# Tyler Hansbrough



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Averaging 25ppg on 61% from the field over the past 5 games, and pretty much dominated Amare Stoudemire in back to back games. Is he for real, or is this a fluke?


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*

since he is white and unathletic most people will automatically label him some sort of stat padding fluke who does not deserve any credit what so ever.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*

Looking thru his gamelog it looks like he's been productive and puts up pretty good numbers when given 30+ minutes per game. Now it could be he was getting more minutes in that subset because he was simply playing better then normal in those games. Or it could mean Psycho T just needed to be unleashed (i.e. coaching change?)


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*

He's played well since February, although I would caution the Pacers have 2 wins in their last 10 games and both have come against the defense deficient New York Knicks. Career high in back to back games. I'd say it's a fluke.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*

He's cabbage, an inefficient chucker in the post is never a good thing


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*

Hansbrough has a lot of deficiencies, but he works his butt off . He's never going to be a star level player, but if he gets minutes he's going to be productive. Of course he was never healthy last year and I don't think he was healthy to start the season either.


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*

He reminds me of a more athletic post version of Adam Morrison, he's definitely a creative scorer, looks very awkward out there but seems to find a way to go in.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

He's not as atrocious as I thought he'd be.

But on the bright side, he's just as stupid-looking as I expected.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: Tyler Hanbrough*



Diable said:


> Of course he was never healthy last year and I don't think he was healthy to start the season either.


He was healthy, it's just that Jim O'Brien thought it would be better to spread the floor with James Posey at the 4 spot.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Fluke, but he's a key part of what they do when they win. The Pacers can be pretty scary on their day. Their whole roster is guys like 6-9 who can run and shoot.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

At best he could be a pauper's Scola


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Yep...if he were on a good team...he'd only be averaging like 2 points or something.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Averaging 25ppg on 61% from the field over the past 5 games, and pretty much dominated Amare Stoudemire in back to back games. Is he for real, or is this a fluke?



I always call shenanigans when someone brags about the stats of a big but don't mention rebounds or a point and don't mention assists. Or they don't mention the team's record during this stat breakthrough.

Last time I watched him he dunked and screamed at ZBo and proceeded to get pimped all across the court until his coach mercifully benched him.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> I always call shenanigans when someone brags about the stats of a big but don't mention rebounds or a point and don't mention assists. Or they don't mention the team's record during this stat breakthrough.
> 
> Last time I watched him he dunked and screamed at ZBo and proceeded to get pimped all across the court until his coach mercifully benched him.


lol... 

Actually, I think I remember him getting that dunk/scream really late AFTER Z-Bo dominated him the whole game, at one point blocking his shot twice in a row and then laughing him off the court when he went to the bench.

Pacers lost that game by double digits.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Wasn't there a Josh McRoberts breakthrough thread sometime this year?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> I always call shenanigans when someone brags about the stats of a big but don't mention rebounds or a point and don't mention assists. Or they don't mention the team's record during this stat breakthrough.
> 
> Last time I watched him he dunked and screamed at ZBo and proceeded to get pimped all across the court until his coach mercifully benched him.


Not only that if you're a big man defense is maybe more important than any of that. 

Last 5 though:

Knicks, Knicks, Raptors, Wolves, 76ers

Last 20 point game before that, 2 weeks ago against the Pistons

A decisive

:hano:

I mean he can be a rotation big somewhere but I hope he doesn't fool some poor GM and Coach into committing to him with a straight face.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dre said:


> Last 20 point game before that, 2 weeks ago against the Pistons


He has played 30 minutes or more in 10 games this season, and he is averaging 23pts/8rebs on 55% from the field in those games. Hansbrough's numbers directly correlate to his minutes this season. 

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but I doubt any of you tearing him down thought he'd ever even put up these kind of numbers regardless of the context, let alone outplay Amare Stoudemire in back to back games and win both of them. I know I didn't.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I mean is it really an accomplishment to put up 20-25 on the teams I listed at the end of the year

A face up 4 is always going to be able to score given the right amount of touches, that's nothing special to me. What else is he doing that would be threadworthy


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Right amount of touches? He is scoring very efficiently. And it's not like the Pacers aren't playing for something, they're the 8th seed in the east. This is not a case of garbage time at the end of the year. That's what Kevin Love's stats have been the whole year, and we have long ass threads about him.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Yes, right amount of touches. It doesn't matter if you happen to be efficient or not, the fact remains you can get what you need to score 25 on weak defenses from the post. 

Al Harrington, Dave West, Antawn Jamison, David Lee, hell Chris Kaman could do this. Noone cares.

And Kevin Love...who here credible was raving about him. Those threads were people trying to tell one or two fools he's a product of hype and numbers. He's a great rebounder but that's it. You yourself were in those threads putting his play in context, so what are you saying

I respect a true rebounder before I respect a guy picking on teams with soggy interior D anyway. Points are not a commodity against mediocre regular season teams. Unless this guy is a threat to just go off every night he's going to have to bring something else real to the table, which he doesn't.

I'm just not impressed. You asked a question, got an answer except you don't seem satisfied with what we're saying. I mean end of the day, do you really believe he's more than a rotation big?


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

March Madness


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dre said:


> Al Harrington, Dave West, Antawn Jamison, David Lee, hell Chris Kaman could do this. Noone cares.


All but one of these guys have been all-stars. You're doing a good job of making my point. 



Dre said:


> And Kevin Love...who here credible was raving about him. Those threads were people trying to tell one or two fools he's a product of hype and numbers. He's a great rebounder but that's it. You yourself were in those threads putting his play in context, so what are you saying?


First, I was just posting his numbers, because I'm pretty sure you and most others never thought he'd post those kind of numbers, regardless of the context. Then you posted about how he'd only done it against bad teams, which isn't correct. He has only done it when given minutes. He has played a couple big games against Denver this year, and also a big game against the Spurs. And we probably need to stop talking about Amare among the elite power forwards if we're glossing over him being outplayed by the same "rotation big" two games in a row. I mean, if Dirk got outplayed by Glen Davis two games straight (not for one play, or one quarter, two entire games), he'd get ripped apart. As would Gasol, Bosh, etc. 



Dre said:


> I'm just not impressed. You asked a question, got an answer except you don't seem satisfied with what we're saying. I mean end of the day, do you really believe he's more than a rotation big?


You're looking at the big picture. It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it. Hansbrough may just be a rotation big, but he is playing outstanding basketball right now, better than most NBA fans ever thought he'd play. You can detract from any current accomplishment by looking at the big picture. 

Spurs may win 65 games, but at the end of the day do you really believe they can beat the Lakers? I'm not impressed. 

Knicks can win a bunch of games in a row and Amare can score a bunch of points, but at the end of the day do you really believe they'll get out of the 1st round? I'm not impressed. 

It's not hard. I could do it with about every thread on the main forum.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> All but one of these guys have been all-stars. You're doing a good job of making my point.


And you're making mine which is that token all-star spot to the faceup 4 who doesn't impact games doesn't mean anything. It's not hard to be on a weak team, and capitalize off of open jumpers and getting to the basket on defenses that don't care. 2nd quarter superstars. None of them have done a damn thing when it mattered.



> First, I was just posting his numbers, because I'm pretty sure you and most others never thought he'd post those kind of numbers, regardless of the context. Then you posted about how he'd only done it against bad teams, which isn't correct. He has only done it when given minutes.
> He has played a couple big games against Denver this year, and also a big game against the Spurs.


So why didn't you say that instead of trying to post the last 5 and hoping people took that at face value? 

And then later on down in this post you say he's a rotation big who's having a hot streak right after you say he puts up these numbers given minutes. Which one is it?




> And we probably need to stop talking about Amare among the elite power forwards if we're glossing over him being outplayed by the same "rotation big" two games in a row. I mean, if Dirk got outplayed by Glen Davis two games straight (not for one play, or one quarter, two entire games), he'd get ripped apart. As would Gasol, Bosh, etc.


Irrelevant, but noone smart has ever said he was an elite anything.



> You're looking at the big picture. It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it. Hansbrough may just be a rotation big, but he is playing outstanding basketball right now, better than most NBA fans ever thought he'd play. You can detract from any current accomplishment by looking at the big picture.


That's the kind of person I am though. I've rarely ever been trapped in the moment on here and you can look through my posts in the threads about these fad players and teams on hot streaks and if I even posted in them, I'd have posted to simmer everyone down about the player's or team's true standing.

I just don't do well or care for stuff that doesn't translate into a long term accomplishment.

As long as we agree that he's a rotation big that's cool, but is this really "outstanding" basketball, or is it just "outstanding" relative to what people thought about him before. He's not playing outstanding defense, he's not rebounding on an outstanding level, he's just scoring at an outstanding efficiency. But you're the same guy who says Carmelo is overrated.



> Spurs may win 65 games, but at the end of the day do you really believe they can beat the Lakers? I'm not impressed.
> 
> Knicks can win a bunch of games in a row and Amare can score a bunch of points, but at the end of the day do you really believe they'll get out of the 1st round? I'm not impressed.
> 
> It's not hard. I could do it with about every thread on the main forum.


And I kind of do. So what. I do talk about why though.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Yes, right amount of touches. It doesn't matter if you happen to be efficient or not, the fact remains you can get what you need to score 25 on weak defenses from the post.
> 
> Al Harrington, Dave West, Antawn Jamison, David Lee, hell Chris Kaman could do this. Noone cares.
> 
> ...


What a dumb, ridiculous argument.

"Sure he gets points, but they don't matter."

Yea, they do actually. Fact is, given minutes, he's a 20 ppg player. And it doesn't matter if you happen to be efficient? Honestly, you have some of the stupidest arguments I ever see. Just the worst.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is not a case of garbage time at the end of the year.


For the Pacers maybe not, but for most of the teams they play it is, so of course their prime time effort will beat a confused Knicks team or a hapless Raptors


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

There are some posters on here that called him a bust before he ever played a basketball game. A good poster on here said Roy Williams only sends scrubs to the league. Glad to see folks like Lawson, Hansbrough, Felton etc proving him/them wrong.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

He out played Amare in back to back games and you call that "irrelevant". 

Actually, it's quite relevant. Especially when considering the weak argument you're bringing to the table.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Go away, actual basketball fans only please. Stir your drunken pot elsewhere


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> For the Pacers maybe not, but for most of the teams they play it is, so of course their prime time effort will beat a confused Knicks team or a hapless Raptors


A confused Knick team? And the excuses continue to roll on.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Go away, actual basketball fans only please. Stir your drunken pot elsewhere


:laugh:

What's the matter, don't want your feeling hurt?


Come up with something better than "Oh, well those stats don't matter" or "The knicks were confused so it doesn't count"

This is some classic Dre here. As pathetic as ever.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> :laugh:
> 
> What's the matter, don't want your feeling hurt?
> 
> ...


And classic R-Star, doesn't give a damn about basketball until it involves LeBron, a player saying something stupid, or the Pacers. If it's not that you have no insight for us. 

Who's going to win the NBA title and why?

Who's the MVP and why?

You don't know unless you have someone to quote and say "exactly, good post", do you. If you can answer those for me maybe I can take you serious again 

All you do is act indignant about the Pacers and LeBron, bait, then act like a tough guy until you get the thread closed. Your posting game is Chris Webber status..I hear you squeaking down the court unable to even lift your legs as you hobble..I see you only being able to get rebounds that fall in your hands. I see you trying to dunk and throwing your back out...and I've seen it for about 3 years now..when you haven't been banned for being a 30 year old man who can't have a civilized discussion on a message board.

And I'll be my pathetic self, and as usual say you're on ignore status for the rest of the thread..grow the **** up


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> And classic R-Star, doesn't give a damn about basketball until it involves LeBron, a player saying something stupid, or the Pacers. If it's not that you have no insight for us.
> 
> Who's going to win the NBA title and why?
> 
> ...


I'm hoping the Lakers win the title this year. But who knows. At this time of year its always a crap shoot and we'll wait and see if the Lakers return to their dominant self come playoff time.

MVP? I didn't think it possible at the start of the season with the big 3 playing together, but I could see Lebron getting it. I didn't think he'd be getting the stats he has with 2 other stars on the team. You take him off the Heat and they're struggling to go anywhere, even with Wade and Bosh. 


Are you done running away from this discussion now? Or are you going to come up with more feeble reasons why Hansbroughs stats don't matter? "Sure he dropped 25, but ZBO laughed at him and made him look stupid so it doesn't matter!"

**** Dre. How pathetic. You completely run away and try to turn the discussion around on me. That sure worked out good for you didn't it?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I am confused though, how's a guy contributing to a playoff run putting up garbage points?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

HB said:


> I am confused though, how's a guy contributing to a playoff run putting up garbage points?


He isn't. Dre made a terrible stand and will now crumple like he always does.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB you're famous for being trapped by numbers. Lopez, Orlando Vince, Hansbrough...you've never heard of the word context.

And can we please stop talking about playoffs and all this like they're some solid 50 win team. They have 29 wins right now..they'd have to go 12 and 4 to even be .500..they suck less than a couple other teams, that's why they're an 8 seed. 

I've already said everything I've needed to say about Hansbrough in here, I don't reiterate and go back and forth for pages. If you want to know what I think it's up there. 

He's a rotation big who put up a couple 20 point games on 4 weak defenses and one slumping Sixer squad. Is that what passes as threadworthy


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He'd still be putting up efficient numbers on any of those 40-50 win teams out there. Does the name Taj Gibson ring a bell?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> HB you're famous for being trapped by numbers. Lopez, Orlando Vince, Hansbrough...you've never heard of the word context.
> 
> And can we please stop talking about playoffs and all this like they're some solid 50 win team. They have 29 wins right now..they'd have to go 12 and 4 to even be .500..they suck less than a couple other teams, that's why they're an 8 seed.
> 
> ...


_......and Dre runs away_


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> He'd still be putting up efficient numbers on any of those 40-50 win teams out there. Does the name Taj Gibson ring a bell?


What Taj Gibson offers the Bulls is infinitely more valuable than psycho T. Much better defender for one

And I'm not even saying the guy's a bum, like everything that's not blowing a guy on here is inferred as, but he's just a guy (c)Coatesvillain...people are actually in here trying to imply he could consistently do this which is what has me posting about it.

But in all your years of watching basketball you can't understand what meaningless points are I don't know what to say for you.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You are talking out your behind man, what the heck is a meaningless point? Since when did you become an expert on Indiana basketball by the way? How many Pacers games have you watched this season?

So last night when Tyler put up 30 against the Knicks in a win for the Pacers, those were meaningless points?

Every good team needs one of these hustle guys that will give you productive minutes when on court.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

What is the average production for 25 year old 13th round pics.

It is too early to tell. He is just too awkward to be great, but he could be good. One thing I did notice is that he is getting his shot blocked much less. But this streak is too short. He will never be a great rebounder. Also thru this and beyond the Amare thing, you have to look at what the other guy does as well. He is never going to be the MSU Guru on the blocks that is for sure.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> You are talking out your behind man, what the heck is a meaningless point? Since when did you become an expert on Indiana basketball by the way? How many Pacers games have you watched this season?


So I'm pretending to be an expert by saying 29 wins ain't ****



> So last night when Tyler put up 30 against the Knicks in a win for the Pacers, those were meaningless points?


They were if he can't replicate them. A fluke is a fluke. I just listed the 5 teams he's had this streak on, and of the 5 only the Sixers I'd be scared of defensively. And then not really.

I mean the threadstarter himself basically said he's acknowledged this is a fluke but it was cool to talk about.



> Every good team needs one of these hustle guys that will give you productive minutes when on court.


That's fine, but to act like he can consistently give you this production is neanderthalesque


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Well you realize that O'Brien isn't that good of a coach to begin with. He prefers his big men shoot 3's. You realize the Pacers started playing better after he was fired right?

I have always said Tyler will never be a star player. But he's the kind of guy you want on your team because he gives you 100% all the time.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> Well you realize that O'Brien isn't that good of a coach to begin with. He prefers his big men shoot 3's. You realize the Pacers started playing better after he was fired right?


Well aware of that..but what does that mean in context to this actual discussion



> I have always said Tyler will never be a star player. But he's the kind of guy you want on your team because he gives you 100% all the time.


Fine


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Tom said:


> What is the average production for 25 year old 13th round pics.
> 
> It is too early to tell. He is just too awkward to be great, but he could be good. One thing I did notice is that he is getting his shot blocked much less. But this streak is too short. He will never be a great rebounder. Also thru this and beyond the Amare thing, you have to look at what the other guy does as well. He is never going to be the MSU Guru on the blocks that is for sure.


He'll never be a great anything. But he can be a hustle/spark plug type of guy who puts up some decent points. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> So I'm pretending to be an expert by saying 29 wins ain't ****
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"They were if he can't replicate them" in regards to his 30 against the Knicks? I'd call the 29 the game before pretty solid replication.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dre said:


> *Well aware of that..but what does that mean in context to this actual discussion
> *


Ummm when you go about saying 29 wins aint ****, you should realize that a good part of the season was under a coach that was not playing to his strengths.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> Ummm when you go about saying 29 wins aint ****, you should realize that a good part of the season was under a coach that was not playing to his strengths.


So playing to Hansbrough's strengths would have made them significantly better

So is he a sparkplug hustle guy or a substantial component of the offense? 

You're trying to have it both ways


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Actually, a sparkplug _is_ a substantial component of the offense.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dre said:


> So playing to Hansbrough's strengths would have made them significantly better
> 
> So is he a sparkplug hustle guy or a substantial component of the offense?
> 
> You're trying to have it both ways


I take it you've not seen HKF complaining about how Roy Hibbert and the bigs on Indy were misused under O'Brien


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

R-Star said:


> He'll never be a great anything. But he can be a hustle/spark plug type of guy who puts up some decent points. Nothing wrong with that.



The key for him is whether or not he can stay on the floor.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> I take it you've not seen HKF complaining about how Roy Hibbert and the bigs on Indy were misused under O'Brien


Answer my question. Would they be substantially better if they were giving Hansbrough these minutes all year?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dre said:


> As long as we agree that he's a rotation big that's cool, but is this really "outstanding" basketball, or is it just "outstanding" relative to what people thought about him before. He's not playing outstanding defense, he's not rebounding on an outstanding level, he's just scoring at an outstanding efficiency. But you're the same guy who says Carmelo is overrated.


Outstanding relative to what people thought of him before. Everything is relative to who the player is. When you say Shane Battier is playing outstanding basketball, it doesn't mean the same thing as when you say LeBron James is playing outstanding basketball. Kind of obvious. 

Yes, Carmelo is overrated, like Iverson was overrated. People will make excuses for him his whole career though, so it's not worth the argument.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dre said:


> Answer my question. Would they be substantially better if they were giving Hansbrough these minutes all year?


Probably. Their starting power forward for a good while was Josh McRoberts after all. You know the one they were trying to trade.

And the crazy thing is McRoberts is still not putting up better numbers than Hansbrough who is coming off the bench.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Answer my question. Would they be substantially better if they were giving Hansbrough these minutes all year?


You're floundering now.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

Dre said:


> Answer my question. Would they be substantially better if they were giving Hansbrough these minutes all year?


James ****ing Posey was getting more minutes than Hansbrough at the 4 spot, of course they would be better... I witnessed Posey guarding Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Pau, etc., tell me what he brings to the table on defense and offense more than drawing the occasional offensive foul and bricking a few threes?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

So by saying he's that important he's not just the cute glue guy who scrapes his elbow and loses teeth you feel like he's an important component of your offense. 

Which means you think he's probably more than a "rotation big", more like a quality starter...which he's not...that's what I'm getting at here.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> So by saying he's that important he's not just the cute glue guy who scrapes his elbow and loses teeth you feel like he's an important component of your offense.
> 
> Which means you think he's probably more than a "rotation big", *more like a quality starter...which he's not...that's what I'm getting at here.*


more like.... you're putting words in peoples mouths. 


Quote one person who said that. No? Oh. Ok then.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Also I have to laugh at Dre for saying a guy who's averaged 25ppg over the last 5 games isn't an important part to the Pacers offense.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

Dre said:


> So by saying he's that important he's not just the cute glue guy who scrapes his elbow and loses teeth you feel like he's an important component of your offense.
> 
> Which means you think he's probably more than a "rotation big", more like a quality starter...which he's not...that's what I'm getting at here.


Your question was whether or not the Pacers would be a substantially better team, not would playoff teams be better with Tyler Hansbrough receiving 20+ minutes.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

combine results

Hansbrough: *no step* 27.5 *max vert* 34.0 *bench* 18 reps *lane agility* 11.12 *3/4 court sprint* 3.27
L Aldridge: *no step* 26.5 *max vert* 34.0 *bench* 8 reps *lane agility* 12.02 *3/4 court sprint* 3.43
Kevin Love: *no step* 29.5 *max vert* 35.0 *bench* 18 reps *lane agility* 11.17 *3/4 court sprint* 3.22
B Griffin: *no step* 32.0 *max vert* 36.0 *bench* 22 reps *lane agility* 10.95 *3/4 court sprint* 3.28

Hansbrough has the same standing reach and wingspan as Love, better than Griffin and he's more athletic than people are giving him credit for being


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

The difference is it takes a lot longer to get off the floor once...let alone twice. Tyler has to collect himself.

That was a hard dunk an Amare though


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Box Man said:


> Your question was whether or not the Pacers would be a substantially better team, n*ot would playoff teams be better with Tyler Hansbrough receiving 20+ minutes.*


What does that mean, where did I say anything that you thought slanted the argument towards that


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Hansbrough's been an integral part of the Pacers' offense lately. It's not that he's really playing any differently, though. He still scraps and works for all his points and rebounds, but we're just giving him looks. We're not exactly running the offense through him because he's a pretty poor passer, but he's been given some double teams because players can't stop him one on one. He has a high post, low post, and triple threat game, not to mention that he has a very good jumper out to 18 feet. Simply put, the guy has an offensive repertoire. It's not the best, but he's a good player and he'll be in the NBA for a while.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

he's better than Adam Morrison


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

A whopping 2% of the people that posted in this thread have watched him play for more than 100 total minutes this season. That is all.


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> At best he could be a pauper's Scola


Great comparison. They have similar games. He's also a little Brandon Bass-ish, but maybe better? I can't decide yet.

I'll admit I was wrong. I thought Hansbrough would be an NBA washout, or a Mark Madsen-ish 12th man. I don't care who's he doing it against, the guy's proving he can play in the league, and he's not afraid of anyone.

I like him, even though American white guys playing well usually get trashed on this board, unfortunately.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> A whopping 2% of the people that posted in this thread have watched him play for more than 100 total minutes this season. That is all.


You know this how?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> You know this how?


Reading the posts.

"I was looking at his game log..."

"Well when he plays 30+ minutes he averages 14.6 points..."

"I remember one play against the Grizzlies..."


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Jamel Irief said:


> Reading the posts.
> 
> "I was looking at his game log..."
> 
> ...


if this is the case then from what I saw him doing to Amare this morning on ESPN he's f-ing Blake Griffin


----------



## jayk009 (Aug 6, 2003)

so if he was the main option on a team like the Knicks, would he do better than David Lee?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

jayk009 said:


> so if he was the main option on a team like the Knicks, would he do better than David Lee?


I think he might be even better than Moses McLovin


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

e-monk said:


> if this is the case then from what I saw him doing to Amare this morning on ESPN he's f-ing Blake Griffin


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Dwight Howard's superman 'dunk'


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

1-10


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

Dre said:


> What does that mean, where did I say anything that you thought slanted the argument towards that





dre said:


> Which means you think he's probably more than a "rotation big", more like a quality starter...which he's not...that's what I'm getting at here.


You think he's a rotation big, not a quality starter. He's a quality starter for the Pacers and has been an important part of their offense since Vogel has taken over. Had he been playing this many minutes without Jim O'Brien all year the Pacers would have a better record. The 4 spot for the Pacers has been very weak all year and they're just now getting around to fixing it.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Box Man said:


> You think he's a rotation big, not a quality starter. He's a quality starter for the Pacers and has been an important part of their offense since Vogel has taken over. Had he been playing this many minutes without Jim O'Brien all year the Pacers would have a better record. The 4 spot for the Pacers has been very weak all year and they're just now getting around to fixing it.


Oh, so you're trying to play the relative card. Perhaps he's a quality starter in a 40-44 win effort at best, but that doesn't move any meters. I mean..who isn't


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If you replace Posey with Hansbrough that's a big gain. Posey has been toast since the day he signed that deal with the Hornets


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

Dre said:


> Oh, so you're trying to play the relative card. Perhaps he's a quality starter in a 40-44 win effort at best, but that doesn't move any meters. I mean..who isn't


Not playing a "relative card" at all. Not once have I argued about him being a quality starter or a rotation player for any other team. He's the best PF the Pacers have and had not been utilized properly until February. Hell, he was playing 9 minutes a game in December. I watch the Pacers and I know he's good for us and we could be better had he been playing the minutes he deserved all year.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Hans has 23/8 with 3 minutes left int he 3rd quarter against the Bulls right now.

The guy absolutely works his ass off and gives it his all every minute he is on the floor. I was at UNC for the 4 years that we had Hans and he was one the most focused players we ever had. Dude was all about winning and playing with passion. I love it that he is playing well and proving all his doubters wrong.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Considering the Bulls are the best defensive team in the league, safe to say this aint no fluke no?

O yeah the Pacers have a 13 point lead. Meaningless points....I think not.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bulls must be confused. 

Hansbrough did suck against Boston though. Still don't think you can just write off the way this guy is playing. His team is in a playoff race and competitive, and he is balling.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> I always call shenanigans when someone brags about the stats of a big but don't mention rebounds or a point and don't mention assists. Or they don't mention the team's record during this stat breakthrough.
> 
> Last time I watched him he dunked and screamed at ZBo and proceeded to get pimped all across the court until his coach mercifully benched him.


Not taking account of tonight that he already has a double-double, but in the previous ten games he's averaged 19.3ppg, 7.5rpg shooting 49.7% from the field in just 32.4mpg. None of you thought he'd be playing like this in the NBA.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Tyler finished with 29/12 on 12-19 from the field in 35 minutes of play against the Bulls front court. Just like people from UNC have been saying for a while, he can play folks, there was a reason why he was drafted in the lotto.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

I don't think I've watched him for more than 100 minutes combined in his college and NBA career. Or at least 100 minutes I can remember, so I'm not here to pass my opinion on him or anything just want to say that it's good to hear he won't be a bust/ isn't one.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I kind of like Psycho T: got to like a guy who works hard and while he's a touch undersized he's not a bad athlete.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Practically all good PF's these days have some weakness. Either undersized, don't play defense, don't rebound , or something else. So why hate on this guy. He goes out and does the best her can. What more could you want from him ??

They have needed someone to give a spark to this team for a while. He's better than McRoberts, He's helping them nail down a playoff spot. And he's saving Bird's job !

Hmmm, see what a timely coaching change can do. Too bad Dumars didn't get the hint !


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

HB said:


> Not taking account of tonight that he already has a double-double, but in the previous ten games he's averaged 19.3ppg, 7.5rpg shooting 49.7% from the field in just 32.4mpg. None of you thought he'd be playing like this in the NBA.


Bird said he drafted him because he reminded him of himself: A guy people didn't think could play in the NBA. Whichever teams its against, its an NBA team full of millionaires. That's all that matters.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Seanzie said:


> I'll admit I was wrong. I thought Hansbrough would be an NBA washout, or a Mark Madsen-ish 12th man. I don't care who's he doing it against, the guy's proving he can play in the league, and he's not afraid of anyone.


I agree with this. 

It's cool seeing a guy who's told he doesn't have what it takes bust his ass and produce. Even if it's for just a little. 

His effort to me shows that he'll forge a good career in the NBA. Teams love players who bust their hump. 

And it doesn't come off as stat padding.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I can't wait to see him tonight. His rematch with ZBo will tell me a lot about him because ZBo really tries to destroy these newbie NBA PFs. I mean he mind ****ed Love and Griffin into submissions.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Memphis. Zach Randolph is beasting this season. Getting crapper on by Randolph isn't anything to hang your head over, Z-Bo is legit.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Tragedy said:


> Memphis. Zach Randolph is beasting this season. Getting crapper on by Randolph isn't anything to hang your head over, Z-Bo is legit.




He shoul have some skills to exploit ZBo and he shoal compete. Love and Griffin had quit by the 2nd half.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

on a back to back against a great team he should get used. I think he will hit the bench early with fouls.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It's not a contract year for him, right?


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Next year


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Bulls must be confused.
> 
> Hansbrough did suck against Boston though. Still don't think you can just write off the way this guy is playing. His team is in a playoff race and competitive, and he is balling.


I was at the Bulls-Pacers game in Indy, and gotta say Hansbrough's game just screamed fluke to me. 

He literally could not miss a jumpshot from that 15-20 foot area. Hit about 6 in a row at one point, then missed a few, then hit another 4-5 in a row (including a few killers toward end of the game).

Now, I give the guy his props for hitting big shots. BUT...barely any of his points were the "reliable" kind around the basket. He had a few O-rebounds and putbacks, but most of his points were mid-range jumpshots; he struggled to get anything off around the hoop. I think he's going through a hot streak where his J is working for him. This isn't Dirk Nowitzki where he can craft his whole game around jumpshots. Eventually that J will come back to earth and so will his stats.

This seems more like he's pulling a Ronald Murray on us. Flying under the radar, not being scouted well, and making teams pay while he stays hot; which yes, may last until end of the season. He'll revert back to an average NBA player by next season, IMO.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

great post...he does shoot a lot of Jump shots. He will be a hot cold guy for sure


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Anyone want to tell me Hansbrough sucks after todays performance? He was huge out there today.

Where's Dre?


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

To be fair, he went ham on Boozer.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

stud


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

the kind of psychopath you want on your team in the playoffs.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

If they hadn't continually run the ball through Granger late in the game, they'd have won this game. They need to get him involved more.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Anyone want to tell me Hansbrough sucks after todays performance? He was huge out there today.
> 
> Where's Dre?


I was at work.

Noone said he "sucks", and that's why I can't have a proper conversation with most of you on here.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> I was at work.
> 
> Noone said he "sucks", and that's why I can't have a proper conversation with most of you on here.


Read your own posts in here. You weren't even pegging him as an acceptable starter. Stand by your word, or admit being wrong.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

He had a nice game but he's never going to be the best big on a championship team. Hell, I don't know if I'd even peg him as a starter on a contender. He's a great hustle player to have but he doesn't do anything exceptionally well ouside of shooting the mid range jumper and he's too much of a liability otherwise.

He's more of a first big off the bench type. A good player to have on your team, and in the right position probably a sixth man of the year canidate or something, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with him as a starter.

He took Boozer's lunch money today though. Really impressive game for him.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

See that was not the point of the thread. Here's a guy that a lot where saying he's going to be a bum in the NBA. Who cares if he is the first big on a championship team or not, Odom isn't starting for the Lakers is he? The guy can play period. He gives quality minutes every time he is out there on the floor. The best comparison is Udonis Haslem though I am pretty sure Haslem would be starting for the Heat right now if he were healthy.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> He had a nice game but he's never going to be the best big on a championship team. Hell, I don't know if I'd even peg him as a starter on a contender. He's a great hustle player to have but he doesn't do anything exceptionally well ouside of shooting the mid range jumper and he's too much of a liability otherwise.
> 
> He's more of a first big off the bench type. A good player to have on your team, and in the right position probably a sixth man of the year canidate or something, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with him as a starter.
> 
> He took Boozer's lunch money today though. Really impressive game for him.


I get so tired of hearing this ****. "I don't think he could be the best big on a championship team". There's a small, small handful of guys who can be the best big on a championship team. No one tried to label Hansbrough as a superstar big. He can't be a starter on a contender though? Why is that? He was already the best/2nd best player on the Pacers today who almost took out the best in the league Bulls. Why exactly could he not be a starter on a team where hes the 4th option? He easily could. There's your answer.

Hansbrough is without a doubt a solid starter. Not a star/superstar, but a solid starter whos only going to improve.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> I get so tired of hearing this ****. "I don't think he could be the best big on a championship team". There's a small, small handful of guys who can be the best big on a championship team. No one tried to label Hansbrough as a superstar big. He can't be a starter on a contender though? Why is that? He was already the best/2nd best player on the Pacers today who almost took out the best in the league Bulls. Why exactly could he not be a starter on a team where hes the 4th option? He easily could. There's your answer.
> 
> Hansbrough is without a doubt a solid starter. Not a star/superstar, but a solid starter whos only going to improve.


Look at the last five champions and tell me which one of them Hansbrough could've started on. He's a solid player, obviously could start on a playoff team (considering that's what he's doing) but I wouldn't want to enter June with him in my starting lineup, period.

I don't disagree with you. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Stop being a hater Vanilla, you multiple asterisks you


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Excuse me for just a quick sec, but isnt Bonner starting for the Spurs? Arent they supposed to be championship contenders?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

HB said:


> Excuse me for just a quick sec, but isnt Bonner starting for the Spurs? Arent they supposed to be championship contenders?


They're the third best team in their conference and there's three teams in the east that would beat them in a best of seven. So no, not really.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dre said:


> Stop being a hater Vanilla, you multiple asterisks you


Quit running bro.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

VanillaPrice said:


> They're the third best team in their conference and there's three teams in the east that would beat them in a best of seven. So no, not really.


Pretty sure most of the folks in the media and the sports world consider SA to be one of the teams that can win the title this year.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

HB said:


> Pretty sure most of the folks in the media and the sports world consider SA to be one of the teams that can win the title this year.


Pretty sure most of the folks in the media and the sports world thought that Steve Nash was the MVP two years in a row. Not exactly the most credible bunch.

And hell, I haven't seen anyone pick the Spurs to come out over the Lakers and most analysts have OKC over them. Not that it matters, if they get out of the second round I'll be shocked.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dude you are just arguing for argument' sake now. Would you like me to pull up the San Antonio thread in the NBA forum, they won over 60 games guy. Just because they are the third best team in the West doesn't mean they don't have a shot at it. You know there can be more than two contenders in a conference right?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

HB said:


> Dude you are just arguing for argument' sake now. Would you like me to pull up the San Antonio thread. Just because they are the third best team in the West doesn't mean they don't have a shot at it. You know there can be more than two contenders in a conference right?


There are five teams in the league right now that are better then the Spurs. How many contenders do you think there are?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

What five teams? In the West anyone can beat anyone. No certainties

How many teams won over 60 games this year?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

HB said:


> What five teams? In the West anyone can beat anyone. No certainties
> 
> How many teams won over 60 games this year?


Lakers, Heat, Bulls, Thunder, and Celtics are all better. Oh really, anyone can beat anyone? So you actually think that the Hornets have a chance against the Lakers? C'mon now.

Yeah because the team with the best regular season record *always* wins the championship right?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The Hornets you have a point, but you know what that's the weakest team in the WC playoffs talent-wise. The Spurs aren't the Mavs, they actually have guys who have been to the mountain top and won it. They are also being coached by one of the best in the game. I dont know if they will win it all this year but I am pretty damn sure they are a contender.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Read your own posts in here. You weren't even pegging him as an acceptable starter. Stand by your word, or admit being wrong.


So he thought Collison would be a star and Psycho T a bench scrub. No more comments on the Pacers Dre.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Bird is livin off an exaggerated legacy too :raised_ey


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dre said:


> I mean he can be a rotation big somewhere but I hope he doesn't fool some poor GM and Coach into committing to him with a straight face.


My first post in here on the subject and in 3 years I *guarantee* that will stand. All that extra **** people wanna roller coaster you through doesn't matter as long as your point is intact


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I still think Hansbrough is too limited to play consistently good basketball. 

He has burned the Bulls twice now this season where he shot the ball like Larry Bird from 15-20 feet, even with defenders in his face (and with Boozer guarding him, it was often the wide open variety). Credit goes to him for not only hitting those shots but hitting them at key moments in both games. But I still have a hard time seeing a guy like him feast off that game in and game out.

Under the basket he can be active, though he too often gets forced into high difficulty shots and doesn't have the reliable post moves or physical attributes to score consistently. Against the Bulls he didn't get much down there from what I saw (though I missed the 3rd quarter). He only had 4 rebounds and the Pacers got badly outrebounded, with alot of 2nd chance pts for the Bulls.

So I basically agree that he is not an ideal starting big man. A worthy 6th man type would be fine.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> My first post in here on the subject and in 3 years I *guarantee* that will stand. All that extra **** people wanna roller coaster you through doesn't matter as long as your point is intact


Oh, so you guarantee? You bold guarantee? He's going to what? Get worse?

Hes already more than a "rotation big" hes at worst a decent 6th man. You're wrong, you made a bad prediction. Be a man and live to it. I have with many players. No one on here is right 100% of the time, but your *guarantee* is pretty god damn hilarious. Guarantee? Like you're some kind of font of basketball knowledge around here?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

People keep trying to discredit this guy. At first, it was he will never make it in the league at all. Then he not only breaks the rotation, but he starts for the Pacers for the last part of the year, and suddenly it was all just garbage time (even though they were in a playoff race). Then he has a great first playoff game, and now it's he'll never be a franchise player. Duh. What's next? He'll never be as good as Hakeem Olajuwon! 

He is exceeding expectations of him by becoming a valuable asset in this league. That alone makes a bunch of people in this thread wrong.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> People keep trying to discredit this guy. At first, it was he will never make it in the league at all. Then he not only breaks the rotation, but he starts for the Pacers for the last part of the year, and suddenly it was all just garbage time (even though they were in a playoff race). Then he has a great first playoff game, and now it's he'll never be a franchise player. Duh. What's next? He'll never be as good as Hakeem Olajuwon!
> 
> He is exceeding expectations of him by becoming a valuable asset in this league. That alone makes a bunch of people in this thread wrong.


Agreed. People just keep trying to change their initial argument to make their wrong opinions look better.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

uhh he was a lotto pick. How is that exceeding expectations? He's doing what he's doing but does not deserve extra kudos for anything


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Rotation big, like I said. All that other **** to dance around my point doesn't register...he's a rotation big. And he's not more than that on any kind of team that matters.

You can blow him for his feats in this series but you can also tell me how much he factored into a 4-1 loss at best


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Even on his best day, he isn't as good as Dwight Howard. That's all that really matters.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Oh ok, now you're on that tip. And the conversation won't be recovered. 

Keep the masking and insults to a minimum so I don't have to venture in here too much


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm just saying. It doesn't really matter if you perform well in the regular season or playoffs. Especially if you're Tyler Hansbrough. He will never lead a team to a title or anything.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Rotation big, like I said. All that other **** to dance around my point doesn't register...he's a rotation big. And he's not more than that on any kind of team that matters.
> 
> You can blow him for his feats in this series but you can also tell me how much he factored into a 4-1 loss at best


:laugh: I was waiting for you to bring up the "The Pacers will still lose so that means he's still just a rotation big". Guess Granger is just a rotation guy because the Pacers can't beat the best in the league Bulls.

Honestly, you're just coming off as pathetic now. A rotation big is Brian Scalibrini. Jeff Foster is a quality rotation big. That's all Hansbrough is going to be? We've shown stats where hes been on fire since becoming a starter, he had a very impressive first playoff game, but yea, you're right, just a rotation big. 

And "dance around my point"? With what? Stats? Points?

Keep posting. Honestly, keep it up. I'm enjoying your idiocy.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre said:


> Oh ok, now you're on that tip. And the conversation won't be recovered.
> 
> Keep the masking and insults to a minimum so I don't have to venture in here too much


You're a coward.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ATLien said:


> uhh he was a lotto pick. How is that exceeding expectations? He's doing what he's doing but does not deserve extra kudos for anything


He was compared to Mark Madsen and Eduardo Najera. Two guys who have *career highs* less than 20 points after many years in the league. I'd say he has pretty well exceeded that.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

There are lottery picks and then there are lottery picks. Any team picking 13 in the draft where Hansborough as picked would be happy with what he's putting up. Most guys picked in this range don't make it in the league.

Bird doesn't seem to be good at all aspects of being a GM but he's done a good job drafting on the whole. He has picked Granger, Hansborough, Bayless (traded away on draft night), Hibbert (traded for a few nights after the draft). Not bed for not having any selections in the top 10 (his highest position has been ten in this years draft)


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

yodurk said:


> I still think Hansbrough is too limited to play consistently good basketball.
> 
> He has burned the Bulls twice now this season where he shot the ball like Larry Bird from 15-20 feet, even with defenders in his face (and with Boozer guarding him, it was often the wide open variety). Credit goes to him for not only hitting those shots but hitting them at key moments in both games. But I still have a hard time seeing a guy like him feast off that game in and game out.
> 
> ...


I promise that Hans was hitting those shots at UNC with great consistency. It's not like he is suddenly hitting shots that he was never able to previously. 

His game isn't pretty and he puts up a lot of stuff that you would think has no chance of going in, until you start seeing them go in and in time and time again. People really underrate him because he is goofy and white. He has a nice touch around the basket, he has a nice mid range jumper, he is deceivingly athletic, strong, has a high motor and works extremely hard.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Drewbs said:


> I promise that Hans was hitting those shots at UNC with great consistency. It's not like he is suddenly hitting shots that he was never able to previously.
> 
> His game isn't pretty and he puts up a lot of stuff that you would think has no chance of going in, until you start seeing them go in and in time and time again. People really underrate him because he is goofy and white. He has a nice touch around the basket, he has a nice mid range jumper, he is deceivingly athletic, strong, has a high motor and works extremely hard.


I don't deny any of that, I do know he would hit those mid-range J's at UNC even though he didn't shoot them too often.

But come on...in his last 2 games against the Bulls he's been hitting about 75% of his shots from 15-20 feet out, and while many of those were wide open, there were plenty that weren't. Even the purest of the pure shooters don't shoot like that, and I wouldn't exactly classify Tyler as a pure shooter. He is bound to come back to earth.

Btw, out of his 22 pts yesterday, 12 came on mid-range shots, 2 at FT line, and 8 were in the paint (at least 2 of which were on that steal/dunk on Boozer).


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

Hansbrough looked good yesterday, I'll give the man more props. He's been surprisingly good. He's got NBA quickness, which I didn't expect.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

The Bulls need to play him like they are. It is better that they don't get anyone in foul trouble and he won't shoot well enough in each game to change a loss to a win. Tyler is a winner and is a decent athlete(nothing decptive about it). He knows how to play in winning time and doesn't shrink from the pressure.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

6/6 on 2 of 12 shooting...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Boozer really turned the tables on Hansbrough in Game 2. I think Tyler had 0 rebounds in 20-something minutes at one point, and the Bulls were just owning the boards all game.

With Boozer it's all about motivation and I think Hansbrough's Game 1 performance might've hit a nerve.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Quite Frankly said:


> 6/6 on 2 of 12 shooting...


One game. They should drop him to the D league now eh?


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

I still think the coach is the biggest problem. He has them motivated to play but his offense isn't great down the stretch. As far as Hansbrough they need to give the guy some touches on the block...especially if Big man is struggling. They HAVE to get the other teams front line in foul trouble or the rest is a waste of time. You can't rely on Hansbrough hitting jumpers off the pick.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

R-Star said:


> One game. They should drop him to the D league now eh?





R-Star said:


> Anyone want to tell me Hansbrough sucks after todays performance? He was huge out there today.
> 
> Where's Dre?


I think it's funny how I point out one bad game and you criticize my statement. Yet when he "went ham" on Boozer in game one, you were in here challenging anyone to say that Hansbrough sucks after one good game.


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

One hit wonder?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Hopefully between this and the Conley thread HB retired his mission to bump threads where people where critical of role players after a single good game.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You do realize in this game he has 13pts 11 rebs right now and the game isn't even over. And who's debating he is anything but a role player?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> You do realize in this game he has 13pts 11 rebs right now and the game isn't even over. And who's debating he is anything but a role player?


Holy crap! I didn't even realize there was a game on! Hell I thought he already retired!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You suck at humor, the "I told you so" routine suits you better


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> You suck at humor, the "I told you so" routine suits you better


Thanks for the tip, I can tell it was from the heart.

What did I "tell you so" about in this thread? I don't remember saying anything really about Psycho T.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Its your 'schtick'....you pop up in these threads, give your cute little responses, act like your opinion trumps all...used to it by now though. I still don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread....are you agreeing with the one hit wonder guy? Did you even read through the thread?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Does that make me a 'gimmick poster'? I've always wanted to achieve that status. 

The guy isn't playing any better in the playoffs than the regular season, hell arguably worse, but yet you bumped the thread to show all his doubters up.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You are right his post season play isnt that much different from his regular season play, but then again his regular season play was decent. Now some folks refuse to acknowledge that, but this guy can actually give any team, not just the Pacers decent minutes at that position. He reminds me of Haslem


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> You are right his post season play isnt that much different from his regular season play, but then again his regular season play was decent. Now some folks refuse to acknowledge that, but this guy can actually give any team, not just the Pacers decent minutes at that position. He reminds me of Haslem


Why would you bump a thread if he was doing more of the same?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why would you bump a thread if he was doing more of the same?


Because more of the same has been pretty damn good. If you don't see that, you're an idiot.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Because more of the same has been pretty damn good. If you don't see that, you're an idiot.


Hansbrough outputs X 

HB: "Is he good?"

Doubters: "No"

Hansbrough continues to output X

HB: "What about NOW!?"

Doubters: "I still have the same opinion since he hasn't improved"


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> Why would you bump a thread if he was doing more of the same?


Heh that was the game he destroyed Boozer, that wasn't bump worthy? Good games shouldn't be talked about?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

HB said:


> Heh that was the game he destroyed Boozer, that wasn't bump worthy? Good games shouldn't be talked about?


One good game is not bump worthy no. You didn't see anyone bumping "Cavs will suck without Lebron" threads after they beat the Lakers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> One good game is not bump worthy no. You didn't see anyone bumping "Cavs will suck without Lebron" threads after they beat the Lakers.


Except most level headed fans agree Hansbrough is a decent starter.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Except most level headed fans agree Hansbrough is a decent starter.


Yeah but the people who don't think he is won't switch their opinion based on one game.


----------

