PDA

View Full Version : Q.O.D. for 3/20/06



Peck
03-20-2006, 02:40 AM
This is something we've talked about before but I think it's worth talking about again.

I'm just going to go ahead & ask the quesiton right up front & then I'm going to talk about it.

Here it is.

Do the Indiana Pacers need a new head coach?

Before we get the replies from the usual suspects who will in turn ask us "well if not Rick who should coach the team" let's just say somebody else.

I know that is not the answer you want to hear but for this question that is what you are going to get.

I don't think there is anybody here who would say that Rick has been dealt a good hand at all over the past few years. In fact few coach's would have been able to do as well as we have with what he has been given.

However at some point in time that ceases to be a valid point.

Our record vs. the dregs of the NBA is God awfull. We are 0-3 vs Boston, we are 0-3 vs. Atlanta, we are 0-2 vs the Raptors, we are 1-3 vs the Bobcats & we are 1-1 with the Knicks.

That is a stunning 2-12 record vs the worst teams in the NBA.

Now nobody has sole blame for this but at some point in time somebody has to be responsible.

Again the usual suspects will lament our lack of defense & while I only partially agree with this assesment I will still say this. If we are constantly failing at defense in these situations who is responsible for that?

Yes I know a coach can't shoot or defend or pass or etc., etc. But a coach can decide who does do get to do this. While I am aware that there are times that an entire team for no reason just has a bad day, when you have a record like that vs opponets like that you have to believe it is just something a little more than a coincidence.

Along with Uncle Buck I think I was about the only person at the last forum party who said they would be ok with Rick coming back next season.

But at this point in time I think the team needs a new voice.

I think Rick's stoic, emotionless, we will follow the plan, mentallity has finally lost it's affect on the players.

The loss of Mike Brown has been more than many of us want to believe.

Right now this team needs a fire & brimstone motivator. Someone who will not preach to them about the need for spacing on the floor or recovering for transition defense. They need someone who will reach out & make them look at themselves in the mirror & get the very best out of the players that they are.

Ask yourself this. Is Rick Carlisle getting the very best out of his players on a nightly basis? I understand that out of an 82 game season every player is not going to perform at their zenith all of the time, but is he at least getting the best effort & results on 80% of the games?

Sadly, I don't think he is anymore.

I'm not saying that he is bad at X' & O's, in fact he quite good at those things. But I just think that he has lost his ability to take these players to another level.

I guess I'm breaking my own rule, I'm answering my own question first.

But in this case I just think the time has come to make a change.

waterjater
03-20-2006, 02:54 AM
Our record vs. the dregs of the NBA is God awfull. We are 0-3 vs Boston, we are 0-3 vs. Atlanta, we are 0-2 vs the Raptors, we are 1-3 vs the Bobcats & we are 1-1 with the Knicks.

That is a stunning 2-12 record vs the worst teams in the NBA.

Now nobody has sole blame for this but at some point in time somebody has to be responsible.

.

I believe you are correct in a change being necessary. The above speaks volumes.

Water

Will Galen
03-20-2006, 03:14 AM
Here it is.

Do the Indiana Pacers need a new head coach?

They should hire Eddie Franklin.

Peck
03-20-2006, 03:35 AM
They should hire Eddie Franklin.

Forgive my ignorance, who is Eddie Franklin?

Will Galen
03-20-2006, 03:44 AM
Forgive my ignorance, who is Eddie Franklin?

She's a former coach of the New York Knicks. You being a movie buff you should be able to figure it out. (giggle)

Kstat
03-20-2006, 04:05 AM
Well, she hates euros too.

Seriously, wasn't her biggest beef with her european power forward who shot all day and played no defense?

Bball
03-20-2006, 04:19 AM
If we take Larry Bird's comment about a coach having a 3 year window of effectiveness as a (generally) true statement then we probably should step back and think about something.

One argument for Rick Carlisle has been that he hasn't really gotten a fair shake with 11/19 and this season's Artest implosion followed by an untimely injury bug to some players. I even agree it hasn't really been fair to Rick.

But way back 'when', I posed a question about the 11/19 suspensions (their severity) and whether it was fair to the fans, the other players, the city, and the coach. I even went so far as to ponder if Rick shouldn't be given a leave of absence and let an assistant handle the duties last year (I can certainly think of my own arguments against that but I had a sense that there could be a good reason for it as well). I mention that because it brings me full circle to what I am about to say...

IMHO... If anything, the pressures and strain of what happened last year....the changing player roles... the questions... the use and overuse of some players... the injuries... the Artest watch.... the media magnifying glass... All of that plus more has served to slam that '3 year window' tighter shut and remove any doubt or leeway.

It's allowed the flaws to show. The question marks to grow. Plenty of warts have been in plain view. It's pierced the veil of the team's confidence in themselves and the coaches... and vice versa. And the fans as well. Everyone has been strained. All the buttons have been pushed and pushed hard. And pushed some more. Everyone has to be spent at this point. And now things seem to be tightening down again and we're reverting back to the ISO's/one on one solo play that I think is maddeningly overused and a recipe for player dissatification AND cultivates bad blood and a LACK of team play (and breeds 'me-ism').

During this time-frame some fans (my hand is in the air) have gotten to see an offense that they like better and believe it not only looked better and made for better team play, but IS better. But away from that we go. Again. And only a fool can believe we won't be constantly feeding JO in the post and 'letting him go to work' almost exclusively upon his return (assuming he does return) just like before.

If it isn't the coach that is pushing the players away from that more flowing style (which is still structured... it is NOT run and gun) then it is a coach who can't keep them from reverting back to it. In either case, that isn't a coach I want any longer coaching the Pacers.

I can't believe the players don't prefer more ball sharing which leads to larger roles where they all can contribute -something- be it screening, rebounding, putbacks, passing, tough fundamentals, or nailing a couple of jumpers when they are open or make a backcut for an easy score. ...instead of watching someone eat the ball and the clock and clank the ball off the rim while shooting into a tight defense.

So, yes, it is time for Carlisle to go. He's milked all he can out of this team. He's probably learned a lot...especially if his time ends in a dismissal. His next team might be a serious benefactor from this. He certainly should rank high up in the hierarchy of Pacer coaches. In fact, I'd prefer to see him leave on good terms because 5-10 years from now we might like to have him back with a fresh group of faces.

And where has our defensive intensity went?

I'm sticking by my Humpty Dumpty analogy from last season. I never said it was the only possibility, but I sure didn't discount it as a possible outcome of 11/19 either.

-Bball

Suaveness
03-20-2006, 04:37 AM
A change for change's sake. Usually not a good idea, but in this case it might be. Quite possibly they've had too much to deal with over the last couple of years that a fresh face is needed. I would, however, have no problem with Rick coming back next year.

D-BONE
03-20-2006, 06:39 AM
I could live with switching out Rick. However, I would still think player changes to be a high priority, as well. I've always felt that the coach in the NBA has an important role as a motivator, but b/c of the different power hierarchy between coach and players at the pro level, the players or a player has to step up and challenge themselves or his team. At any rate, I would like to see big changes on this team in the offseason.

Unclebuck
03-20-2006, 07:45 AM
A change for change's sake. Usually not a good idea, but in this case it might be. Quite possibly they've had too much to deal with over the last couple of years that a fresh face is needed. I would, however, have no problem with Rick coming back next year.



I can agree with this. Great post Suave.


If you want Rick gone for the right reasons, I can understand your thinking. But if you want Rick gone because you think he's a bad coach, or because he doesn't play Saras, or because he plays a system you might not like, then I vehemently disagree

Skaut_Ech
03-20-2006, 08:10 AM
The loss of Mike Brown has been more than many of us want to believe.


Despite all the great stuff you postulated, I think it all boils down to that one sentence.

First of all, it was Brown who was our defensive whiz. Although that hasn't translated to his newest team quite yet, I think you can see a trickle down effect of his not being here by the gradual regression seen with our boys this year.

Now we can argue whether Rick's time has passed, but I think you have to factor in just how reliant Rick's offense is on Mike Brown's defensive philosophy. :chin2: Rick's isolation, time intensive, grind it out, waste the clock offensive style works when you can clamp down defensively, make the other guy waste some clock, then make him ineffectual.

We don't have that now.

To make kind of an analogy, it's kind of like the simpatico relationship with Smits and Dale, as opposed to Smits when he was on the floor with Al. Depending on who's in with Rick, his effectiveness is affected.

I think this flowing offense terrifies Rick. Terrifies.:arrgh: He wants control and clock management and he sees, right now, potentially a Sun's style offense where you just let it ride. I don't think he's comfortable with that and you know how people are about their comfort levels.

Without Mike here, I don't think you can keep Rick, with his style of play. I think it would work with a roster like the Rockets, or maybe the Timberwolves, but I think without Mike Brown's yin to Rick's yang, his style (especially his stoic style) doesn't play well here by itself. Somehow Brown was able to elicit a fire in the players that translated to better D, while Rick's steady as she goes style tempered Mike.

I think Rick is too stuck in his ways to allow a flowing O to foster here, despite the fact that we have the personel to do it. I'd say Rick needs to go unless we can get a different assistant coach staff. Nothing againts Kevin O'Neils, but maybe a guy who appeals to the players more and has more of an influence. Rick needs some type of counter-balance.

UB, I think letting a coach go because he plays a systems that isn't effective may be a valid reason to let a coach go, especially if they can't change. Rick shows signs of that, despite our recent flirtation with a free flowing O. What works for Mike D'Antoni in Phoenix may not play in Atlanta, or whereever and if he can't adapt, which we shall soon see, then I think that's a reason to look elsewhere.

ManicStreetPreachers
03-20-2006, 09:03 AM
Our record vs. the dregs of the NBA is God awfull. We are 0-3 vs Boston, we are 0-3 vs. Atlanta, we are 0-2 vs the Raptors, we are 1-3 vs the Bobcats & we are 1-1 with the Knicks.

That is a stunning 2-12 record vs the worst teams in the NBA.


Scary thing is that almost half of the games left to play this season are agains those teams and the playoff race is tight!!

18 games left. Pacers play Atlanta once, New York twice, Toronto twice, Boston once, Orlando once and Charlotte once. THat's 8 out of 18 last games.

Anthem
03-20-2006, 09:04 AM
I'm solidly on the fence.

If we go and get 11 new players, then we wouldn't need to change the coach. But some kind of change is definitely needed.

RWB
03-20-2006, 09:28 AM
Many have hit on the topic of Mike Brown being a big difference and I whole heartedly agree. However we're not doomed because we no longer have him.

Bird had a pretty successful run as coach and it wasn't all because of a team full of vets. I'll give the man credit in recognizing, let your assistants do their job and you'll be able to focus on the big picture.

I'm not impressed with who Rick has on the bench. Kevin O' Neil (sp?) as Brown's replacement was a bad choice. I just get the impression he's Carlisle's version of mini-me.

The Pacers do better when the assistants do not mirror the coach and bring something else to the table. Mike Brown and in Bird's time Dick Harter were defensive oriented and had energy or fiery personalities. O'Neil doesn't impress me with either.

My preference would be for Carlisle to remain another year and bring in another assistant who would have the respect of the players.

Aw Heck
03-20-2006, 09:34 AM
I'll give him one more season; a season where he has healthy players for the better part of it. Depending on how that goes, I'll make a decision. Because as you've said, he definitely hasn't had a fair shake so far.

We all saw what he did with a mostly healthy, suspension-free season. And he hasn't had one since. And that's not his fault at all.

If changes are to be made, it needs to be personnel-wise. I think most of you would agree that since He-who-shall-not-be-named was traded that this team needs to be slightly retooled anyway.

And this offseason, I'm sure there will definitely be some changes. I don't think Fred Jones will be back. He's not worth much more money than he is now. With the emergence of Granger, I think either Peja or Jack will be gone too so that he can start. Pollard will be gone and I don't think they'll re-sign him. So that means another backup bigman will be drafted or signed. The PG problem has to be fixed. Who knows how Croshere's concussion situation is going to play out. A couple rookies will get drafted.

I'd like to see what Rick could do with what should be a different team next year. I'd like to see what Rick could do with a team where a player doesn't flush everything down the toilet two months into the season.

Rick deserves at least another season.

Ragnar
03-20-2006, 09:38 AM
They should hire the man that they should have hired in the first place. Byron Scott. Now I realize Scott is not available right now and the way things are looking in NOKC he probably wont be.

So as a backup we should hire Mark Jackson. He is a pg who has played for Larry Brown, Rick Carlisle (Larry Bird). Rick Pittino and a couple of other good coaches. He was always someone who would work with the coaching staf to draw up plays and was a coach on the floor. The players will respond to him because he is #2 all times assists and knows his stuff. He has taken the Knicks, Pacers, and Clippers to the playoffs.

He will be able to work with Jamaal because he was a real pg and he will be able to work with AJ because he was a turtle. The big men will love him becuase he understands how to get them shots without having to play Rick's puke in your mouth every time you see it offense.


BTW I realize none of this will happen and that Rick is our coach for a long time to come because he is Larry's boy.

Slick Pinkham
03-20-2006, 09:40 AM
I like Rick. But this is the first season where there have been a LOT of games where it seemed like the team just wasn't ready to play. I'm talking about games against the lousy teams.

NBA coaches don't get into the collegiate rah-rah motivational stuff. But there has to be a way to light a fire under these guys butts.

I've moved onto the fence. I'd like to see if we still play so lackadaisically with Jermaine in the lineup, and if we start walking it up the floor and stand around watching JO shoot fadeaways from the corner.

If that happens, I am ready to move on in the offseason. If not, I'd give him a year to make it a top 3 team in the East again.

Unclebuck
03-20-2006, 10:05 AM
I don't want Mark Jackson. If the Pacers did hire him within 2 weeks 95% of you would be screaming about his media comments. It would get ugly very quickly. Plus he's never coached anything before, and I don't like going that route. (yes I know the recent Pacers history, but I don't like that approach)

Pacers won't be able to get a better coach than Rick, mainly because there might be 3 or 4 better coaches in the NBA world, so we can stop trying to get a "better coach"

I've said this before and I'll say it again, if a coaching change is made, then Eric Musselman is who I want.

Hicks
03-20-2006, 10:16 AM
I'll throw a wrench into this. Rick has said that he splits scouting assignments between Kevin and Chuck Person. I'd be VERY curious to see documentation of who scouted which teams for which nights. It'd be interesting to search for a correlation.

Dr. Goldfoot
03-20-2006, 10:18 AM
I've never been a Rick Carlisle supporter. I never will be in his corner. This team has too many players missing games, period. Jermaine O'neal has missed as many as he's played in the last two seasons. Seriously, depending on when he finally comes back this year, he may have missed 50% of the games. When the franchise player misses half of the games, you're going to lose alot. If the franchise guy missing half the games isn't enough, what about the second best player only playing in 20 of those games. What about if he becomes a sideshow attraction too. Of course, you have to play without your starting point guard for 51.4% of those games too. I forgot your face of the team is going to retire after 18 seasons and leave you with a bunch of softies. Your onetime future franchise player is going to retire. A forth point guard will be added to give you a little more discontent to deal with. Your starting center will miss the start of the season for a second year in a row. The guy we traded Brad Miller for.. yeah he wont be able to play much this year again. Oh yeah the guy to replace the face of the team, he'll miss 30+ games.

So step back and consider....all of the games missed, hoopla surrounding Ronnie, Reggie's retirement, Bender's retirement:rolleyes:, total mental & physical breakdown of this team....and tell me who would want to coach this team.


Oh yeah, by the way, the Pacers are still going to make the playoffs again this year.

bulletproof
03-20-2006, 10:50 AM
You raise some good questions, Peck. And Bball, you and I have always agreed about the deep and lasting wounds of 11/19. That said, I'd like to believe that once JO gets back and has a chance to play with Peja that our offense will be more well-balanced. But I have to agree with Skaut. I think a flowing offense terrifies Rick and he will revert to constantly feeding JO in the post. If that is the case, then I think a change is in order. I also believe, without question, Jackson has to go. But that's another topic altogether.

grace
03-20-2006, 10:52 AM
Being 2-12 against the bad teams is better than being 2-12 against the good teams. Why? Maybe I'm wrong but Atlanta and Toronto won't be in the playoffs. Chances are Boston won't be either.

I'd be more concerned with the fact that we're 17-18 against teams that are in the playoffs (if the season ended yesterday).

And yes, a large part of the reason we're in this state of affairs is because Mike Brown is gone.

McKeyFan
03-20-2006, 11:24 AM
Here's a question: Does Rick want to leave?

mugsy27
03-20-2006, 11:56 AM
rick carlyle = norv turner.... "what we do works"....when in reality it seldome does.

Antonio
03-20-2006, 12:05 PM
...we are 1-3 vs the Bobcats...

We are 2-1 vs Charlotte...

Los Angeles
03-20-2006, 12:06 PM
I'll throw a wrench into this. Rick has said that he splits scouting assignments between Kevin and Chuck Person. I'd be VERY curious to see documentation of who scouted which teams for which nights. It'd be interesting to search for a correlation.
This is a great thought. I'd like to know that to. Then again, I don't want the blame to be shifted, so I suppose that I don't want to know too. :)

Now let me ask everyone something:

Rick has one more year on his contract. Does he actually deserve to get FIRED? Really, does Rick deserve to be asked into someones office and be out-right fired?

I don't think so. Permission to negotiate to find another job? Maybe. Fired? No way. Plus, I don't see Larry or Donnie doing that, so we might as well be ready for another season of the Rick Carlisle show. I'm still fine with that despite his habits wearing on me.

Unclebuck
03-20-2006, 12:28 PM
Not that this changes the discussion any. But the Pacers record against the bad teams is not nearly as bad as Peck is suggesting.

There are 7 teams that have a winning percentage of 40% or less (Celts ain't one of them) From worst to best. Pacers record against those teams is 7-8

Charlotte Bobcats 1-1
NY Knicks 1-1
Portland Blazers 2-0
Hawks 0-3
Magic 2-0
Raptors 0-2
Sonics 1-1

Gamble
03-20-2006, 12:51 PM
RC was the perfect coach for the time but now I would be willing
to let him go.

Jose Slaughter
03-20-2006, 01:05 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Bird already has someone lined up. If not, then he should have a short list of names by now.

He could not nor should not be happy with how this team is playing. That means the effort by the players & the offense & defense used by the coaching staff.

I wish I had saved this & maybe someone can back me up on this but I read that Walsh had Isiah lined up well before the All-Star break in Birds last season. The delay in announcing was Isiah's deal with the CBA as well as Walsh not wanting to pull the rug out from under Bird during our playoff run.

I think Bird wants to try to get a fresh start & he will do that with a new coach & moving as many of the "disgruntled employees" as possible.

With in 2 weeks of our final game, Carlise will announce he is leaving.

Arcadian
03-20-2006, 01:11 PM
Rick deserves another season. Not because it has been so chaotic but because Rick has done such good jobs in all of his other seasons. The teams records have always been better that their talant. That goes for this team as well consider how much our players have been out.

I know I'm in the minority but I just don't believe in this roster especially with JO out. This has nothing to do with who is coaching it.

One season where he doesn't have to come up with new sets or patchwork new lineups because so many key players have been out. I'd like to see what he can do with a team that actual plays who and what he sets up for in the pre-season.

PaceBalls
03-20-2006, 01:14 PM
"In fact, I'd prefer to see him leave on good terms because 5-10 years from now we might like to have him back with a fresh group of faces" - peck

The thing is... we have new players, and during this offseason we are gonna have even more. So I think there is a choice of personel moves or a coaching change and keep the team pretty much as it stands now.

2ndly, finding someone else who is better than rick is a big deal. A fresh face is only fresh for a short time. Why give up the best coach we can find for half a year of freshness eh? I am saying this thinking Rick is by far the best coach we can find.

Mourning
03-20-2006, 02:34 PM
"In fact, I'd prefer to see him leave on good terms because 5-10 years from now we might like to have him back with a fresh group of faces" - peck

The thing is... we have new players, and during this offseason we are gonna have even more. So I think there is a choice of personel moves or a coaching change and keep the team pretty much as it stands now.

2ndly, finding someone else who is better than rick is a big deal. A fresh face is only fresh for a short time. Why give up the best coach we can find for half a year of freshness eh? I am saying this thinking Rick is by far the best coach we can find.

I disagree with your first point. I think IF you want to get new players you better be sure of who you want your headcoach to be or you could get into the situation of signing some forinstance shoot-first PGs who the coach preferred, the coach getting the boot and then another coach getting installed who likes more traditional PGs more.

1) Management needs to make a firm decision which direction they want the team to go in (offense - defense oriented, team play - isolation play, etc) and

2) then conclude IF the current coach is going to get that job done in their mind,

3) look how many other QUALITY coaches are out there that sort of support the direction you want the team to be going in and then

4) decide IF you keep the current coach or not and if the playing philosophy you desire as management has enough following amongst quality coaches, so that when we lose a coach during a season or after one season we don't have to completely abandon what we were trying to build up and finally then if this is all worked out

5) the team trades for other players/signs FA's

Just my personal opinion. I do aggree it is going to be a lot harder to replace Rick then I think some are thinking around here.

I don't know much about Musselman, didn't he got worn out by his players too? I don't want Jeff Van Gundy "IF" he gets the boot and to be honest I'm not really sure who I really like. I like D'antoni and I like Scott Skiles, but they adhere different playing philosophies and are going to be impossible to get.

I know a lot of you may HATE this, but I'm hoping Popovich leaves the Spurs SOMEHOW. I would love to have him over here.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Seed
03-20-2006, 03:06 PM
I know a lot of you may HATE this, but I'm hoping Popovich leaves the Spurs SOMEHOW. I would love to have him over here.

Me too.

Overall I usually find myself with those wishing to see an open-court flashy offense, but I think we must keep the 'every night is defense night' mentality Rick brings us.

Eventually this is a must for a championship team. So I will welcome a less conservative coach, but I'd like to see the Pacers staying one of the best defense teams in the league.

grace
03-20-2006, 03:19 PM
Not that this changes the discussion any. But the Pacers record against the bad teams is not nearly as bad as Peck is suggesting.

There are 7 teams that have a winning percentage of 40% or less (Celts ain't one of them) From worst to best. Pacers record against those teams is 7-8

Charlotte Bobcats 1-1
NY Knicks 1-1
Portland Blazers 2-0
Hawks 0-3
Magic 2-0
Raptors 0-2
Sonics 1-1

It's still a losing record. A losing record is a losing record. And like I said before, they're not in the playoffs.

Evan_The_Dude
03-20-2006, 03:57 PM
Like UB said if it's anybody else, I want Eric Musselman. However, I did notice one thing when looking at our roster as it is today. This is a Larry Brown team...

Kegboy
03-20-2006, 05:01 PM
Before we get the replies from the usual suspects who will in turn ask us "well if not Rick who should coach the team" let's just say somebody else.

:kickcan:

Well, I just reject your premise then. So there! :tongue:

Seriously, to answer your question, no. There are coaches whose systems I'd enjoy better than Rick's, but we do not need a new coach. He's done a damn fine job with a roster that redefines the term "schitzo".

grace
03-20-2006, 05:24 PM
Before we get the replies from the usual suspects who will in turn ask us "well if not Rick who should coach the team" let's just say somebody else.

Somebody else. Are you really sure? Because when you say "somebody else" my answer is Isiah Thomas. :evillaugh

:duck:

You don't like that suggestion? O.K. Then I nominate Kegboy. :tongue: I'm sure he and Larry (and Cabbage) will get along just fine.

3Ball
03-20-2006, 05:58 PM
If you look at every player on this team, everyone on the coaching staff, and everyone in the front office, nobody has done better work over the last 3 seasons than Rick. He would be the last person I would oust. I certainly wouldn't blaim him if he quit, but it's hard for me to see where we improve by letting him go.

BillS
03-20-2006, 07:01 PM
I don't see how it would be advisable to discuss letting Rick go without knowing who we want in his place. Unless you're advocating change for change sake, as discussed by others above, you have to decide if a new coach can give you what you are missing.

This thread seems to be focusing on Rick's motivational ability. Personally, I think that's a crock. Professionals motivate themselves over the long run. The best a coach can do is to give a little extra lift when needed to get over the hump. I think a case could be made that, considering all the games where we've gone behind by huge margins and then come back to almost take the game, he might very well be able to do just that.

There are other areas worthy of discussion. His use of rookies is questionable, but then again so was Bird's or Larry Brown's. Is he too focused on defense at the cost of players who can play offense? Is he too focused on individual players despite their flaws (like Jax) and unable to sit them or use them in different ways? When a free-flowing offense fails, whose fault is it - see this quote from <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/SPORTS04/603160434/1088/SPORTS04">The Star</a> regarding the loss to Denver:

"We had scored two times consecutively off of flow," he said. "I just backed off and let it go. Jack got a look at the basket, but it wasn't the kind of shot we would have liked to get in that situation. That's on me."

In other words, is the failure of free-flow due to players who can't execute without being personally "on" or due to Rick not putting the "right" players in, who might not be able to execute due to skill issues?

To be perfectly honest, I don't see another head coach out there who could do much different with this team, except maybe to lose using players some folks (including me) would rather see us lose with - and would that really satisfy anyone?

I would not be heartbroken if Rick was not back next year, but I would be very angry if we get the wrong kind of coach.

D-BONE
03-20-2006, 07:19 PM
I don't see how it would be advisable to discuss letting Rick go without knowing who we want in his place. Unless you're advocating change for change sake, as discussed by others above, you have to decide if a new coach can give you what you are missing.

This thread seems to be focusing on Rick's motivational ability. Personally, I think that's a crock. Professionals motivate themselves over the long run. The best a coach can do is to give a little extra lift when needed to get over the hump. I think a case could be made that, considering all the games where we've gone behind by huge margins and then come back to almost take the game, he might very well be able to do just that.

There are other areas worthy of discussion. His use of rookies is questionable, but then again so was Bird's or Larry Brown's. Is he too focused on defense at the cost of players who can play offense? Is he too focused on individual players despite their flaws (like Jax) and unable to sit them or use them in different ways? When a free-flowing offense fails, whose fault is it - see this quote from <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/SPORTS04/603160434/1088/SPORTS04">The Star</a> regarding the loss to Denver:

"We had scored two times consecutively off of flow," he said. "I just backed off and let it go. Jack got a look at the basket, but it wasn't the kind of shot we would have liked to get in that situation. That's on me."

In other words, is the failure of free-flow due to players who can't execute without being personally "on" or due to Rick not putting the "right" players in, who might not be able to execute due to skill issues?

To be perfectly honest, I don't see another head coach out there who could do much different with this team, except maybe to lose using players some folks (including me) would rather see us lose with - and would that really satisfy anyone?

I would not be heartbroken if Rick was not back next year, but I would be very angry if we get the wrong kind of coach.

Nice post that considers many different angles of this debate. I referenced that same quote in a post-Nuggets-game debate about the free-flow vs. iso offenses and Rick's leanings. So things are not always quite what they seem. I also agree to a point about the motivation thing. Although I think a pro coach can motivate to a degree, a large portion of that resides with the players individually and collectively.

I, too, could accept another coach, but only if that is accompanied by some personnel changes also b/c I think the current difficulties have a lot to do w/ them. And in that case, I'd highly suggest heeding Mourning's decison chain from above. At the very least, it's a two way street. I find it dubious that someone else could come in here and be significantly more successful w/ this same group. Do the pieces really fit player-wise?

I'd prefer to take my chances on Rick w/ some player changes than someone else with the same cast of characters. If Rick fails to get it done next year, his contract will be up anyway.

Kegboy
03-20-2006, 07:21 PM
Somebody else. Are you really sure? Because when you say "somebody else" my answer is Isiah Thomas. :evillaugh

:duck:

You don't like that suggestion? O.K. Then I nominate Kegboy. :tongue: I'm sure he and Larry (and Cabbage) will get along just fine.

I was waiting for someone to bring up Isiah. :cool:

As for me and Cabbage, he'd get all the minutes he could handle. Of course, they'd be at the 2. :shrug:

Peck
03-20-2006, 07:31 PM
I don't see how it would be advisable to discuss letting Rick go without knowing who we want in his place. Unless you're advocating change for change sake, as discussed by others above, you have to decide if a new coach can give you what you are missing.

This thread seems to be focusing on Rick's motivational ability. Personally, I think that's a crock. Professionals motivate themselves over the long run. The best a coach can do is to give a little extra lift when needed to get over the hump. I think a case could be made that, considering all the games where we've gone behind by huge margins and then come back to almost take the game, he might very well be able to do just that.

There are other areas worthy of discussion. His use of rookies is questionable, but then again so was Bird's or Larry Brown's. Is he too focused on defense at the cost of players who can play offense? Is he too focused on individual players despite their flaws (like Jax) and unable to sit them or use them in different ways? When a free-flowing offense fails, whose fault is it - see this quote from <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/SPORTS04/603160434/1088/SPORTS04">The Star</a> regarding the loss to Denver:

"We had scored two times consecutively off of flow," he said. "I just backed off and let it go. Jack got a look at the basket, but it wasn't the kind of shot we would have liked to get in that situation. That's on me."

In other words, is the failure of free-flow due to players who can't execute without being personally "on" or due to Rick not putting the "right" players in, who might not be able to execute due to skill issues?

To be perfectly honest, I don't see another head coach out there who could do much different with this team, except maybe to lose using players some folks (including me) would rather see us lose with - and would that really satisfy anyone?

I would not be heartbroken if Rick was not back next year, but I would be very angry if we get the wrong kind of coach.


Sorry I just disagree with you on this. You would think professionals should be able to do that, you would hope professionals would do that but the reality is that professionals are still people & everybody needs a pick me up every now & then.

You would hope that professionals wouldn't need to be coaxed onto a team plane or that they wouldn't run into the stands & attack the wrong person or whatever.

Yes, yes I know that was just Ron.

How about this then, you would hope that professionals wouldn't stand and argue with a ref. after a call has already either been made or ignored. There are a lot of things that you would think professionals would not need to have done, but they are done all of the time anyway.

Motivation is one of those things.

You either have to have it from a strong willed player or players or you need it from your coaching staff.

We have it from neither.

Yes, I know that a rally around the flag speech will only go so far. But you can only X & O a person so much as well.

Look I'm not saying hire John Lucas or anything, but I think this team needs a fresh voice who can both coach & get the best from them.

I think if the truth were told, & one day it will be, that Ron Artest was not the only person who didn't like playing for Rick Carlisle.

Everybody fails to remember that when Donnie Walsh went to Reggie after the 00 season to ask about hiring Rick, Reggie told him that none of the players liked him well enough to play for him.

I think that continues to this day.

Now here is my other problem & Bill this part is not at you. But we have to many people who think that Rick's way is the only way. As though no other style of play could work for this team or any team for that matter. I disagree with all of that.

Rick's way is one way of playing, but it's not the only way of playing.

BillS
03-20-2006, 08:05 PM
Now here is my other problem & Bill this part is not at you. But we have to many people who think that Rick's way is the only way. As though no other style of play could work for this team or any team for that matter. I disagree with all of that.

Rick's way is one way of playing, but it's not the only way of playing.

Even though this wasn't at me, I'd have to respond by saying that there are only certain combinations of people on this team that can make the free-flow style work. In some ways we're just as bad as the Knicks with too few basketballs for the number of selfish shooters, the only thing is that our selfish shooters are streaky and inconsistent.

Maybe Rick's problem isn't so much that he's unwilling to let the offense flow, it's that he can't really recognize the players who are good at it because of their other flaws. Therefore he has been more successful with tight control, leading to a lack of desire to relinquish control.

Bottom line is that there are some players for whom tightly controlled play calling would work if they would let it work and realize that they aren't dependable scorers without it.

Regarding motivation, I agree with Larry Bird. If they ain't motivated by playing this game to win, fire 'em and get some players who are.

Kaufman
03-20-2006, 08:38 PM
I don't see the P's getting a guy who isn't known by the organization or the state. Isiah a former Hoosier, RC a friend of LB's, a native Hoosier. Larry Brown a friend of Donnie's. So that comes to Bo Hill and Versace. I personally would like to see an Indiana guy. Don't know who that would be though.

ChicagoJ
03-20-2006, 10:16 PM
I'd love to see the Pacers be the fast-breaking, free-flowing team that breaks the obsessive (and coach-dominated) trend toward defense that we've endured for the past 15 years.

Don't let Phoenix beat us to winning a championship that way.

The race is on!!

(I can dream, can't I.)


This is the NBA, with the best athletes in the world. Why can't we just let the players play?

If I wanted to watch a game that is dominated by star coaches, I'd still watch college ball.

Here it comes...





Bo Hill, at this stage of the game, would be a major improvement over Rick because he's at least be 100% committed to an aggressive offense (see signature below) and he's a better defensive coach and strategist than others give him credit for (the early-90s Pacers were just not going to win games by employing a defense-first mentality so its extremely short-sighted to point to those teams and call him a bad coach.)

Peck
03-20-2006, 10:49 PM
Even though this wasn't at me, I'd have to respond by saying that there are only certain combinations of people on this team that can make the free-flow style work. In some ways we're just as bad as the Knicks with too few basketballs for the number of selfish shooters, the only thing is that our selfish shooters are streaky and inconsistent.

Maybe Rick's problem isn't so much that he's unwilling to let the offense flow, it's that he can't really recognize the players who are good at it because of their other flaws. Therefore he has been more successful with tight control, leading to a lack of desire to relinquish control.

Bottom line is that there are some players for whom tightly controlled play calling would work if they would let it work and realize that they aren't dependable scorers without it.

Regarding motivation, I agree with Larry Bird. If they ain't motivated by playing this game to win, fire 'em and get some players who are.


But Bill the problem is that there is an in-between game. You don't have to choose between the 80's Nuggets vs. the early 90's Cavs.

There are plenty of coach's that understand that good defense does not start with a slowed down offense.

I know he has fallen out of favor because of his current team, but did you see Larry Browns teams run isolation after isolation in an attempt to start good defense? Were our teams of the 90's bad defensive teams? I would say no, yet you saw very little isolation. Mark Jackson was about the only person we ran iso's for and he was very quick to make decisions with the ball.

I guess it all boils down to what you think goes wrong with the team. Some just keep saying over & over & over that it is the defense & I have no problem with that. However I cannot just look past the part where we shoot 39% from the field for the game & probably about 20% from the field in the second half & not say that our offense is also a problem.

So if you have a defensive problem & you have an inability to score where does this lead you? Losses, that's where. So if you have several instances of this happening over the season where does the blame fall?

Jay has it right though, slowing down the offensive game does not mean you are a good defensive team. Lowering the score of the game does not mean you are a good defensive team.

Unclebuck
03-20-2006, 10:51 PM
I'd love to see the Pacers be the fast-breaking, free-flowing team that breaks the obsessive (and coach-dominated) trend toward defense that we've endured for the past 15 years.

Don't let Phoenix beat us to winning a championship that way.

The race is on!!

(I can dream, can't I.)


This is the NBA, with the best athletes in the world. Why can't we just let the players play?

If I wanted to watch a game that is dominated by star coaches, I'd still watch college ball.

Here it comes...





Bo Hill, at this stage of the game, would be a major improvement over Rick because he's at least be 100% committed to an aggressive offense (see signature below) and he's a better defensive coach and strategist than others give him credit for (the early-90s Pacers were just not going to win games by employing a defense-first mentality so its extremely short-sighted to point to those teams and call him a bad coach.)


I'm rolling over in my grave.

Bob Hill is not a bad coach, I'd take him over Versace or Isiah. But the utter lack of defense he allowed his teams to play is unacceptable to me.


Jay, what I don't understand is you like jeff Van Gundy don't you. Well his "system" or the way he gets his teams to play is very similar to what Rick Carlisle does. They have different personalities, but the end result, they way their teams play is very similar.

Kegboy
03-20-2006, 11:02 PM
I think if the truth were told, & one day it will be, that Ron Artest was not the only person who didn't like playing for Rick Carlisle.


I'm sure you're right, but it doesn't mean squat. Everybody hated playing for Larry Brown.

I think you're asking for a bit much wanting someone who will be a good motivator and tactician. That's a very rare combination. Most every X-O guy burns out his players. If anything, Brown is the only one who could be called both, but his motivation is through negative, not positive, reinforcement, which only leads to short-term success. Rick lightened up considerably after the character assasination in Detroit, maybe a bit too much. He's never gonna be a rah-rah guy, but if he'd been an SOB this team would never have made it through last year.

We've talked about the fact that neither Isiah and Rick, total opposites, could successfully coach our roster. Now, if you could somehow blend them into a coach with all of their strengths and none of their weaknesses, who knows. But that's not possible. The roster is the problem. We made one significant change with getting rid of Ron. Now, we'll get to see how things work when JO gets back. If they don't, just changing the coach again isn't going to do squat.

Peck
03-20-2006, 11:21 PM
I'm sure you're right, but it doesn't mean squat. Everybody hated playing for Larry Brown.

I think you're asking for a bit much wanting someone who will be a good motivator and tactician. That's a very rare combination. Most every X-O guy burns out his players. If anything, Brown is the only one who could be called both, but his motivation is through negative, not positive, reinforcement, which only leads to short-term success. Rick lightened up considerably after the character assasination in Detroit, maybe a bit too much. He's never gonna be a rah-rah guy, but if he'd been an SOB this team would never have made it through last year.

We've talked about the fact that neither Isiah and Rick, total opposites, could successfully coach our roster. Now, if you could somehow blend them into a coach with all of their strengths and none of their weaknesses, who knows. But that's not possible. The roster is the problem. We made one significant change with getting rid of Ron. Now, we'll get to see how things work when JO gets back. If they don't, just changing the coach again isn't going to do squat.

I'm open to changing the roster, but I'm also realistic to know that no team can remake their roster in one off season.

Are you saying moveing one or two players is the answer or do you think a wholesale change is in order?

I do agree though that a motivator & an X & O guy are hard to combine. Brown & Riley are both great at it, yet both do it the opposite of the way that you would think it should be done.

But that doesn't mean we can't look. It also doesn't mean you can't find someone who is at leas 40 % motivator & 60 % X & O.

I keep coming back to Mark Jackson. I don't know if the management would ever take him here but I think he would be a good coach.

Either way I'd like to see Paul Silas brought in as an assistant to help with David.

Unclebuck
03-20-2006, 11:48 PM
I know he has fallen out of favor because of his current team, but did you see Larry Browns teams run isolation after isolation in an attempt to start good defense?




What a minute, is that why you think Rick runs some isolation plays - "to start good defense" Wow, do others believe that. Peck, I'd be interested in a little more explanation. This is the first time anyone has posted this unless I just missed it.

Hicks
03-20-2006, 11:58 PM
It's been suggested before that Rick employs a slow offense to play a sort of "prevent" defense by slowing the tempo and cutting down the amount of posessions per game, thus lowering the score.

Unclebuck
03-21-2006, 12:12 AM
It's been suggested before that Rick employs a slow offense to play a sort of "prevent" defense by slowing the tempo and cutting down the amount of posessions per game, thus lowering the score.


Ok, I'm confused here. Do we not like the slow down offense or do we not like the iso plays. Or maybe we don't like either. But I need to ask, most of you want player and ball movement, what if the Pacers have player and ball movement but they use up over 20 seconds of the 24 second shot clock, is that slow down ball. Is there anything wrong with that.

Reason I ask is because usually the iso plays use less time, then the plays that have more movement.

I'll admit I'm very confused as to what many of you want.

Perhaps I'll understand it better if you give me the team that plays the type of offense you want.

Bball
03-21-2006, 12:17 AM
Perhaps I'll understand it better if you give me the team that plays the type of offense you want.

The Hickory Huskers

:-p

-Bball :cool:

Los Angeles
03-21-2006, 12:19 AM
Ok, I'm confused here. Do we not like the slow down offense or do we not like the iso plays. Or maybe we don't like either. But I need to ask, most of you want player and ball movement, what if the Pacers have player and ball movement but they use up over 20 seconds of the 24 second shot clock, is that slow down ball. Is there anything wrong with that.

Reason I ask is because usually the iso plays use less time, then the plays that have more movement.

I'll admit I'm very confused as to what many of you want.

Perhaps I'll understand it better if you give me the team that plays the type of offense you want.
That's not going to happen - the point of motion offense is that at any point during the movement a defender can end up out of position. This allows for an open look. it could be 4 seconds, 14 seconds or 24 seconds into the clock. But when someone is open, you hit them and they take the shot.

In iso play, one guy holds the ball and is always contested, even if it is by one man. he waits to see if he will get doubled, which is the only way that another offesive player will get open if they aren't moving. The clock disappears while nothing of consequence happens.

Unclebuck
03-21-2006, 12:25 AM
That's not going to happen - the point of motion offense is that at any point during the movement a defender can end up out of position. This allows for an open look. it could be 4 seconds, 14 seconds or 24 seconds into the clock. But when someone is open, you hit them and they take the shot.

In iso play, one guy holds the ball and is always contested, even if it is by one man. he waits to see if he will get doubled, which is the only way that another offesive player will get open if they aren't moving. The clock disappears while nothing of consequence happens.



Are you sure those are completely balanced views of the different type of offensive plays.

In a pure motion offense you might end up with Jeff having the ball with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 feet from the basket. You won't get that with iso ball.

An iso play, perhaps the player with the ball can beat his own man, thus drawing another defender or maybe even two other defenders, thus leaving someone wide open.


Now I admit my views are not completely balanced either, but they are true statements

Los Angeles
03-21-2006, 12:32 AM
Are you sure those are completely balanced views of the different type of offensive plays.

In a pure motion offense you might end up with Jeff having the ball with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 feet from the basket. You won't get that with iso ball.

An iso play, perhaps the player with the ball can beat his own man, thus drawing another defender or maybe even two other defenders, thus leaving someone wide open.


Now I admit my views are not completely balanced either, but they are true statements
Solid points, in fact we've seen that a lot this year. I remember one play well when the clock was winding down and Jeff was at the top of the arc. The guy who had the ball (I don't remember who it was) pumps to Jeff until he realizes who it is that's way out there. It's like I could read his mind as he looks around for womeone else to pass to: "aw, hell naw" :laugh: He decides to huck the ball himself and *clang*.

Plenty of other times the ball ended up in the wrong hands with the clock winding down and the fans screaming bloody murder about it. It just comes with the territory. You have to play it for at least a full season before everyone gets in rhythm.

Bball
03-21-2006, 12:37 AM
An iso play, perhaps the player with the ball can beat his own man, thus drawing another defender or maybe even two other defenders, thus leaving someone wide open.


Which is for naught if the player with the ball isn't going to pass it anyway.

Maybe that is because in that style of (overused) offense a player with any offensive skills or ego at all will fear if he passes it he might not see it again.

BTW... in your example with Jeff getting the ball with 2 secs on the shotclock that ignores a couple of things...
1. Jeff's role would be screening so it's not all that likely he's the one that will get the ball at the 2 sec mark
2. The whole idea of the motion offense is forcing the defense to work (mentally and physically) and keep moving hoping they get picked off or otherwise out of position chasing players/ball. If the offense is being ran with any precision and effectiveness at all then the times that someone like Jeff would have the ball at the 2 sec mark would be few and far between.

(Plus the coach should want to 'talk' with the player that passed the ball to Foster at the *2 sec mark* in the first place (unless of course he's at the basket).

-Bball

Will Galen
03-21-2006, 01:21 AM
I had a point by point reply written, but halfway though I realized it wasn't striking the tone I wanted, so I deleted it. (I've been starting and deleting a lot of posts lately.)

Basically I think the last two years has taken an emotional toll with this group of players and they just can't be motivated by themselves or coach's when playing against the bad teams of the NBA.

I think Rick deserves to coach them again next year. There won't be the major distractions next year. Players will be gone, and Rick will have a new offense installed in camp so everything will be different.

Will Galen
03-21-2006, 01:39 AM
in iso play, one guy holds the ball and is always contested, even if it is by one man. he waits to see if he will get doubled, which is the only way that another offesive player will get open if they aren't moving. The clock disappears while nothing of consequence happens.

I have no problem with iso's. I have trouble with the way some of the players run them. Watch the way Peja runs an iso versus the way Jax and JO do. Peja does something with the ball almost immediately. I once counted Jax making the same fake 5 times and then taking the same shot he would have taken after the first fake. The players have to make faster decisions with the ball when in iso.

Bball
03-21-2006, 02:14 AM
I had a point by point reply written, but halfway though I realized it wasn't striking the tone I wanted, so I deleted it. (I've been starting and deleting a lot of posts lately.)

Basically I think the last two years has taken an emotional toil with this group of players and they just can't be motivated by themselves or coach's when playing against the bad teams of the NBA.

I think Rick deserves to coach them again next year. There won't be the major distractions next year. Players will be gone, and Rick will have a new offense installed in camp so everything will be different.

"Emotional toll" is a phrase I should've used in my post and thoughts on Peck's QOD.

I just think the emotional toll has been too much and it probably isn't helping that (IMHO) management and coaching aren't on the same page.

There's no collective vision from the top of this franchise to the last man on the bench. That's my opinion anyway.

I don't even know if Larry Bird and DW are on the same page at this point. ...But Bird's comments sure don't sound like he's interested in putting together a team like what you'd think a Rick Carlisle would want.

-Bball

Skaut_Ech
03-21-2006, 07:48 AM
I have no problem with iso's. I have trouble with the way some of the players run them. Watch the way Peja runs an iso versus the way Jax and JO do. Peja does something with the ball almost immediately. I once counted Jax making the same fake 5 times and then taking the same shot he would have taken after the first fake. The players have to make faster decisions with the ball when in iso.

Will you are soOOoo right. That's my main peeve with an Iso and part of why I diss on JO. He gets the ball, then pounds, pounds, pounds, while he tries to decide what to do. The point of an Iso, in my book, is to take advantage of a defensive deficiency.

JO should either take advantage by using his height and take it to his guy, or his quickness against a larger guy, and drive across the lane like Ewing used to do. what I see a lot is him dribbling for a while, then doing a move 10 feet from the basket for a jumper.

I see the same thing about Jax that you do. And I also see the same thing with Peja that you do. Put the guys on his heels. Make him make decisions quickly.

I'll point out two opposite extremes in players I think do great Isos.

Shaq (yeah, yeah, folks, I can already hear your complaints) has the Iso down pat. As soon as he gets the balls, he starts backing into his guy. ONce he makes contact, he either forces you to stop him backing, or once he feels solid contact, he makes a spin moves on you. In either case, he takes it to the guy.

Iverson is another great iso guy. He immediately drives AT you and makes you backpedal.

I think Los Angeles had a great point. The way WE run Isos is to wait and see if a double team is going to come. The point isn't to see what the defense will do. It's to force the D into doing what YOU want them to do. I think the Spurs are masters at it.

BillS
03-21-2006, 08:53 AM
Which is for naught if the player with the ball isn't going to pass it anyway.

Which is what I think the main problem is.

Maybe it's true as Kegboy said, that Rick has lightened up too much and can't discipline players who break the system.

Maybe it's just that Rick feels there are no alternatives, what with the injuries and his lack of trust in some of the other players.

Either way, for all the talk about Rick controlling every inch of the offense, we have too many players who, during so-called free flow periods, simply swallow the ball. That leads to Rick just calling iso plays because it will all turn into one-on-one ball anyway so why not plan for it?

Major Cold
03-21-2006, 10:00 AM
I really like rick but without Brown the team is different. I am not saying get rid of Coach, I am saying cover him with help (O'Brien is good). Pop has PJ carlisimo (sp). they work great together. I really think that successful NBA teams have a system built around their key players. Duncan is the key player that the Spurs have implemented their system around. Shaq and Wade are the key players in their system, the pistons system is built on the Wallaces (without their screens how would Rip get so open).

With Peja and JO we have the oppurtunity to set up a system. If we do not resign Peja and trade JO (that is a big if) we need to set a system around our best players. Once we have a corner stone we can implement others around the corner stone. Role players are key. Without role players the Spurs, Bulls, and Celtics would not have won their titles. IF our role players can not fit in the system chosen we need to find new ones.

It raises questions. Can Stephen Jackson be apart of a system not centered on him? Can Fred Jones be implemented? Is Sharas apart of this system? How far do we bring in DH or Danger? Do we set up a system that allows them to grow into a cornerstone player? Do we scrap the pieces and start over?

These questions are going to be answered in the offseason. IF not it is time for Donnie, Larry, and Rick to leave this organization. Remember Pacer basketball is bigger than Larry Bird. It has to be bigger than Reggie Miller in order to continue the success of this great state in basketball

Indyfan
03-21-2006, 10:20 AM
This is an interesting debate, but honestly it is back to the old glass half full or half empty, how do you look at what Rick has done the lasty two years considering all of the injuries, suspensions and chaos. IMHO No other coach would have had this type of success given these cicumstances.

The frustration level is pretty high right now, understandably so, and everything coach does is looked at and scrutinized after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20, after games that we lose we all point to if coach had done this, or if that, blah, blah, blah. Other times he does some of things we had critisized him for not doing and we still lose and everyone still has the answers after the fact.

Rick is trying to win games, as many as possible, with what he has available, and that changes all the time. The bottom teams in the NBA are still good teams and can beat anyone on any given night, we tend to relax with a lead or not bring the intensity to every game, and lose to teams that on paper we should beat. But we don't have our franchise player, many nights we have played with 8 or 9 guys available, there has been no way to form a continuous group of starters or of bench players, we are playing 2-3 1st and 2nd year players heavy minutes, and on and on. This month has a brutal schedule, we have had very little practice time and that affects our play a great deal.

I honestly can't stand how people still come on and complain that Rick is stubborn, stuck in his ways, etc. He has had to implement different things on offense and defense many times the past two years, he has had to adjust in so many ways to so many things beyond his control and he has done an admirable job. Stereotypes can be hard to overcome and Rick has been labelled this way, but in fact he has shown great ability to change and adjust according to his players and atmosphere.

Maybe we need to look at ourselves as fans and see this team for what it is, and not be looking for a cure all to the problems we have by firing coach or trading half the roster... this is not going to be an easy fix to get us back to the championship contender that we had hoped we would be this year. We should be thankful that we have had Rick here to keep us competive through some of the worst luck any team has ever had to deal with over a two year period of time. Be careful what you wish for, our next coach may make all of us appreciate Rick all the more.

Major Cold
03-21-2006, 10:31 AM
the rest of the schedule does not get any easier

ChicagoJ
03-21-2006, 10:39 AM
I'm rolling over in my grave.

Bob Hill is not a bad coach, I'd take him over Versace or Isiah. But the utter lack of defense he allowed his teams to play is unacceptable to me.


Jay, what I don't understand is you like jeff Van Gundy don't you. Well his "system" or the way he gets his teams to play is very similar to what Rick Carlisle does. They have different personalities, but the end result, they way their teams play is very similar.

So you're saying the mid-1990s Spurs that Bo took to the WCFs were also inept on defense?

I can understand that you didn't like that team's style (I did, but that's not the point.)

But to blame that on Bo is severly misguided. Donnie was still building that team, and frankly he needed Larry Brown to come in and say, "get rid of some of these guys (Detlef for Derrick) and give me some more interior defenders (AD, and our excellent string of third-string centers during the Brown era) to cover up for Rik's softness and get me a defensive-minded PG (Workman) to clean up this disaterous trade (Pooh). There was no other option with the early-1990s Pacers. Had Bo tried to cram "defense, defense, defense" down that team's throats they would've been 31-51 or worse every year and they still would've been blown up by the next coach. Bo at least got them to 0.500.

Yes, I despise Brownie, but only because of season #4 - The Season We Do Not Discuss. Prior to that, I loved him. But he wore out his welcome and then I learned to hate him with the heat of 100,000 suns. Well, hate is too strong of a word, he hasn't coached the evil Celtics yet.

As for JVG, I previously thought he was more of a player's coach - given the way he could get Sprewell focused - and less of a system coach. His stock has fallen somewhat in my mind while he's been in Houston. He's trying to hard to re-create the Knicks and not adapting himself to his personnel enough. Look at his mentor - Riley is reminding me more of the Showtime Riley than the Knicks/ Heat Riley these days.

I'd still take JVG for the Pacers, but not because I love his system and want him to bring it here.

sixthman
03-21-2006, 10:57 AM
Basically I think the last two years has taken an emotional toll with this group of players

Actually I think the last two years have taken a much greater toll on many of the Pacers fans who post regularly on message boards. ;)

Kegboy
03-21-2006, 12:30 PM
I'm open to changing the roster, but I'm also realistic to know that no team can remake their roster in one off season.

Are you saying moveing one or two players is the answer or do you think a wholesale change is in order?

I do agree though that a motivator & an X & O guy are hard to combine. Brown & Riley are both great at it, yet both do it the opposite of the way that you would think it should be done.

But that doesn't mean we can't look. It also doesn't mean you can't find someone who is at leas 40 % motivator & 60 % X & O.

I keep coming back to Mark Jackson. I don't know if the management would ever take him here but I think he would be a good coach.

Either way I'd like to see Paul Silas brought in as an assistant to help with David.

I'm not a big Jack basher, but I do sometimes think that getting rid of him could do wonders for chemistry on and off the court.

I think Mark is someone that Larry would hire. I wouldn't approve, which is probably reason enough for him to do it. I'd just have to keep telling myself that he's not Dennis Johnson.

Silas would be a great assistant. I wouldn't trust him to be a head anymore after the Eric Snow incident, but he'd help significantly when it comes to motivation and post development. And, he is a former Celtic, so Larry would approve.

Kegboy
03-21-2006, 12:36 PM
As for JVG, I previously thought he was more of a player's coach - given the way he could get Sprewell focused - and less of a system coach. His stock has fallen somewhat in my mind while he's been in Houston. He's trying to hard to re-create the Knicks and not adapting himself to his personnel enough. Look at his mentor - Riley is reminding me more of the Showtime Riley than the Knicks/ Heat Riley these days.

I'd still take JVG for the Pacers, but not because I love his system and want him to bring it here.

I'd rather have Stan, because he has shown the ability to adapt to his players.

That said, before someone uses my post to open that can of worms again, for the love of god, there's absolutely no way we'd get him. There's no way he can save face taking a job less than a year after pulling a Danny Ainge, and even if he could, Larry will never hire a Riley disciple.