NBA after about 20 games, but for now, no, we arent.

Wizop wrote:

DGrangeRx33 wrote:As for the Celtics, it was the third game of the year for them, no reason for them to be tired.

reason or not they were gassed in the second half. they weren't ready for the tempo and were pulling on their shorts as the game wore on.

You can make excuse for the Celtics if you want, but I'm not buying it. This is the NBA were back to back games are just a normal part of the schedule. Not to mention, they have a bunch of veteran guys who are used to it by now. And it's not like they racked up a bunch of minutes Friday. Pierce was the only one to play more than 30m in their easy win over Chicago.

The real reason the Pacers won is that they simply outplayed the Celtics. I don't know why it's that hard to say. TJ dominated Rondo, forcing him out of the game with 4 fouls in the 2nd quarter. Our bigs did a good job a keeping KG in check, and Pierce couldn't do anything all night. Add in that Boston couldn't hold on to the ball and it's easy to understand why the Pacers won. I don't know why you guys want to cheapen it.