# Jermaine to Toronto?



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/SPORTS04/806230395

and the trade talk heats up...


----------



## DannyGranger33 (May 12, 2005)

Sigh.

Can we package Bird in the deal too?


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

I like the deal for us. Gives us another pick in the draft and a solid PG. Looks like the rebuilding process may be in full effect.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

An injury prone PG with a bad contract. He could fit right in with the Pacers.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think that would be a nice deal for you guys, assuming you do well with the extra picks. Portland proved yuo can build through the draft if you get a little lucky and have a keen eye for talent. 


Roy, Aldridge, Rodriguez were drafted with Portland having only the 4th pick in 2006

Oden, Rudy Fernandez were drafted with Portland having the 1st pick

That's more than likely 3 core players and another solid contributor with 2 picks


Good luck to you guys this year


----------



## DannyGranger33 (May 12, 2005)

rock747 said:


> I like the deal for us. Gives us another pick in the draft and a solid PG. Looks like the rebuilding process may be in full effect.


How is Ford any different from Tinsley? And I'd be a little more excited about the extra pick if Bird showed an eye for talent.. so far he passed on one of the best defensive players in the game (Prince) for a dunk champion (Fred Jones), had Danny Granger fall in his lap otherwise who knows who he would take.. and then we took Shawne Williams with glaring needs elsewhere.

So banking on him to do well with 2 picks is a bit much.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Ford is a great PG when healthy and is a pure PG. The only things wrong with him is his injury history (none of which will effect him permanently) and he needs to keep improving his jumpshot. You guys are asking for a lor for a guy who could possibly only play 30 or so games next season. The 17th pick could be someone like Arthur who was for a while thought of as a top 5 pick. Rasho could be a decent role player and is a huge expiring next year.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

I love this deal. I love it for both of my teams. We finally get rid of O'neal, we get a point guard and a first rounder. I also love the potential of Jermaine O'neal in Toronto. If he can stay healthy him and Bosh will be a great duo and hopefully finally make the Raptors a serious contender in the East. 

You guys are making TJ Ford sound like a handi-cap. Yes he has had some injury problems but the only real concern is his neck. The Al Horford incident really shook him up. I'm not all that worried about his health. I truly believe this is the best move we can make. I am very excited about the possibility of this trade happening. There hasn't been much for me to get excited about as a basketball fan lately but this would definitely get me pumped for both teams. I would kill to see this trade go down.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

^amen


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

This would be a TERRIBLE trade for us!....Please Bird do not do this to us, last thing we need is Tinsley Part 2....And that's not even including his horrible contract. If this is the best offer on the table than I suggest we just keep JO until he expires.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

PaCeRhOLiC said:


> This would be a TERRIBLE trade for us!....Please Bird do not do this to us, last thing we need is Tinsley Part 2....And that's not even including his horrible contract. If this is the best offer on the table than I suggest we just keep JO until he expires.



Would you rather have Snow, Szczerbiak, and 19?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I know Ford has injury problems, but to compare to Tinsley is quite insulting. Ford is better than Tinsley at running a team and has been a winner everywhere he went. Ford is also very coach-able (as seen from the affection he has from Sam Mitchell) and gets along well with his teammates. Last but not least, he isn't someone that would get into off court trouble ala Tinsley.

Personally I don't like this trade for the Raptors if it includes their pick. Jermaine O'neal is at least as big of an injury risk as Ford and even if he's healthy, it's anyone's guess if he can even return to his former self or simply be a 15/7 player. Ford meanwhile if he stays healthy is capable of being a top 10 point guard in the league.

From the Pacers side, I wouldn't do this trade either as Ford really doesn't move the Pacers closer to their goals. They need some expiring contracts and move from the 9-10th in the East towards the very bottom where they could get some high draft picks. This move wouldn't do that for the Pacers and might not do that in the next couple of years as well.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I know Ford has injury problems, but to compare to Tinsley is quite insulting. Ford is better than Tinsley at running a team and has been a winner everywhere he went. Ford is also very coach-able (as seen from the affection he has from Sam Mitchell) and gets along well with his teammates. Last but not least, he isn't someone that would get into off court trouble ala Tinsley.


They're still very similar players. Both play fast and out of control, often making poor decisions and shifting between periods of being unselfish and very selfish. Neither shoot the ball well or play defense. Ford's better than Tinsley, yes, but they're still very similar players.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

PaCeRhOLiC said:


> This would be a TERRIBLE trade for us!....Please Bird do not do this to us, last thing we need is Tinsley Part 2....And that's not even including his horrible contract. If this is the best offer on the table than I suggest we just keep JO until he expires.


Well TJ is young, only 25 or so and could keep getting better. He reminds me of a poor mans Chris Paul. He isn't Tinsley part two because Ford is a drive and kick or finish player. Tinsley shoots wherever he pleases and never finishes on drives.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> He isn't Tinsley part two because Ford is a drive and kick or finish player. Tinsley shoots wherever he pleases and never finishes on drives.


80% of Tinsley's game is drive and dish, and he finishes just as much, if not more than Ford, on drives.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> 80% of Tinsley's game is drive and dish, and he finishes just as much, if not more than Ford, on drives.


Then the other 20% much be chucking up 50 foot three pointers. Dude, Tinsley never finishes floaters, EVER. You are the biggest Tinsley homer ever and it gets quite annoying considering everyone else knows just how bad he is. I think you're a bigger Tinsley homer than I am a Diener homer. The guy does not finish drives, doesn't dish unless he is guaranteed an assist, and is not worthy of being an Indiana Pacer. Ford is faster, smarter, does not chuck from what i've seen from him, and is much more athletic and enjoyable to watch. None of his injuries will hamper his game in the future like JO's will. This trade is low risk. We get the 17th pick, a big expiring, and possibly one of the top 10 point guards in the league.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> They're still very similar players. Both play fast and out of control, often making poor decisions and shifting between periods of being unselfish and very selfish. Neither shoot the ball well or play defense. Ford's better than Tinsley, yes, but they're still very similar players.


The difference is that TJ *was* out of control, the guy averaged over 6 assists with only 2 turnovers last year. If you've followed him since he joined the Raptors, he has made vast improvements on this part of his game and has benefited in watching Calderon who is a master at asst/to ratio. Another misconception about Ford is that he can't shoot. The guy only shot 47% from the field last year up from 43% he shot the year before. You're not going to mistake him for Ray Allen but the guy is quite consistent from within 20 feet.

If you really want to compare Ford to Tinsley, he is probably Tinsley without the flaws, which is a pretty good player if he stays healthy.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> Dude, Tinsley never finishes floaters, EVER.


He probably hits about 40% of them. Ford's probably around the same. I wouldn't consider either to be good finishers around the basket, but they still try.



> You are the biggest Tinsley homer ever and it gets quite annoying considering everyone else knows just how bad he is.


Heh, hypocrisy?



> The guy does not finish drives, doesn't dish unless he is guaranteed an assist


He does finish drives, and this is Indiana, so Tinsley's never guaranteed an assist. Like a good PG, he holds onto the ball more than anyone else and tries to set up others.



> Ford is faster, smarter, does not chuck from what i've seen from him, and is much more athletic and enjoyable to watch.


Ford does take some bad shots. I don't think it's at the volume of Tinsley's bad shots, but still more than he should. Yes, he's faster, smarter, maybe, and he's more athletic and fun to watch. I'm not saying Tinsley's a better player. I just said their playing style is comparable and that Tinsley finishes much more than you give him credit for.



> None of his injuries will hamper his game in the future like JO's will.


Sure, unless he takes a blow to the neck again.



> This trade is low risk. We get the 17th pick, a big expiring, and possibly one of the top 10 point guards in the league.


Yeh, that's why I like it. He's arguably top 10, but definitely 15.



> The difference is that TJ was out of control, the guy averaged over 6 assists with only 2 turnovers last year. If you've followed him since he joined the Raptors, he has made vast improvements on this part of his game


Driving out of control is still a part of his game. I know he's improved, but it still happens quite frequently. I remember his rookie season in Milwaukee. He's come a long way since in terms of being calm.



> Another misconception about Ford is that he can't shoot. The guy only shot 47% from the field last year up from 43% he shot the year before. You're not going to mistake him for Ray Allen but the guy is quite consistent from within 20 feet.


Well, I wasn't talking about his field goal percentage, really. He has a nice shot from 10-16 feet, but like Tinsley, he doesn't shoot the 3 well. They both shoot a career 31% from 3.



> If you really want to compare Ford to Tinsley, he is probably Tinsley without the flaws, which is a pretty good player if he stays healthy.


Every player has flaws, but yes, I wouldn't consider Ford's flaws to be as glaring as Tinsley's. Really, every strength of Tinsley's besides posting up and stealing, Ford's better, and with every weakness, Ford isn't quite as bad. I'm just saying they're similar in playing style.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

I like how you handled that post Pacers Fan, after that post I thought about making it less attackish but you handled it a lot better than I thought you would.

Anyways, I will be very happy if this deal goes through but i'm starting to doubt it.


----------



## btyler (May 4, 2005)

DienerTime said:


> You are the biggest Tinsley homer ever and it gets quite annoying considering everyone else knows just how bad he is.


*NEWSFLASH:*

_Diener sucks more than Tinsley. At least Tinsley gets time. And at least someone rooting for Tinsley sees that he can still play, whereas nobody would give Diener the time of day because he's a pseudoscrub. He's worse than I am._


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Jones2011 said:


> *NEWSFLASH:*
> 
> _Diener sucks more than Tinsley. At least Tinsley gets time. And at least someone rooting for Tinsley sees that he can still play, whereas nobody would give Diener the time of day because he's a pseudoscrub. He's worse than I am._


Diener got 20 minutes per game last season and was starting over Tinsley even when back from injury. He was top 5 in ast/to ratio and ran the team like O'Brien wanted him to unlike Tinsley who runs his own crappy system. He has no baggage, brings more to the locker room, and if he gets his jumpshot back will make a great backup guard. He is not a scrub.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> Diener got 20 minutes per game last season and was starting over Tinsley even when back from injury.


Are you really counting those 3 games more than the 36 Tinsley started over Diener?

Players don't tend to start when they come back from injury. Even JO didn't start 8 games.



> He was top 5 in ast/to ratio and ran the team like O'Brien wanted him to unlike Tinsley who runs his own crappy system.


Tinsley was running the offense the exact way Obie wanted for a long time. I'm pretty sure Obie even called Tinsley "his PG" before Tinsley hurt himself.



> He is not a scrub.


Ugh.

1 

a: a *stunted* tree or shrub
b: vegetation consisting chiefly of scrubs
c: a tract covered with scrub

2: a domestic animal of mixed or unknown parentage and *usually inferior* conformation : mongrel

3: *a person of insignificant size or standing*

4: *a player not belonging to the first string*

The bolded all apply to Diener. He's a scrub. Sorry. He applies to all four definitions.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Travis Diener is a major scrub.

Anyways back to the trade...

I don't get how a Pacers fan would not want to see this happen. Lets face it, Jermaine O'neal is no longer an MVP Canditate or even an All-Star. If we can get a solid starting point guard, an experienced center AND a first round draft pick for an overpaid player who only played half of the season for us then I say pull the trigger. The Raptors would also have to add Joey Graham or Kris Humphries. I wouldn't mind either one but I would really like to have Humphries. He is a real good role player. Brings lots of enery off the bench, runs the floor, finishes inside, decent shot for a guy his side and plays good defense. I love this trade. I love everything about it for both sides. I am honestly praying for this to go down.


----------



## Hail Yinka (Jul 3, 2006)

agreed........i like ford a lot as a player. this is probably the best deal the pacers could do for JO. they get a solid PG they really need plus another pick and a big body. this draft is deep so they could get another solid player at 17 and still have 2 2nd rounders as well. yes you could say hes been injured but the horford joint was a freak accident, he came back quickly and played well. im done with tinsley and i used to be one of his biggest supporters. tinsley misses 20 games with a broken finger nail. ford isnt going to be deron williams or chris paul but he's a pure point that can run an offense well.

get this trade done!

ugh......according to yahoo this deal is off :



> Source: Toronto-Indiana deal off
> 
> By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports Jun 23, 7:07 pm EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

**** **** ****. It looks like it might be true, this trade is dead.



> A rumoured deal that would have sent Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal to Toronto was given life and was being reported in both cities, but it fizzled Monday night.
> 
> The would-be deal had O'Neal coming to Toronto in exchange for point guard T.J. Ford, centre Rasho Nesterovic, Toronto's No. 17 pick in Thursday's draft and possibly another player.
> 
> ...


http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=608613


:sadbanana:


----------



## DannyGranger33 (May 12, 2005)

On one hand I'm happy were not getting Ford but on the other I'm sad we're probably stuck with a worse deal than what we got for Brad Miller.

Hooray!


----------



## Wick3d Jester (Jun 25, 2008)

Toronto don't seem to be giving up too much, but at the same time I question O'Neal's health status. He might be doing good now, but can he stay healthy through the course of next season? Perhaps this trade will hype him up, but I'm not totally sold on him yet.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> Well, I wasn't talking about his field goal percentage, really. He has a nice shot from 10-16 feet, but like Tinsley, he doesn't shoot the 3 well. They both shoot a career 31% from 3.


Because you said their games are similar, therefore I assumed that you've included their jump shooting ability because Tinsley is a horrendous jump shooter. 47% is very respectable compare to 38% that Tinsley shot last year.

Like Tinsley, Ford isn't a 3 point shooter. However, unlike Tinsley, Ford knows his limits and knows not to jack up 3 pointers. Ford took a combined 120 3pt attempts the past 2 years in 126 games(A lot of them are either wide open or at the end of the shotclock) compared to Tinsley's 141 shots this year in 39 games. I don't see how their games are similar in this aspect. One of them knows not to shoot it, another is jacking shots up. This is like saying Antoine Walker has a similar perimeter game as Amare because both shoots a horrendous % from the 3pt line.



> Every player has flaws, but yes, I wouldn't consider Ford's flaws to be as glaring as Tinsley's. Really, every strength of Tinsley's besides posting up and stealing, Ford's better, and with every weakness, Ford isn't quite as bad. I'm just saying they're similar in playing style.


The only similarity the 2 of them have is that they are both small, quick, guards that have injury problems. If you really want to push the comparison any further, I suggest you take some time to watch some Raptor games that Ford played in this year (I know, it's hard because of his injuries). He is not the same player as he was in Milwaukee and it's disappointing that people around these forums are turning him down for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Because you said their games are similar, therefore I assumed that you've included their jump shooting ability because Tinsley is a horrendous jump shooter. 47% is very respectable compare to 38% that Tinsley shot last year.
> 
> Like Tinsley, Ford isn't a 3 point shooter. However, unlike Tinsley, Ford knows his limits and knows not to jack up 3 pointers. Ford took a combined 120 3pt attempts the past 2 years in 126 games*(A lot of them are either wide open or at the end of the shotclock)* compared to Tinsley's 141 shots this year in 39 games.


I don't know what you're trying to prove. I said they play in a similar way, not exactly the same with the same percentages. Tinsley takes more 3's, sure. The point is that both are poor jump shooters. The difference is that Obie and Carlisle always encouraged Tinsley to take shots. They're not exactly the same. Sure, Ford has a better mid-range game and a better shot selection. He's still an interior-based PG like Tinsley who tries to get into the paint to create for himself and others. I've still seen him take many bad shots this season like Tinsley, and also like Tinsley, he doesn't play defense well. Both gamble too often, and I guess it works more for Tinsley. They're not similar at all in stature, but their games are similar. Sorry if I think a chucking PG has a similar game to Ford, but they do remind me of each other every time I watch either. It's why both have been two of my favorite players for years.



> If you really want to push the comparison any further, I suggest you take some time to watch some Raptor games that Ford played in this year (I know, it's hard because of his injuries).


I think I watched at least 6 regular season Raptor games this year. Maybe more. It's not a great sample, but I speak frequently with a Raptor fan, check out the board sometimes, and I've liked the team as well as Ford for a long time now, so I think I have a pretty good feel for them.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> I don't know what you're trying to prove. I said they play in a similar way, not exactly the same with the same percentages. Tinsley takes more 3's, sure. The point is that both are poor jump shooters. The difference is that Obie and Carlisle always encouraged Tinsley to take shots. They're not exactly the same. Sure, Ford has a better mid-range game and a better shot selection. He's still an interior-based PG like Tinsley who tries to get into the paint to create for himself and others. I've still seen him take many bad shots this season like Tinsley, and also like Tinsley, he doesn't play defense well. Both gamble too often, and I guess it works more for Tinsley. They're not similar at all in stature, but their games are similar. Sorry if I think a chucking PG has a similar game to Ford, but they do remind me of each other every time I watch either. It's why both have been two of my favorite players for years.


But how exactly is a 47% FG shooting point guard a poor jump shooter? You are comparing someone who takes around 50 3s a year vs. someone who takes well over 200 3s a year. Just because they shoot a similar percentage from 3 doesn't make both of them poor jump shooters when in fact one of them shoots 47% from the field. It's a very poor way to compare players and frankly doesn't tell you anything about the 2.

I'm not trying to prove anything beyond the fact that they are very different players. Even their interior game is quite different. Tinsley has a developed post up game whereas Ford relies solely on his blinding speed to break people off the dribble. 



> I think I watched at least 6 regular season Raptor games this year. Maybe more. It's not a great sample, but I speak frequently with a Raptor fan, check out the board sometimes, and I've liked the team as well as Ford for a long time now, so I think I have a pretty good feel for them.


Well, take it from someone who watched around 75 games this year. Your description of Ford is quite off the mark.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

T.J. ford in O'Briens system would've been fun.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> But how exactly is a 47% FG shooting point guard a poor jump shooter?


Field goal percentage doesn't equal jump shot percentage.



> You are comparing someone who takes around 50 3s a year vs. someone who takes well over 200 3s a year. Just because they shoot a similar percentage from 3 doesn't make both of them poor jump shooters when in fact one of them shoots 47% from the field. It's a very poor way to compare players and frankly doesn't tell you anything about the 2.


Ford doesn't shoot 3's because he knows he won't make them. Tinsley shoots them anyway. Percentages generally drop with more shots taken, so Ford's poor percentage on a small amount of 3's shows that he's a very poor shooter from distance, who probably only takes open 3's, and still doesn't hit them.



> I'm not trying to prove anything beyond the fact that they are very different players. Even their interior game is quite different. Tinsley has a developed post up game whereas Ford relies solely on his blinding speed to break people off the dribble.


The thing is, so does Tinsley. They're both excellent ball handlers who take people off the dribble. Tinsley just happens to have another part to his game that Ford doesn't. Again, not exact, but similar.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> Field goal percentage doesn't equal jump shot percentage.
> 
> Ford doesn't shoot 3's because he knows he won't make them. Tinsley shoots them anyway. Percentages generally drop with more shots taken, so Ford's poor percentage on a small amount of 3's shows that he's a very poor shooter from distance, who probably only takes open 3's, and still doesn't hit them.


Go to nba.com and load up Ford's shot chart for the season.

Just because a player doesn't shoot 3s doesn't mean that a player is a poor jump shooter. A jump shot isn't only defined when it's from beyond the arc. If that's the case, is Tim Duncan a poor jump shooter? Is Jordan a poor jump shooter? It is simply not accurate for you to over generalize and label both players as "Poor jump shooters" because one of them has learned to be effective without the 3pt shot. You are ignoring the fact that Ford is a very consistent midrange shooter and has a far superior shot selection than Tinsley.



Pacers Fan said:


> The thing is, so does Tinsley. They're both excellent ball handlers who take people off the dribble. Tinsley just happens to have another part to his game that Ford doesn't. Again, not exact, but similar.


I'm not saying that Tinsley doesn't have it as well, I'm saying that Ford doesn't have it but does the part that he have a lot better than Tinsley, thus they are different players. I mean, Chris Paul is blinding quick and so is Tinsley, does that make the 2 of them similar style players as well? Please, try to be a bit more detailed in your observations.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Just because a player doesn't shoot 3s doesn't mean that a player is a poor jump shooter. A jump shot isn't only defined when it's from beyond the arc. If that's the case, is Tim Duncan a poor jump shooter? Is Jordan a poor jump shooter?


No, I've told you many times that I think Ford has a nice game out to 16 feet. From that point out, though, no.



> It is simply not accurate for you to over generalize and label both players as "Poor jump shooters" because one of them has learned to be effective without the 3pt shot.


Tinsley's effective without it as well. He's just been in an offense that's forced him to take every decent look at a 3 he gets.

Do you consider Luol Deng a poor 3-point shooter? I do. If you don't take them very often and still miss, it's a weakness. Defenses properly adjust to players with weaknesses and slack off on guys who can't hit them, which hurts the rest of the offense. If/whenever Ford becomes a Pacer, he'll easily take 150 3's in 60 games, because that's what O'Brien expects. See, it's not a matter of game type. That's a matter of coaching and demand.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Ford become a little more like his old self once he's traded, because he won't be expected to be Jose Calderon when he's on the floor. Not shooting in Obie's offense won't cut it.

Similarly, if Tinsley played in Toronto, he'd quickly learn not to take the same amount of 3's he did in Indy.

Since neither have much range, it's really only the coach, offense, and demand of jump shooting that's going to differ their games. It's still a weakness for both, which makes them similar. And yes, Ford still is better from 12 to 16 feet. Woohoo. They're not exact.



> You are ignoring the fact that Ford is a very consistent midrange shooter and has a far superior shot selection than Tinsley.


How many times have I said Ford's mid-range game is fine?

I wouldn't consider it far superior, but better, yes. I still see him take a bunch of ill-advised shots like Tinsley.



> I'm not saying that Tinsley doesn't have it as well, I'm saying that Ford doesn't have it but does the part that he have a lot better than Tinsley, thus they are different players.


I didn't understand that. Care to re-phrase?



> I mean, Chris Paul is blinding quick and so is Tinsley, does that make the 2 of them similar style players as well? Please, try to be a bit more detailed in your observations.


I consider Paul and Tinsley to be similar in game because of how much the interior is important to them, how ball dominant they are, and just about everything we've discussed so far with Ford and Tinsley. Paul's a similar player in style of play, even though he's much better at everything but posting up, and it's not just because he's a quick guard.

Now, you can find a few areas where they're not exactly the same, but that's why I'm not calling Ford a Tinsley clone.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> No, I've told you many times that I think Ford has a nice game out to 16 feet. From that point out, though, no.


This contradicts the statement "They are both poor jump shooters." Last time I checked people don't do layups from 16 feet out.



> Tinsley's effective without it as well. He's just been in an offense that's forced him to take every decent look at a 3 he gets.


By looking at Tinsley's shot chart this year, if you don't count the shots he made inside the paint and the shots he made from beyond the arc, he is shooting 70-199 from everywhere else. That's 35%, so no, he's not an effective jump shooter anywhere on the court. Stats are your friend, use it.



> Do you consider Luol Deng a poor 3-point shooter? I do.


Good for you. Now, would you consider Luol Deng a poor jumpshooter. You seem to be unable to differentiate between the 2 and appreciate the art of shot selection and considers anyone without a 3pt shot a poor jump shooter. Simply odd in my opinion when every good player in the league knows to play and maximize his own limits.



> How many times have I said Ford's mid-range game is fine?
> 
> I wouldn't consider it far superior, but better, yes. I still see him take a bunch of ill-advised shots like Tinsley.


See above.

And you've gotten this conclusion from the 6 Raptors games you watched this year? Alright..

I mean, if he takes a lot of bad shots and ends up with 47% FG, I would tell all my players to take these shots and raise my team's FG%.



> I didn't understand that. Care to re-phrase?


For the 2 of them to be different, if one of them doesn't have something and the others have, that makes them different. The way you're saying it it's as if it has to be something that Ford has that Tinsley doesn't have that would make the 2 different, whereas in reality it goes both ways. As I said before, the only similarity the 2 of them have are that they are both small, quick guards (as you pointed out, Tinsley is a bit stockyier). About half of the PGs in the league are small, quick guards that can take people off the dribble, frankly that doesn't make Ford "Tinsley ver. 2" or someone of a similar style simply because that's the only similarity they share.



> I consider Paul and Tinsley to be similar in game because of how much the interior is important to them, how ball dominant they are, and just about everything we've discussed so far with Ford and Tinsley. Paul's a similar player in style of play, even though he's much better at everything but posting up, and it's not just because he's a quick guard.


And so does 80% of the PGs in the league. As I said, if you really want to over generalize, you can just say that they are all basketball players and getting one is basically getting more of the same of the other. Frankly this kind of observation is pointless and can be made from without even watching any games.



> Now, you can find a few areas where they're not exactly the same, but that's why I'm not calling Ford a Tinsley clone.


I've listed at least 3 things where "they are not exactly the same". Those 3 things include "A better jump shooter", "More under controlled", "Superior shot selection and basketball IQ". Those 3 things alone would have separated most players from their peers. But for some strange reason, because they both "can't shoot 3s" (See above) and they both dribble a lot would make them similar players.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

> Jermaine O'Neal and the Raptors
> 
> So the rumored deal between the Raptors and Pacers lives on, but the Raptors are trying to get a really clear picture of just how ready Jermaine O'Neal is to resume playing basketball. His recent history of injuries has them worried, but not so worried that talks are dead. The word is that this will probably go down, meaning TJ Ford, Rasho Nesterovic, Joey Graham and the 17th pick in Thursday's draft head to Indiana for Jermaine O'Neal and maybe one more player.
> 
> Everything is hinging upon O'Neal's health, and perhaps the Raptors wanting a little sweeter deal. More on this story as it develops.


http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9204


Maybe this deal isnt dead yet..


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

^ yay


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> This contradicts the statement "They are both poor jump shooters." Last time I checked people don't do layups from 16 feet out.


Sorry, I don't feel like clarifying each time that they're both poor shooters from 3 and from 18 feet out, while Ford is okay from 12-16. It's a little much.



> By looking at Tinsley's shot chart this year, if you don't count the shots he made inside the paint and the shots he made from beyond the arc, he is shooting 70-199 from everywhere else. That's 35%, so no, he's not an effective jump shooter anywhere on the court. Stats are your friend, use it.


:-/

I never said Tinsley was an effective jump shooter. I said he was effective without it, like Ford.



> Now, would you consider Luol Deng a poor jumpshooter.


No, because he even has legit range out to 18 feet.



> You seem to be unable to differentiate between the 2


Or maybe I'm just a bit too lazy to say this every single time: "they're both poor shooters from 3 and from 18 feet out, while Ford is okay from 12-16," and you seem to keep ignoring that I've said that elsewhere, and cotninue nitpicking.



> appreciate the art of shot selection


Where did I say anything about my appreciation for shot selection?



> and considers anyone without a 3pt shot a poor jump shooter.


Not having range from 18 feet doesn't help, but ****ing **** man, how many times do I have to clarify that? I have probably seven times, at least, so far.



> And you've gotten this conclusion from the 6 Raptors games you watched this year? Alright..


I don't see how it's a conclusion. I'm not concluding anything with that statement. I'm just saying I've seen him take a good amount of poor shots. You know, contested jumpers on fast breaks, crazy layups, weird floaters, fade aways from 12 feet that only hit the backboard. Even though he has improved, the tendency for Ford to go into overdrive and make mistakes still remains.



> I mean, if he takes a lot of bad shots and ends up with 47% FG, I would tell all my players to take these shots and raise my team's FG%.


Again, I never said he takes "a lot" of bad shots. It's better than he was years ago, yes, but the point is that he still does take them. I'd like to see his field goal percentage over the course of an entire year, though, because 24 mpg in only 51 games isn't that great a sample.



> For the 2 of them to be different, if one of them doesn't have something and the others have, that makes them different.


Yes, that's why they're not exact. We've been through this. It doesn't mean that they're completely different, and it doesn't mean that they're exactly the same, but similar with differing aspects.




> As I said before, the only similarity the 2 of them have are that they are both small, quick guards (as you pointed out, Tinsley is a bit stockyier). About half of the PGs in the league are small, quick guards that can take people off the dribble, frankly that doesn't make Ford "Tinsley ver. 2" or someone of a similar style simply because that's the only similarity they share.


It's not the only similarity they share. Ugh. This entire thread has been dedicated to me pointing out every way in which they are similar. Look back, and also think about their defenses.



> Those 3 things include "A better jump shooter"


Until Ford extends his range to at least 18 feet, I wouldn't consider his jump shot to be too much of a differing aspect. It's four feet of area in which he's distinguishable from Tinsley, even though Tinsley isn't terrible from that range, either.



> "More under controlled", "Superior shot selection and basketball IQ".


Those three are all basically the same, and even though Ford's more under control, he's not significantly more so than Tinsley.

As I said above, Ford would be taking at least 150 3's in Obie's offense, or even Carlisle's, and without the pressure of being Jose Calderon just so he can play some minutes, he'd be more like his old self. I guess we'll see next year how he plays with starter's minutes on a different team.



> But for some strange reason, because they both "can't shoot 3s" (See above) and they both dribble a lot would make them similar players.


Look at my previous posts. I've mentioned much more than that which you've simply ignored.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

i don't know about tj in indiana... or any rebuilding situation. the one thing tj ford does not want to do (aside from come off the bench... hehe... or not) is play for a struggling team. i honestly don't know how he'd handle it. 

i don't think the deal will go through. that might be for the best. but if it does, including joey graham as cap _ballast_ of all things would be a steal for the pacers, imo. sam mitchell has done many things while in toronto, but he and his staff have certainly not shown a propensity for developing young talent. to some fans in toronto, joey graham is done as a pro- to others (like myself... though there are fewer of us!), joey needs to begin anew elsewhere. 

there was a game in november 2006 (granted, two seasons ago) when cleveland came to toronto and joey was matched up on lebron. joey had about a quarter and a half where he was almost running things. he was a second-year at the time but he was the star of the game, no question, certainly not out of his league vs lebron, and the raptors won. i think that same player will revive himself at some point... probably somewhere with better instruction than he's received from sam mitchell, alex english and jay triano in toronto. 

bottom line- if the deal goes down like this for indiana, i wouldn't sleep on joey graham. this man can play basketball. the raps' player development has been an issue of late (see andrea bargnani) and joey graham might have just become another example. may not be his fault. cap ballast? it'd be a steal, imo.

peace


----------

