Pacers Pre-Season Preview 2019/20

by Matt Phairas

My personal Pacers pre-season preview!

CURRENT ROSTER

PG - Brogdon, Holiday

SG - Oladipo, Lamb, Sumner

C - Turner, Bitadze

PF - Sabonis, Leaf

SF - Warren, McDermott

Point guard looks to be one of our strongest positions. Getting Brogdon was huge. He's young, he's big, he plays D and hits threes! And he's coming off the best year of his career. Chances are he still has some improvement left to add on to his 15.6 ppg. Holiday showed some flashes last year of what his game could be. He should only get better.

Shooting guard would obviously be a strong point as well if not for the Oladipo injury. However, there is some quality depth there that should be able to fill in admirably until Oladipo can return. Lamb isn't the explosive scorer Oladipo is, but he does lots of things well. He's solid and when you pair him with an improving Sumner, the Pacers should be able to keep themselves in the playoff hunt until Dipo returns.

Center is solid. Turner is an elite rim protector and can stretch the floor. He hasn't made "the jump" we keep hoping for, but even so, he can score and can stretch the floor. His rebounding is still weak and needs to show improvement and he needs to be more physical. If Turner can improve in those areas and if Bitadze is as good as the hype we've heard, the center position could move from "solid" to "strong". 

Power Forward will be better than last year if the Pacers let Sabonis start, which seems likely now that Thad Young is gone. Sabonis will be a double double machine and is physical and tough and should thrive playing starter's minutes. Leaf has shown some good moments, and I've got high hopes for him, but it remains to be seen if he can be a consistent contributor. If Leaf shows improvement and consistency, the future of the PF position is bright.

Shooting Forward is the biggest question mark. Losing Bogs was tough because you knew what you had with him. Warren is a total unknown to most Pacer fans, but his stats are almost identical to Bogdanovich's (both averaged 18ppg, 4rebs and 42% from 3) and should add a little more versatility and athleticism to the position. McDermott seemed like he started coming on strong towards the end of last season. If he can settle into a more defined role he'll be instant offense off the bench. 

In summary, there are, of course, lots of questions. Can Turner improve? Will Sabonis be as effective as a starter? Is TJ Warren an upgrade at SF? Will Brogdon be the player he was with the Bucks? And will Oladipo come back and eventually reach 100%? If the answers to those questions are "Yes", the Pacers should be able to stay in the playoff hunt around the #6 or 7 seed until Oladipo returns. If Victor comes back healthy, has no set-backs and gets stronger as the season progresses, the Pacers could move up a couple playoff seeds and be an incredibly dangerous #5-ish seed and could easily make some serious noise in the playoffs. 

Prediction: 45 wins - #6 playoff seed

Dungy's clarification rings hollow

I wouldn't have had that much of an issue with Dungy's original comment, or with this clarification, had he not campaigned so freaking hard on Michael Vick's behalf when Vick got out of jail and was looking for a team to sign him. Dungy didn't seem to mind the distraction that Vick was to become for whoever signed him (and Vick certainly WAS a distraction early on with the Eagles). Dungy was too busy preaching about second chances and redemption. 

The fact is, Vick's story played perfectly with Dungy's Christian beliefs and the notion of redemption, of being forgiven, whereas Sam's story demands tolerance and love, no strings attached, without the precluding act of forgiveness. Just straight up acceptance.

So, Dungy can try to act like this isn't about his intolerance of homosexuality, but instead about avoiding distractions, but his track record speaks volumes. 

Another Taxing Argument

A few things about this recent outrage over Olympic medal winners paying taxes on their winnings (American athletes are given prize money of $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze):

1. This is not a new tax. According to Dara Torres, while sitting in with Fox & Friends, athletes weren't given prize money for winning medals before 2000, so they weren't taxed. When they started getting paid at the 2000 Olympics, they started paying taxes on the winnings. So, this isn't a new "Obama tax".

2. The numbers cited for the taxes an athlete would pay ($8,986 for gold, $5,385 for silver and $$3,502 for bronze)  are based on the athletes earning over $388,350 a year, which would put them in the highest tax bracket (35%). That's probably not the case for most of these athletes. And, if it is, like for returning athletes who have already made millions in endorsements, paying taxes on their winnings (just like they pay taxes on their endorsement money) isn't going to cause much discomfort.

3.  The dollar amounts cited above also assume the value of the medal itself is taxed.  But, according to Mark Jones, the communications director for the U.S. Olympic Committee, there is no value to the medals and there is no tax associated with them.

4. Training and travel expenses are tax deductible, so writing off the amount of money they are taxed in their winnings won't be hard to manage.

5. Taxing Olympic winners on their prize money may seem outlandish at first blush, and it pushes our patriotic buttons, but consider this:  Our military personnel serve overseas, putting their lives on the line, and their income is taxed. If we're going to exempt Olympic athletes from paying taxes on their winnings, shouldn't we first exempt our military? And do we only exempt Olympic athletes? What about our athletes who participate in the World Games? The World Championships?  What about our golfers who play in the Ryder Cup? What games are "patriotic" enough to be worthy of exemption? Where do we stop?

I think this story is much ado about nothing, brought up to draw attention to those who want to beat their chests and claim their patriotic superiority.  If this was truly such an outrage, why no mention of it during the 2000 Games?  2004?  2008?  Might this be a politically motivated argument?

Most of these athletes are going to cash in big time for winning their medals. And, as great as that is (them winning), and as much as we all enjoy the patriotism we feel while watching our athletes succeed, I'd worry more about how we treat our military than I would these athletes.

Pacers' Playoff Chances 2012

I love the narrative that the talking heads are buying into that the Pacers, while they've had a nice year, just don't have the experience to get to the ECF. Oh sure, the West pick up was nice, bringing in Hill from the Spurs was good, Granger has improved his overall game, Hibbert has gotten better, Paul George is a talented young player, their 2nd unit is dangerous... but they lack that oh-so-elusive "experience" quotient.

Full disclosure: I would have been fine with the Pacers missing the playoffs last year in order to have a chance at a higher draft pick, but I was wrong about that. The experience they got in that Bulls series is going to serve them well this year. That experience, coupled with Vogel's constant preaching that anything is possible with this team, has this team in position to make a run this year.

Now, another argument I've heard, and the one that concerns me the most, is that not having a go-to-guy, a superstar, could be their downfall. The NBA is a superstar driven league, and the Pacers don't have a bonafide star. (All due respect to Reggie Miller, but that was the missing piece in those 90's Pacer teams, too.)

Because of that, I've seen them struggle getting a last second shot off at the end of games. Someone ends up dribbling the ball around until they're forced to chuck something up.  That's when you need a superstar, a Rose, a Durant, who can blow past people and drive the lane or find a way to get an open look. I'd like to see Paul George get that mentality and not settle for a fall away 3 in that situation.

But, if this team gets into a rhythm offensively (i.e., Granger doesn't go 3-15), those last second shots won't even come into play. They've shown they can grind out games and figure out ways to win during their 12-3 April. It's time to continue that into the playoffs.

I predict they beat the Heat in the 2nd round and make it to the Eastern Conference Finals.

Jim Caldwell Deserves Much More Of The Blame

I was talking with my brother about the revelation that Peyton Manning had a 4th procedure done on his neck that hadn’t previously been reported, and how that’s not going to help his stock in the free agency market.

We were talking about what the Colts’ record would have been with Manning last year, and he said Manning would have thrown for 5,000 yards, they would have won 9-11 games and maybe have made the playoffs. I can’t disagree with any of that. Three guys threw for over 5,000 yards last year, so it’s not crazy to think Manning would have, too.

I was thinking, though, how it’s been talked to death about how Manning was SO valuable to this team that his not being there plummeted them to a two win season. And, of course, Manning is incredibly valuable to the Colts. No doubt at all about that.

But, I go back to a point my brother made when the question was asked: How many Super Bowls would the Patriots and Colts have won had Brady and Manning been switched? He suggested the most important variable in that equation might actually be Bill Belichick, not Brady or Manning.

Which leads me to my question: How many games would the Colts have won without Manning last year if Belichick was the coach, and not Jim Caldwell? Why does the fact that the Colts plummeted to a two win season rest solely on the fact that Manning wasn’t there? Why doesn’t Caldwell get some, or at least more, of the blame? Yes, he was fired, but you don’t hear the argument that Caldwell was the reason they went 2-14. No, the reason they went 2-14, according to most people, was the absence of Manning, not the incompetence of Caldwell.

Caldwell just happened to be an innocent bystander who was taken out by the loss-of-Manning shrapnel. Poor fella.

Is Caldwell a good guy? By all accounts yes. But, was he a guy who could lead a team through a tough situation and keep them afloat? Obviously not. He made a desperate move by starting Kerry Collins when he should have started the year with Painter. He then stuck with Painter way too long after it became painfully obvious that Painter’s tenure with the team wasn’t going to translate to real world success.

The defense continued to flounder all year, which had very little to do with Manning. We saw no creativity, no imagination from Caldwell. Throughout it all, he stood there like a lump on a log while everything crashed down around him. Not a lick of fire. Not a bit of spunk. Not a moment of obvious leadership.

Meanwhile, Belichick had Julian Edelman, a wide receiver, returning kicks, playing on special teams and playing defensive back. He was running Aaron Hernandez, a tight end, out of the backfield for 66 yards versus the Broncos in the Divisional Playoff round. Belichick was making things happen with the guys he had, not standing on the sidelines letting the world pass him by.

The loss of Manning was huge. There’s no getting around that. But, no way would a quality coach like Belichick have let that team devolve into a 2-14 team. Let’s hope Chuck Pagano is a major step up from Caldwell and is prepared to lead this team, not just go along for the ride.

Go for four, Brady

I just read an article by a local Indianapolis writer, Bob Kravitz, in which he talked about Tom Brady possibly putting himself up there with Montana and Bradshaw as the only quarterbacks with four Super Bowl wins. Even though I'm a devoted Colts fan, there's a part of me that would take perverse pleasure in Brady getting that 4th Super Bowl and cementing himself in the upper, upper echelons of NFL QB-dom, and here's why... It has to do with where the Colts are in their progression from a Manning-led team to a Luck-led team.

For whatever reason, regardless of all the regular season success the Colts have had with Manning (and it's been historic), Manning's post-season performance and record doesn't match his regular season efforts. His QB rating goes down (97.4 to 88.3), he throws more interceptions, they lose more games. When it was time for him to step it up (or at least keep it level), more times than not he would get rattled and fall short of his regular season excellence. He'd end up walking off the field sporting the "Manning Face" as his team lost yet again to a team they should not have lost to (damn you Chargers!).

Meanwhile, Tom Brady was winning. He wasn't choking in the playoffs, he was advancing and winning multiple Super Bowls...not eeking out one Super Bowl victory and being given the Super Bowl MVP trophy when every knows it should have been shared by Rhodes and Addai, if not Rhodes by himself, because Manning had an average game...247 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.

So, here we are at this crossroads. Do we move on from the Manning era and embrace the new reign of Luck? Well, for me, if Brady wins his 4th Super Bowl, it will make it just a tad bit easier to finally shut the door on Manning and move on. Kinda like ripping a band aide off with one quick yank. I've held on to the hope that Manning would one day at least tie Brady for Super Bowl wins, but if Brady gets four that dream will be effectively shattered and strewn across the turf at Lucas Oil Stadium.

It will hurt, but it will be final.

Manning has had more than his fair share of chances to win multiple Super Bowls, but he didn't get it done. If he couldn't do it at 27 or 29 or 31, why should I believe he's going to do it at 36 coming off three neck surgeries?

No, let's just move on. Say our goodbyes, appreciate this glorious (though ultimately not fully satisfying) run, and start afresh. Brady has had his chances and has, for the most part, taken advantage of them. Manning has had those same chances, if not more, and has not.

My hat is off to you Tom Brady. As for the Colts... Next!

Judgement Day for Tebow and the Broncos

How much do you wanna bet Tom Brady is a tad bit annoyed over this so-called "match up" between him and Tebow this Sunday? After everything Brady has done in the league, to even be in the same conversation as Tebow right now must grate on his nerves. As if Tebow could hold Brady's jock.

I have a feeling Brady and Belichick are set to go OFF today and show Tebow what being a real QB in the NFL is all about.

Let's take a look at some numbers (numbers are fun!)... The overall record of the teams the Broncos have beat during this 7-1 stretch is 39-52 (.428).

Of the teams with a winning record (there are four of them), the Bears are currently 7-6, but were without Cutler when they played the Broncos (they've gone 0-3 without Cutler, by the way). The Raiders are 7-6, but were playing their first game with Carson Palmer at QB that week. The Jets are 8-5, but the Broncos defense held them to 13 points that week (again, the Bronco's defense being the real story here).

The other team they played with a winning record, the Lions (8-5), stomped them 45-10.

The other four teams (Dolphins, Chiefs, Chargers and Vikings) are a combined 17-35 (.326). The Broncos' average margin of victory over these four bottom dwellers? A whopping 3.25 points. Impressive!

Don't expect any miracles this week. A real team, with a real NFL QB, is coming to Mile High. No hate, just the facts.

Patriots 27 Broncos 13