PDA

View Full Version : This team needs a new coach



Shade
11-26-2006, 05:56 PM
The inmates are running the asylum here. We don't have any quality 3-points shooters, yet we've started to instill the Mike Davis CT3 offense. I said this was a concern after we actually shot well last game, that we'd start to settle in and rely on jumpshots, and it looks like that theory has been proven.

We need a new coach. Carlisle can not coach these guys.

Fireball Kid
11-26-2006, 06:03 PM
That and this team is not constructed very well. None of these guys compliment each other.

But I do wonder why he gave Marquis a DNP in the last game. I don't know what to think of this guy.

Trader Joe
11-26-2006, 06:04 PM
I've been calling for his head for about 4 or 5 games now. He has no idea how to coach this team. Sarunas and Al had no business getting that minutes. He started a guy the past two games who then want to play a combined 11 minutes in the two games. I'm sorry that doesn't even make sense. Carlisle is completely out of touch. Get him out of here ASAP.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:08 PM
Much as I've always said Carlisle can wear out his welcome rather fast....

The problem here isn't the coach. It's the players.

This is not a rick carlisle type team. Rick coaches patient position defense and spot-shooting. gimmick-ball and small-ball are not his specialty. He's not Don Nelson.

The GM gave him completely different players to work with than what he's used to, and now it's a big surprise that he's struggling to coach them?

Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.

Shade
11-26-2006, 06:15 PM
Much as I've always said Carlisle can wear out his welcome rather fast....

The problem here isn't the coach. It's the players.

This is not a rick carlisle type team. Rick coaches patient position defense and spot-shooting. gimmick-ball and small-ball are not his specialty. He's not Don Nelson.

The GM gave him completely different players to work with than what he's used to, and now it's a big surprise that he's struggling to coach them?

Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.

Isn't it the coach's job to instill discipline, though? Letting the players cut loose with 3 after 3 when they can't hit the broad side of a barn should fall on the coach letting them do it as much as the players not knocking down the shots.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:20 PM
Isn't it the coach's job to instill discipline, though? Letting the players cut loose with 3 after 3 when they can't hit the broad side of a barn should fall on the coach letting them do it as much as the players not knocking down the shots.

Yes and no.

It's the coach's job to instill STRUCTURE.

However, if the players don't want to be disciplined, no NBA coach is going to have enough clout to force them. Just look at Ben Wallace.

The reason Carlisle can't instill any structure with this group is because there's nobody else he can play. He can't exactly pull stephen jackson for jacking up shots, when daniels will just do the exact same thing.

The only thing he could do was make foster the starting C ahead of Al harrington. Other than that though, there arent any carlisle guys left on the bench. Every backup has the same problems as the guy starting in front of him.

Plain and simple, Rick's hands are tied. There's nothing he can do to restore order.

speakout4
11-26-2006, 06:21 PM
If you want to get rid of someone get rid of bird because I seen absolutely no rhyme or reason to the make-up of this club. Got rid of AJ and Freddie leaving fewer perimeter shooters.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:24 PM
If you want to get rid of someone get rid of bird because I seen absolutely no rhyme or reason to the make-up of this club. Got rid of AJ and Freddie leaving fewer perimeter shooters.

That's my opinion as well.

Instead of building on what was a solid and cohesive roster, bird got rid of the chemistry guys and kept the more athletic but inconsistent guys.

I have no idea where he gets it from. It's a totally-different formula than he played under in Boston.

Trader Joe
11-26-2006, 06:25 PM
If you want to get rid of someone get rid of bird because I seen absolutely no rhyme or reason to the make-up of this club. Got rid of AJ and Freddie leaving fewer perimeter shooters.

Freddie and AJ were far from dead-eye from the perimeter.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:27 PM
Maybe, but they were both carlisle-type guys that he could expect leadership and hustle from.

They were also both spot-shooters, which is what fits rick's offense the best.

ajbry
11-26-2006, 06:28 PM
The primary problem today was simply the lineups, not necessarily his actual coaching abilities. Saras and Al simply were given way too much free reign and essentially ruined all offensive rhythm we built in the 2nd half. The whole 3-PG lineup was a disaster too, and as has been said previously, starting Rawle and then giving him very little minutes makes no sense. Just stop the little experiment at SG - Jack is getting healthy and needs to be the starter.

Trader Joe
11-26-2006, 06:29 PM
Maybe, but they were both carlisle-type guys that he could expect leadership and hustle from.

And yet we've heard that both, particularly AJ, maybe have been the source of problems in the locker room. Go figure...

And since they have both been gone it can't be denied that team chemistry has been better this season, if nothing else. And many wanted that fixed before anything else...

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:32 PM
And since they have both been gone it can't be denied that team chemistry has been better this season, if nothing else. And many wanted that fixed before anything else...

I haven't seen anything to indicate to me than the on-court chemistry has improved at all.

The players might be having more fun, but that's a double-edged sword. You can like your teamates and still not have good chemistry.

ajbry
11-26-2006, 06:34 PM
The players might be having more fun, but that's a double-edged sword. You can like your teamates and still not have good chemistry.

Agreed. A lot of roles have been up in the air:

- How many shots should Al take in order to be a legit #2 option?
- What happens at the 2?
- Jamaal has been scoring more lately, but what about distributing the ball?
- Will Marquis be happy here?

Too many variables so far to build good on-court chemistry strictly related to the basketball aspect. At least they all seem to get along well though.

Trader Joe
11-26-2006, 06:35 PM
I haven't seen anything to indicate to me than the on-court chemistry has improved at all.

The players might be having more fun, but that's a double-edged sword. You can like your teamates and still not have good chemistry.

I guess it all depends on your definition. I view chemistry as a more off court on the bench, in timeouts type of thing which has definetely improved.

The on-court struggles I think have nothing to do with chemistry. I think they have much more to do with the team either not being that talented or having a low basketball IQ.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:36 PM
The main problem is you have a ton of one-on-one players, and NOBODY outside of the point guards who thinks twice about passing the ball.

You can exist without having passers, but that's only if you can spread the floor with outside shooting, ala washington, ala phoenix, ala the pacers of the last few years.

You can see where I'm going with this. The Pacers are a very poorly-construsted roster. They have more talent than I've seen since 2000, but chemistry-wise, they struggle to play together.

I've been one of the guys that said carlisle wasn't going to last long in Indiana, but the way it's happening is just wrong, in my opinion. This isn't rick's fault.

Trader Joe
11-26-2006, 06:38 PM
THe main problem is you have a ton of one-on-one players, and NOBODY outside of the point guards who think twice about passing the ball.

I'd say Jack's passing has been improved this season. Which is the main reason I haven't torn his head off yet. But outside of that yes we are a team that like to iso quite a bit. Even tho heard we were going to be a fast paced fun to watch passing team.

speakout4
11-26-2006, 06:40 PM
And yet we've heard that both, particularly AJ, maybe have been the source of problems in the locker room. Go figure...

And since they have both been gone it can't be denied that team chemistry has been better this season, if nothing else. And many wanted that fixed before anything else...

You are correct that AJ and freddie weren't dead-eye but perhaps better than the dead eye shooters we presently have.

Second it is hard to beleive that a couple of role players were the reason for the lack of chemistry. Those guys got traded and a reason had to be given why so that was the spin. I don't buy it. My biggest rap on Bird is not drafting a guy with more experience who could help out sooner.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:42 PM
in bird's defense, nobody outside of 2-3 rookies in the NBA is doing much of anything this year. It was a weak draft class.

Naptown_Seth
11-26-2006, 06:44 PM
I don't think Bird made bad deals with AJ or AC, but overall I do question his roster direction. I still wonder why he rushed out to get Baston and why they were unable to make that additional move that was discussed.

It's hard not to suspect that Bird is letting his pride run the show a little too much, or perhaps its just a case of doing things a little DWs way, a little Rick's way and a little Bird's way and in the end you just have a mess.


On the other hand this team has shown a MUCH BETTER attitude, especially from guys not in the game, and actually does seem to care a little. They don't mesh all that well and they do desperately need 2 guys that can hit from 3, but Fred, AJ and AC weren't those answers.

I think there is some reason to think that this is just phase one of the adjustment period. And for the record Jack had a GOOD shooting day vs Toronto, including from 3pt range and they still lost. So its not just as simple as "if only the SG could make a 3".

They have lots of little problems all over the place. It feels like they are chasing down many small fires at once, again due to the odd mesh of talent and a new system.

Trader Joe
11-26-2006, 06:46 PM
in bird's defense, nobody outside of 2-3 rookies in the NBA is doing much of anything this year. It was a weak draft class.

Marcus Williams dropped 27 on Phoenix the other night.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 06:52 PM
Marcus Williams dropped 27 on Phoenix the other night.

on the whole, he hasn't been very good this season. He's the worst 3-point shooter in the entire league.

This year's rookie class has stunk so far.

Kaufman
11-26-2006, 06:55 PM
Was Red Auerbach correct in not elevating Larry Bird through the Celtics organization after his playing days were over?

Unfortunately I'm getting frustrated with the way he is doing his job, again that is assuming that he's in charge of the roster and not Donnie Walsh.

I'm not sure this is the work of Donnie Walsh, he's never sprung anything this bad on us in the past 20 years, this really just started since Larry Bird has been here... though I don't think the team was that strong from a chemistry standpoint with Isiah either.

quiller
11-26-2006, 06:58 PM
Pity, I figured they would have a slow start this game... played way to early, first game on a long road trip. Still the lack of assists in the first half was telling of how they played on both ends of the court. From what I saw only Jax showed any energy on the defensive end until JO stepped it up in third qtr. I just hope JO is not hurt bad as he had trouble moving freely after the third qtr. That rest he got really hurt us as it was when the Raptors took back controll of the game. I would not be surprised to see Tin's, Jax, Granger, JO and Foster start our next game. I really also wish JO had been rested the last 5 minutes of the game, give Powell some minutes.

speakout4
11-26-2006, 07:01 PM
When you are consistently down by 15 at the end of the first quarter and everyone is missing it would be nice to have a go to guy who could stop the drought. A team that can come back from a 20 point deficit does so only because the other team has fallen asleep but good teams generally won't let that happen.

I don't think that a good SG is the only remedy but it is the first problem that has to be solved because once JO is stopped in the middle it is a crap shoot who can consistently score. Besides a good shooter we don't have an energy guy like Nate Robinson who comes in and changes tempo when the team is down. DA is the closest thing we have because he is all over the place and even Sarunas has done this. I have seen JT so this but not very often and he does this when he is willing to go to the basket with his finger roll shots. Most of the time he attempts perimeter shots.

This team's first quarter FG percentage so far is fairly unbelieveable.

Kstat
11-26-2006, 07:05 PM
From what I've seen, there are the carlisle-type guys left on Indiana's roster:

-Foster
-O'Neal
-Granger
-Powell
-Marshall
-Armstrong

Those are the guys that I think can have defined roles and fit carlisle's style.

Anthem
11-26-2006, 07:23 PM
So, the counter to Shade's post seems to be:

"This coach needs a new team."

porsche
11-26-2006, 07:45 PM
There has to be more without-the-ball movement on court. There was not so much of it last night. I couldn't even see more than a few really nice passes. What's the point of having Tins/Runi if they cannot pass the ball. Wait, they don't have whom to pass it. The game was going on perimeter mostly, so this reminded me simple passing to each other, which oftenly resulted in mid-range and shots from the distance. Whereas team as a whole actually was struggling at shooting, this was not promising strategy. That's also the reason we've seen so little pick 'n rolls as well, IMO. We're like Chicago sometimes, when relying on shooting too much -- if that's a bad day - blame Runi, Al, anyone; if it goes right - you get the point... So, what I want is more movement without the ball, which would let us be less dependent on shooting... just two cents

Mamluk
11-26-2006, 07:59 PM
Much as I've always said Carlisle can wear out his welcome rather fast....

The problem here isn't the coach. It's the players.

This is not a rick carlisle type team. Rick coaches patient position defense and spot-shooting. gimmick-ball and small-ball are not his specialty. He's not Don Nelson.

The GM gave him completely different players to work with than what he's used to, and now it's a big surprise that he's struggling to coach them?

Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.

That's exactly whom this team needs.
Since the last season, when Bird started talking what kind of team he wants to develope and brought in Saras, Nelson-type coach seemed to be an obvious solution to me.

I do think that Carlisle is a great basketball personality and mind, however, and it would be a shame for Pacers to lose him. It might be wise to keep him in an executive position, especially if DW really retires. RC seems to enjoy his more executive status since the summer, after all.

Cheers,
Mamluk

Kstat
11-26-2006, 08:00 PM
Don Nelson already has a job.....

Mamluk
11-26-2006, 08:20 PM
Yes, I know. I'd be angry the team missed on the opportunity, but I remember last year forum was pretty much sceptical about him as a coach. Some even called him unsoutable for today's NBA.
In a sense, having his current success in mind, it's easier to come to an agreement now. And even if it's too late to get THAT particular coach, now we may think of similar alternatives with less doubt.

Cheers,
Mamluk

Kstat
11-26-2006, 08:28 PM
Saying this team is better-suited to nelson's gimmick-ball isn't really a ringing endorsement of the roster, anyhow.

Nellie-ball is smoke and mirrors. It's fun to watch but eventually futile.

Bball
11-26-2006, 08:30 PM
Was Red Auerbach correct in not elevating Larry Bird through the Celtics organization after his playing days were over?

Unfortunately I'm getting frustrated with the way he is doing his job, again that is assuming that he's in charge of the roster and not Donnie Walsh.

I'm not sure this is the work of Donnie Walsh, he's never sprung anything this bad on us in the past 20 years, this really just started since Larry Bird has been here... though I don't think the team was that strong from a chemistry standpoint with Isiah either.

(Note: I'm using Kaufman's comment as a springboard... Not necessarily directing all this at him).


Is that really true? Did Bird decide that the Pacers had ran out of gas in '99 and put the wheels into motion of a rebuild... only to find them playing in the finals in 2000 and surprised as Walsh was (Walsh has said this himself)?

Did Bird hand pick Isiah to follow him? Was the idea of interchangable players (an idea I remember being touted early in the Isiah days with Walsh either (seemingly) happy to lead the charge or a willing follower) a holdover from something Bird desired as coach?

Was the Bender deal something that Bird wanted to do?

Who thought Reggie should so completely defer to JO (In retrospect, was that jumping the gun?)? Who signed Croshere and Jalen to extra large contracts?

When has chemistry on this team been 'good' since Bird left as coach (following the finals)? Think about that one a minute... Think of the end of season tailspins... the feuding players... the 'breakdown' in Isiah's last season at around the midway point... Didn't Best refuse to enter a game for Isiah? How many rumors or tidbits have we heard about JO wanting Jalen gone? What about the souring relationship between Jalen and Isiah?

And who told Jalen he'd get a shot at PG (if not guaranteed it)? There was a reason we had the blockbuster trade with Chicago in midseason that brought us Mercer, Ollie, Artest and someone else whose name rhymes with Diller, and that reason wasn't good play and chemistry. Bird wasn't around for any of that unless someone knows the Simons/DW had him on the phone as a consultant.

And how happy was JO ever with Artest even before Bird's arrival? Remember (according to Vecsey) Isiah wanted Artest left off the playoff roster and JO demanded Artest, Tinsley, and Mercer be moved after the season. JO signs his mega max contract under Walsh. Walsh publicly states he's not going to fire Isiah (even after one of the worst flameouts Pacer fans had ever seen).

THEN Bird comes into the picture. Isiah gets fired much to JO's chagrin. Carlisle gets hired. B Miller doesn't get resigned (altho the wheels were already in motion for this before Bird was announced/signed that summer).

During Bird... We go to the ECF's in his first season altho stories of Artest meltdowns and JO feuds still exist. Then the flameup of 11/19 happens.

I think everyone is pretty much 'up' on the timeline and events since then. So suddenly everything is "Bird's fault"? The world of Pacer basketball was wine and roses prior to Bird?

Since '99, what exactly has Walsh done right? You have the trade of Dale for JO, but after overpaying to keep him and seeing Dale return 5 years later and watching the team perform with Reggie again at the forefront and JO on the bench injured I have to wonder if that trade needs to be looked on so glowingly these days.

And lastly... Did Walsh really want Bird as his understudy, hier apparent, or whatever you want to call it... or was that forced upon him? Unless it was forced upon him and he's working out his contract under a lame duck status, then even IF Bird is soley to blame for the wheels coming off since his arrival then Walsh still has to take some blame doesn't he?

But I'm not so sure we didn't take the fork in the road that led us to here LONG before Bird was brought back to the team and put in the front office.

--
I have no problem with dragging Bird over the coals for his role in this debacle but I don't think he should be alone as the villagers arrive with their pitchforks and torches looking to remove the evil from the tower.


-Bball

Kegboy
11-26-2006, 08:43 PM
Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.

Quote of the season so far.

Rick's not getting tossed after that extension. So, the question is how long TPTB wait to make roster moves. My guess is they'll give it another month.

Kaufman
11-26-2006, 08:45 PM
I think Rose was tame to what we have now???

I don't disagree that there were problems prior to Larry Bird coming back, but not this bad!

I'm not sure I want another coach to lead this team, I want another team to be led by this coach. I can not believe that this team is one that the owners feel comfortable with - I know that winning is what the league is all about but there has to be something to like and I frankly don't see anything that catches my eyes... I don't think I would like this team even if they did win it all.

So back to Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh - nobody can deny that Walsh has done lots of good for our organization compared to early 1980's... but what about Larry - what does he have to show for? I'm not saying that Donnie hasn't made mistakes, I think in the profession there are always mistakes to be made, but we need some accountability from Bird here and I'm not sure I am seeing any. Do you see anything BBall?

What is there to get excited about?

Why did we trade AJ? Croshere?

Who's running the asylum?

I don't really blame Carlisle, he's doing the best he knows given what he's got. I don't want Don Nelson or anything like Don Nelson coaching this team... now or ever.

Mamluk
11-26-2006, 08:48 PM
Saying this team is better-suited to nelson's gimmick-ball isn't really a ringing endorsement of the roster, anyhow.

Nellie-ball is smoke and mirrors. It's fun to watch but eventually futile.

Saying RC isn't suitable for a rooster is not an endorsement in the first place.
The question seems to be in choosing between one more complete remake of a rooster or change of a coach. It's a risk anyway.
As I see it, Pacers have more chances to get better through development of Granger and small changes in the rooster than through complete remake. Which means they'll probably stay futile for some time anyway. Nelson-bball would be (a) a good management decision as it would attract fans, (b) it should rather than not bring some improvement in the wins column, which in turn helps to develope young players, attracts free agents and increases value of current assets.

Cheers,
Mamluk

AesopRockOn
11-26-2006, 09:03 PM
Isn't it eye-gougingly obvious that the starting lineup needs to change considering our consistent sucking to begin games?

Unclebuck
11-26-2006, 09:17 PM
Much as I've always said Carlisle can wear out his welcome rather fast....

The problem here isn't the coach. It's the players.

This is not a rick carlisle type team. Rick coaches patient position defense and spot-shooting. gimmick-ball and small-ball are not his specialty. He's not Don Nelson.

The GM gave him completely different players to work with than what he's used to, and now it's a big surprise that he's struggling to coach them?

Carlisle needs discipline to be effective, and this group has none.

I agree with you Kstat.

TPTB made Rick get rid of Kevin O'Neill and I believe forced Rick to play a faster tempo. They are forcing Rick to play Tinsley (they did that when they traded AJ) so I doubt this is the team Rick wants to coach.

Bball
11-26-2006, 09:17 PM
I think Rose was tame to what we have now???

I don't disagree that there were problems prior to Larry Bird coming back, but not this bad!

I think it was pretty bad in parts of 01-02, and 02-03. Isiah's first year might've had some warning signs but after a few bandwagoners fell off most (fans and media) had realistic expectations once they saw what we actually had and lacked. Plus people were giving everyone the benefit of the doubt considering the run we'd just been on and the hype about how much better we'd be with the 'rebuilding on the fly'. And maybe the players might've been buying that as well.

But that started to sour quickly. We don't make a midseason trade of that size if things aren't going bad. We don't typically make midseason trade... period.

Also, during those early years of the 21st century we still had Pravda style Pacer reporting. So the media might not have been as negative or enlightening (pick your poison).





So back to Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh - nobody can deny that Walsh has done lots of good for our organization compared to early 1980's... but what about Larry - what does he have to show for? I'm not saying that Donnie hasn't made mistakes, I think in the profession there are always mistakes to be made, but we need some accountability from Bird here and I'm not sure I am seeing any. Do you see anything BBall?


I'm about to watch a certain team play football so I'll answer quickly right now... :)

First, I think we need accountability- Period. Bird, Walsh, owners, players, coach... it doesn't matter to me where it comes from.

Secondly, how long can Walsh live off the 90's and not begin to have a bigger spotlight shined on his role in all of this in the here and now?

Doesn't he have any responsibility now? Is Walsh just a figurehead now? Did he have no role in any of this? Is he just a lame duck waiting on his contract to end?

-Bball

Moses
11-26-2006, 09:19 PM
Is it time to bump the old "Throw Rick under the Bus!" bandwagon thread? Because I'd be all for it.

I think Bird should just come down and coach this team until we find a good coach. It's clear Carlisle isn't the right fit for this group of guys. I'm not sure what coach would work for our players..but it's managements job to either change the players to work with the coach..or change the coach to work with the players.

Unclebuck
11-26-2006, 09:24 PM
Let me also say this thread is painting a picture that is way too negative. The pacers are currently a .500 team, isn't that what we expected for this season ok if not for the whole season, then we certainly expected it for the first 3rd of the season or so.

For the record: no, I don't want Bird to coach the team, I don't want Nelson and I certainly don't want Johnny Davis.

McKeyFan
11-26-2006, 09:27 PM
(Note: I'm using Kaufman's comment as a springboard... Not necessarily directing all this at him).


Is that really true? Did Bird decide that the Pacers had ran out of gas in '99 and put the wheels into motion of a rebuild... only to find them playing in the finals in 2000 and surprised as Walsh was (Walsh has said this himself)?

Did Bird hand pick Isiah to follow him? Was the idea of interchangable players (an idea I remember being touted early in the Isiah days with Walsh either (seemingly) happy to lead the charge or a willing follower) a holdover from something Bird desired as coach?

Was the Bender deal something that Bird wanted to do?

Who thought Reggie should so completely defer to JO (In retrospect, was that jumping the gun?)? Who signed Croshere and Jalen to extra large contracts?

When has chemistry on this team been 'good' since Bird left as coach (following the finals)? Think about that one a minute... Think of the end of season tailspins... the feuding players... the 'breakdown' in Isiah's last season at around the midway point... Didn't Best refuse to enter a game for Isiah? How many rumors or tidbits have we heard about JO wanting Jalen gone? What about the souring relationship between Jalen and Isiah?

And who told Jalen he'd get a shot at PG (if not guaranteed it)? There was a reason we had the blockbuster trade with Chicago in midseason that brought us Mercer, Ollie, Artest and someone else whose name rhymes with Diller, and that reason wasn't good play and chemistry. Bird wasn't around for any of that unless someone knows the Simons/DW had him on the phone as a consultant.

And how happy was JO ever with Artest even before Bird's arrival? Remember (according to Vecsey) Isiah wanted Artest left off the playoff roster and JO demanded Artest, Tinsley, and Mercer be moved after the season. JO signs his mega max contract under Walsh. Walsh publicly states he's not going to fire Isiah (even after one of the worst flameouts Pacer fans had ever seen).

THEN Bird comes into the picture. Isiah gets fired much to JO's chagrin. Carlisle gets hired. B Miller doesn't get resigned (altho the wheels were already in motion for this before Bird was announced/signed that summer).

During Bird... We go to the ECF's in his first season altho stories of Artest meltdowns and JO feuds still exist. Then the flameup of 11/19 happens.

I think everyone is pretty much 'up' on the timeline and events since then. So suddenly everything is "Bird's fault"? The world of Pacer basketball was wine and roses prior to Bird?

Since '99, what exactly has Walsh done right? You have the trade of Dale for JO, but after overpaying to keep him and seeing Dale return 5 years later and watching the team perform with Reggie again at the forefront and JO on the bench injured I have to wonder if that trade needs to be looked on so glowingly these days.

And lastly... Did Walsh really want Bird as his understudy, hier apparent, or whatever you want to call it... or was that forced upon him? Unless it was forced upon him and he's working out his contract under a lame duck status, then even IF Bird is soley to blame for the wheels coming off since his arrival then Walsh still has to take some blame doesn't he?

But I'm not so sure we didn't take the fork in the road that led us to here LONG before Bird was brought back to the team and put in the front office.

--
I have no problem with dragging Bird over the coals for his role in this debacle but I don't think he should be alone as the villagers arrive with their pitchforks and torches looking to remove the evil from the tower.


-Bball

Good post, BBall.

IIRC, Bird did not want to draft Bender, but did want Harrington.

Bird did not trade for Artest, but was part of the crowd "infatuated with talent."

Trading for Dale can be discussed, but trading Antonio Davis for Bender really, really hurt this team. He was an important chemistry guy, a bruiser (not like Dale, but still tough), a mentor, and had a nice outside touch, something that would have complimented JO nicely.

Bird, IIRC, did not like the entire decision to trade the present (AD) for the "future" (Bender).

My guess is Bird played a role in trading for Jax, and certainly was the leader in getting Saras. Although I still have hope for Saras, both of those trades don't look so hot right now.

I guess the two-headed monster syndrome applies to most of this: hard to place the blame and accountability until one is clearly in charge.

#31
11-27-2006, 12:57 AM
Point 1: We don't have any quality 3-points shooters

Point 2: We need a new coach. Carlisle can not coach these guys.

WORD!!

PostArtestEra
11-27-2006, 02:14 AM
To everyone who feels "this team needs a new coach", may I ask who? What available coach could do a better job than Carlisle.
Sidenote: I think that R.C. is an upper echelon coach, and that this team would be lottery bound with most other coaches.

Dr. Goldfoot
11-27-2006, 02:25 AM
may I ask who?


Paul Westphal link (http://pepperdinesports.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/westphal_paul00.html)

As their head coach, he led the Suns to three of their most successful seasons in franchise history. In his first season in 1992-93, the Suns captured the Pacific Division title, won a club-record 62 games and made just the second appearance in the NBA Finals in team history. The 62 victories broke the NBA record for most victories by a rookie coach set by Bill Russell in 1966-67. During the 1994-95 campaign, Westphal became the second-fastest NBA head coach to win 150 games, accomplishing the feat in 208 games, just five games shy of the all-time mark held by Phil Jackson. In his three full seasons in Phoenix, the Suns surpassed the 55-victory mark each year, winning two Pacific Division titles (1993 and 1995) and one Western Conference championship (1993). Phoenix advanced to the second round of the NBA Playoffs in 1994 and 1995, but the Suns were eliminated in seven games both seasons by the Houston Rockets, who went on to claim the NBA Championship each of those years. He coached the Western Conference All-Stars to victory in both 1993 and 1995.
Following his three-plus season stint in Phoenix, Westphal remained in town to assist Head Coach Terry Kearney of Chaparral High School. He stayed the duration of two years until his son, Michael, graduated. Westphal next returned to the NBA as the head coach at Seattle for the lockout-shortened 1998-99 campaign, directing the SuperSonics to a 25-25 record. Seattle posted a 45-37 mark during the 1999-2000 campaign and advanced to the playoffs, losing a five-game first round series to the Utah Jazz. His overall NBA head coaching record, including the playoffs, is 294-181 and his .619 winning percentage ranks among the best on the league's all-time chart.




Rick Carlisle needs to quit tinkering with the lineup. The projected starters are healthy, start them. There is no prize for "Most lineups used", he should know that by now.

Mourning
11-27-2006, 02:34 AM
To everyone who feels "this team needs a new coach", may I ask who? What available coach could do a better job than Carlisle.
Sidenote: I think that R.C. is an upper echelon coach, and that this team would be lottery bound with most other coaches.

WORD!

PostArtestEra
11-27-2006, 02:41 AM
Paul Westphal

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has shown any interest in getting back into the NBA, although I always thought he was a really good coach.

Kstat
11-27-2006, 02:46 AM
nor has the NBA shown any interest in him.

CableKC
11-27-2006, 05:32 AM
Does an up-tempo offense require alot of ball movement?

Do we have the type of players that can move the ball around like the way the Suns do?

I noticed the way that the Raptors were playing us in the 1st half....when they were killing us by 20 points.....they were moving the ball around ALOT....the ball didnt remain in a players hands for more then a few seconds until it got to a player that could hit the shot.

I saw too many instances where we reverted to our standard "dump it to JONeal" or "watch SJax dribble the ball for 15 seconds before shooting the ball".

I just don't think that the players that we have fit the type of offense that we are trying to run here.

Kstat
11-27-2006, 06:02 AM
Does an up-tempo offense require alot of ball movement?

No, good defense can often suffice.




Do we have the type of players that can move the ball around like the way the Suns do?

There's only one steve nash.



I noticed the way that the Raptors were playing us in the 1st half....when they were killing us by 20 points.....they were moving the ball around ALOT....the ball didnt remain in a players hands for more then a few seconds until it got to a player that could hit the shot.

That's what I was talking about before...the key is having non-PGs that are active passers. Bargnani and Garbajosa are prime examples. In a fluid motion offense, everybody has to be thinking pass-first unless he has a quality scoring chance. The PG can't be the only guy passing the ball.



I saw too many instances where we reverted to our standard "dump it to JONeal" or "watch SJax dribble the ball for 15 seconds before shooting the ball".

I just don't think that the players that we have fit the type of offense that we are trying to run here.

I don't think JO is fit for an up-tempo offense, nor is jack.

Bball
11-27-2006, 06:04 AM
Does an up-tempo offense require alot of ball movement?

Do we have the type of players that can move the ball around like the way the Suns do?

I noticed the way that the Raptors were playing us in the 1st half....when they were killing us by 20 points.....they were moving the ball around ALOT....the ball didnt remain in a players hands for more then a few seconds until it got to a player that could hit the shot.

I saw too many instances where we reverted to our standard "dump it to JONeal" or "watch SJax dribble the ball for 15 seconds before shooting the ball".

I just don't think that the players that we have fit the type of offense that we are trying to run here.


To me... the offense seems to not be running as smoothly, nor do players seem to be looking as comfortable, since around the time JO had his talk with management. In trying to make JO happier has the team short changed the rest of the players in some way? Or did we just give the NBA time to figure out what the new Pacers would be trying to do (so in a word we were better 'scouted' after a few games were under our belts) and now we have less of a margin of error?

How many more losses before Slog Ball makes a full fledged return? On one hand, you have to plug the leaks somehow... or the other hand... are we building a team and a system for the long haul or just looking to eek out wins wherever we can? But I guess that goes to the 'vision' question....

This road trip should tell us something in that regard because it's doubtful we come thru it looking like world-beaters on the other side. What will we do in the midst of it... how will we handle adversity during it.... and what happens when we return and assess our position after it?

-Bball

Kstat
11-27-2006, 06:11 AM
How many more losses before Slog Ball makes a full fledged return?

This is what I don't understand.

"Slog ball" has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

The best player on the roster is a low-post player. Put him in the best position to succeed, and let the other players play off of him or find someone who will.

DisplacedKnick
11-27-2006, 08:19 AM
I blame management for the current situation - pretty much 100%.

One of the things management must do is bring in the kind of players that fit your coach. Pacers management has done nothing but bring in players who are the antithesis of players that suit Carlisle's coaching style.

It's a lot like the Knicks with Larry Brown last year. We went and threw a bunch of money at LB. LB proceeds to do what he does everywhere he coaches - and we suddenly decided we didn't really want LB as coach after all.

It's better for everyone if Carlisle goes because management's vision for the team can't be the same as Carlisle's - if they think it is then everyone involved is delusional.

I happen to think the Pacers have a better coach than they do management but that doesn't change the ultimate problem, which is an incompatibility of management and coach - two aspects of the organization that don't share the same vision for the team. Or if they do, two aspects of the organization that have no clue how to make that vision a reality.

Unclebuck
11-27-2006, 09:52 AM
This is what I don't understand.

"Slog ball" has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

The best player on the roster is a low-post player. Put him in the best position to succeed, and let the other players play off of him or find someone who will.

Amen

PacerMan
11-27-2006, 10:06 AM
Plain and simple, Rick's hands are tied. There's nothing he can do to restore order.

Yeh, well it's a LONG season.

We shall see.

Frank Slade
11-27-2006, 10:29 AM
The main problem is you have a ton of one-on-one players, and NOBODY outside of the point guards who thinks twice about passing the ball.

You can exist without having passers, but that's only if you can spread the floor with outside shooting, ala washington, ala phoenix, ala the pacers of the last few years.

You can see where I'm going with this. The Pacers are a very poorly-construsted roster. They have more talent than I've seen since 2000, but chemistry-wise, they struggle to play together.



That's what I have been thinking lately. One of the reasons that we are not a few games under .500 is because of the talent on team. We really should have a worse record than we have now. We have willed our way or snuck by if you will on a few occasions, that we might not have last year. Something however is just not clicking. Style of play, the meshing of players and how they compliment on another. As good of a problem as it may be it still seems that we have too much talent at a few positions, and still deficiencies in certain areas.

You have to wonder if Chicago was not in our division, they could be a potential partner to tweak the roster some.

Putnam
11-27-2006, 11:21 AM
This is what I don't understand.

"Slog ball" has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.


Good grief. I'm sitting here and I can barely get the monitor in focus, and I have to read this kind of myopic stuff? With all due respect, what do you mean by, "Slog ball has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years"?

The Pacers are a marginally profitable (if that) team that has underachieved in 2 of the past 3 years and has been characterized more by on- and off-court scandal than any achievements in the standings. I don't understand why we're talking about anything being "very good" for them. Obviously, we're not meaning the same thing by "Slog Ball."

Slog ball was the Pacers inability or unwillingness to run fast breaks. How has that been a good thing in the past, and why should we be happy that this year's 'faster' team still gives more points off fast breaks than it scores? Versus the Raptors the Pacers had a 3-14 deficit. Three fast-break points in a whole game!

Slog ball was the tendency to use all 24 seconds of offensive possessions as a DEFENSIVE maneuver, just to keep the ball out of the other team's hands. That was common last year, and the offense (hence the team) suffered for it because they really only came to life with 5 seconds left in the possession. This year, they are at least moving the ball around more. How was slog ball better?

Slog ball was dumping the ball to Jermaine on isolation plays, and turning the other 4 players into spectators. What is to like about that? Yeah, Jermaine is a good scoring threat in the post, but how is the clear-out the best way to use him? If it provided spacing, it would help, but if it merely enables the other team to double Jermaine it is not smart basketball.



The best player on the roster is a low-post player. Put him in the best position to succeed, and let the other players play off of him or find someone who will.

I agree. Jermaine seems to be a better and more willing passer this year (based on Slick leanoard's comments. I didn't check the data.) and it would be great to work the ball in and out through him. But is that what you mean by slog ball?

NPFII
11-27-2006, 11:38 AM
This is what I don't understand.

"Slog ball" has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

The best player on the roster is a low-post player. Put him in the best position to succeed, and let the other players play off of him or find someone who will.

Ah, the mother of it all...

"Slog Ball" was never good to anyone, except maybe the 1989-1990 Pistons. I say maybe because they were A LOT more talented than they were rough.
How many championships have the Pacers won with "Slog ball"? Did the wins come due to the "Slog"ness or were there other factors that came in and won the games (hint: Reggie's finesse? Artest's hustle? Passing?).

JO is the best player on the team, but the Pacer's record is better when he's not playing... How can you ever win consistently with that?

The more broader point is that big-men can't be the stars on a championship team. The league has been in the past, and is today even more guard-oriented. Even Shaq always needed Kobe or DWade to help him out. Even Duncan & Robinson needed Avery Johnson & Tony Parker, and even before that Wilt never won, and Bill Russel needed Havlicek et al. Last year's finals were a great example of the big guy (Dirk) losing out to the guard (Wade). Karl Malone always lost to MJ, and the Houston-Sprewell project made it to the finals from the 8th spot only when Ewing started to decline.

JO is not on that level, and he will never be. If the Pacers want a shot at something they need a star who is a guard-forward to build around. That's where the NBA is going. The good bigman can be #2, but he needs to understand his role just like Shaq in Miami, Rasheed in Detroit, Duncan in SA, etc etc. The Pacers have no-one even close to being that #1 guy that JO can be #2 to.

So...

Put your eye on a potential star - Randy Foye? Brandon Roy? Rudy Gay? Adam Morrison? - And trade anything you've got except JO for that one special guy, and pray that he's good enough.




But in the meanwhile - I agree the players (Jack, Tinsley, JO, Al) are not pass-first guys, but Rick is not coaching them right either. I dont know why he doesnt educate them more by pulling them out after mistakes, even to bring them back in the next possession - after an explanation of what they did wrong.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you should be able to teach an overpaid basketball player how to pass and move the ball, how to screen down low, how to block out, how to talk on defense, and how to move without the ball.

Bball
11-27-2006, 01:15 PM
This is what I don't understand.

"Slog ball" has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

The best player on the roster is a low-post player. Put him in the best position to succeed, and let the other players play off of him or find someone who will.

Has it been good to us? I thought the chemistry has been bad... and the team barely made the playoffs.

I'd be OK with "Slog Ball" if JO was more dominant when he got the ball... let alone if he could make better decisions and keep the other players involved.

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
11-27-2006, 03:41 PM
Let me also say this thread is painting a picture that is way too negative. The pacers are currently a .500 team, isn't that what we expected for this season ok if not for the whole season, then we certainly expected it for the first 3rd of the season or so.

For the record: no, I don't want Bird to coach the team, I don't want Nelson and I certainly don't want Johnny Davis.
I agree.

Clearly there seems to be a growing issue, but a fire doesn't get better when you kick your best firefighters off the job and bring in some hack replacements, even if the fire was getting out of hand. Sometimes even the best at their job aren't enough, but changing them out only makes a bad situation worse.


The Jazz rode out several down seasons with Sloan when they might have been tempted to use a coach firing as a way to appear proactive. Some of their bad years were due to injury, some were due to retirement.

Gee, where have I heard that before? And isn't it funny how they got a lot better when they added a top notch PG in the draft?



Larry has admitted that he DID NOT DO THE STRATEGY for the teams he coached. He was the "rah rah, let's have confidence" guy. How have things changed? Can he and Rick not still have a similar role on this team? Larry can't "rah rah" in practice or at halftime when RC schemes the offense?

Or maybe Jax, Reggie, McKey, Dale and Rik understood their roles better and worked the gameplan better.


Bird's success was with a team that had basically been to 2 ECFs already and had one burnout year with Brown. He didn't exactly "fix" a broken or unproven situation, and he didn't do it without Rick and Harter. In my mind Bird doesn't disprove the "great players = bad coaches" theory because he never had to turn around a situation and prove himself.


Reggie and Jax didn't need a corrective coach, they needed someone to stay out of the way and show some confidence in them. And maybe RC's offense worked pretty well for them (I think they were the top scoring team in the East over those 3 years).




that has underachieved in 2 of the past 3 years
When the Suns lost ONLY Amare, did you predict 50 or 60 wins for them? I mean no way you said they wouldn't repeat as West champs with that minor setback.

If today you learned that the Cavs just lost Z and Lebron, would you consider 44 wins underachieving for the year?

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that losing the team's 3 best players for 30-40 games or more typically ensures that a team won't do well. Making the playoffs with that situation looks like overachieving to me.

Did you expect the Pacers to win it all BEFORE Rick took over in 2003? I'm betting the answer is NO. So just because you were disappointed by the ECF loss doesn't mean that the team didn't exceed the preseason expectations. They didn't meet the goal, they overachieved that season. The next year after Stern's suspensions the general view was "they're toast" with perhaps a "if they can just get to the playoffs and get Ron back..."angle. And still they took 2 games from the eventual East champs in round 2.


I've yet to see a Rick team do worse than expected given the circumstances at the time. Now this year may be different, but so far they aren't dramatically off the league-wide expectations. I didn't see anyone with them much above the 6th seed, and some suggested they wouldn't make the playoffs.


Also it's funny that this thread wasn't posted FRI night, isn't it?

Kstat
11-27-2006, 03:46 PM
The more broader point is that big-men can't be the stars on a championship team.


http://www.hhweb.com/photos/nba2003champs/Tim_Duncan_W_Trophies_small.jpg

Fool
11-27-2006, 03:55 PM
Just pretend there's a third trophy in that picture.

BTW,

I don't think I understand the "Carlisle isn't the problem, TPTB have given Carlisle a team he can't coach." If he can't coach the team, how does the team not need a different coach?

Naptown_Seth
11-27-2006, 03:56 PM
I also disagree about the purpose of POSSESSION PROTECTION ball. It's not defensive, it's not meant to just keep the scoring down overall. It's to be more efficient than the opponent PER possession.

By running the team has made this situation worse, not better. The reason (IMO) that Tinsley got benched by Rick to start 03-04 was because he wouldn't protect possessions, he'd throw the ball anyplace and often make silly TOs. That's what happened vs TOR.

RC has already basically filed this complaint this year, discussing the team's poor decisions on when and how to run and their inefficiency at scoring on breaks.

A methodical offense might seem boring to fans but if it reduces TOs and gets the team more points per possession then it's a good thing. Plus as Kstat points out, if it matches your roster better then it makes sense to use it.


Right now the Pacers have entered a Hummer in the freaking 500. Better to make the game an offroad battle where the players have more of an advantage. I mean you've got JO blocking 3 per game but a team that doens't rebound well. Slowing it down a little forces teams to face more JO guarding the rim and reduces the number of rebounding battles.

Great shooting teams want the game to be a shooting contest and great rebounding teams want a lot of missed shots to go up. The Pacers are neither of those.

Putnam
11-27-2006, 04:06 PM
I've yet to see a Rick team do worse than expected given the circumstances at the time.

Please explain the circumstance that prevailed on Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006 that created the expectation that the Pacers would fall behind the Raptors by 27 points in the first half.

CableKC
11-27-2006, 07:10 PM
How many more losses before Slog Ball makes a full fledged return? On one hand, you have to plug the leaks somehow... or the other hand... are we building a team and a system for the long haul or just looking to eek out wins wherever we can? But I guess that goes to the 'vision' question....
On a related note......with the Jazz AMAZING start this season.....what has changed on their end?

I always thought that they had "slow it down on defense and offense" approach to playing.....but given Jerry Sloan's method of disciplinarian coaching.....have they switched to an uptempo offense ( the Offense-Du-Jour that every coach and their Grandmother is trying to imitate )?

or

Is he still doing the "same ol same ol" but has an inspired Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer to thank for their success so far?

I know that this up-tempo stuff is great and all......but I just get the sense that this season is going to be sacrificed either by trying out an "up-tempo" offense ( as in working out the kinks over the span of a season ) or that we will scrap the year as a "we tried to do something different but failed" season. :shrug:

I can wish that we can be more athethic and be more "up-tempo" but I just don't think that we have the players ( much less the PGs ) to pull it off.

CableKC
11-27-2006, 07:13 PM
Please explain the circumstance that prevailed on Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006 that created the expectation that the Pacers would fall behind the Raptors by 27 points in the first half.
Hasn't this been the 3rd game since the 1st Bucks game where we were down by double-digits in the 1st half and then come back from behind and/or came within 4 points to get back in the game?

I don't know what the difference is....but we seem to only play really good when our butts are on the line and we are losing horrifically at the half.

Destined4Greatness
11-27-2006, 08:20 PM
The inmates are running the asylum here. We don't have any quality 3-points shooters, yet we've started to instill the Mike Davis CT3 offense. I said this was a concern after we actually shot well last game, that we'd start to settle in and rely on jumpshots, and it looks like that theory has been proven.

We need a new coach. Carlisle can not coach these guys.

If anything I would say we need a new GM. Because this team is constructed horribly, its not Ricks fault he hasn't been given the right players. I doubt any coach in this league could do better.

madison
11-27-2006, 08:29 PM
Hey, guys. This is NOT a very talented team. I'm not saying none of the players have talent, but the fact is, the TEAM is not very talented. We don't do the things that talented TEAMS do. We're not a good defensive unit, we don't block out, just the oldest guy on the squad moves without the ball, and almost no one takes care of the ball.

IMO, we're in a rebuilding phase, even though the front office won't say so outright. It will be a couple more seasons before we have a competitive team (defined as playing in the Eastern Finals).

Our needs are pretty obvious. We don't have a quality point guard. We don't have a real SG and we're playing a 6'8" 'shooting' forward at C. Our biggest and strongest starter isn't "comfortable" playing offense under the basket, and our biggest player on the bench (David H), hasn't learned basics like blocking out nor playing defense with his feet. It will take at least two more seasons before we can fix even two of these problems.

Meanwhile, take pleasure in watching our younger players develop. Enjoy the occasional opportunity to see the new NBA standouts like Lebron and Wade. And, be thankful that we play in the East where .500 ball will get you into the playoffs so we can showcase our franchise on ESPN at least once a year.

Putnam
11-27-2006, 08:54 PM
madison, you are right. The Pacers are losing because they are not a consistently good team.

My pre-season prediction was that the Pacers would win 36 games, so I am not complaining now. I'm happy when they win, and not surprised when they lose. If they win 37, I'll admit I was wrong, and I won't claim to be disappointed until they lose 47 times.

I would like to hear from Naptown Seth, who is a very respectable poster around here, how he can defend the statement that he's never seen a Rick team do worse than expected. I don't think the Pacers were expected to go 0-4 against Atlanta last year, for example. If you can make such a statement, you should be able to make it for any interval of time, and there have been a heckuva lot of quarters and halves when a Rick team fell waaaaaay short of expectation.

Problems are solved by finding fault anywhere it exists and correcting it, not by deflecting blame from your favorite. In the case of the Pacers over the past couple of seasons, Rick Carlisle has proven to be a lousy motivator and not a very good teacher. As proof of the first, I offer the team's frequent poor starts, and as evidence in support of the second I offer David Harrison. Carlisle is a good man with Xs and Os, but coaching is more than that. Artest and injuries played their parts, and Bird and Walsh concocted the brew. But unless you can PROVE that Carlisle's strategies, substitutions and motivations are impeccable, Carlisle shares the responsibility for what the Pacers are. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "I prefer to keep Carlisle," but it is not reasonable to say that the head coach bears no responsibility for the team's performance.

Fireball Kid
11-27-2006, 09:34 PM
If anything I would say we need a new GM. Because this team is constructed horribly, its not Ricks fault he hasn't been given the right players. I doubt any coach in this league could do better.

I agree. I just do not know what Bird and Walsh's vision was when when they made these certain moves. I liked the idea that they got Marquis Daniels but they should of gotten a point guard who could compliment his skills like Delonte West. Those two would be perfect for each other.

And then there is the draft. Oh god, what were they thinking? I'm not the smartest man but I would think they'd draft someone who could fill a need like say, Jordan Farmar? I don't understand why they drafted James White and I don't understand why they traded him away.

I was alright at the time with them getting Al Harrington as long as he would come off the bench. When I learned that he was going to be in the starting line up with Jermaine O'Neal, I was very pissed. I mean, both of them are pretty much the same player and don't compliment each other in any way.

I had this feeling that we would be in for yet another mediocre season and so far, it's starting to look like that. This team is constructed pretty badly and there's no one to blame but the GM's. Why did they sign Baston? Why??

Rick isn't the problem, he is just a part of it.

RamBo_Lamar
11-27-2006, 10:16 PM
Let me also say this thread is painting a picture that is way too negative. The pacers are currently a .500 team, isn't that what we expected for this season ok if not for the whole season, then we certainly expected it for the first 3rd of the season or so.

Agreed 100% It seems like alot here expected this team to come out
running like the '80s Lakers or something, and dominate the league while
making it look easy.

This team isn't close to what it will be playing like later in the season -
they have a long way to go, and alot of baby-steps to take along the
way. I think it's encouraging they've done as well (or not as badly) as
they have so far at this very early point in the season.

Even when they do approach playing their best basketball, they won't
be a frighteningly dominant team, but with the parity in todays league,
they should be competitive enough to give most other teams a spirited
run by seasons end.

There is a long way to go until then, and it's waaay too early to start
freaking out and jumping to the conclusion that the coach should be
canned.

If they are anywhere close to .500 by all-star break, they will likely be
on pace to make the playoffs without having to sneak in on the last
day.

JMO

quiller
11-28-2006, 12:21 AM
The reality of this team is we are lucky to be in the Eastern Confrence... Take a long look at he standings.. all we need to do is slowly get better as the year goes by avoid any long loosing streaks.. 2-8 or 3-10.... and we will be in place for a 4 or 5 seed.

Indyfan
11-28-2006, 11:06 AM
I would like to hear from Naptown Seth, who is a very respectable poster around here, how he can defend the statement that he's never seen a Rick team do worse than expected. I don't think the Pacers were expected to go 0-4 against Atlanta last year, for example. If you can make such a statement, you should be able to make it for any interval of time, and there have been a heckuva lot of quarters and halves when a Rick team fell waaaaaay short of expectation.

Problems are solved by finding fault anywhere it exists and correcting it, not by deflecting blame from your favorite. In the case of the Pacers over the past couple of seasons, Rick Carlisle has proven to be a lousy motivator and not a very good teacher. As proof of the first, I offer the team's frequent poor starts, and as evidence in support of the second I offer David Harrison. Carlisle is a good man with Xs and Os, but coaching is more than that. Artest and injuries played their parts, and Bird and Walsh concocted the brew. But unless you can PROVE that Carlisle's strategies, substitutions and motivations are impeccable, Carlisle shares the responsibility for what the Pacers are. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "I prefer to keep Carlisle," but it is not reasonable to say that the head coach bears no responsibility for the team's performance.


I took Naptown's statement as an over all statement meaning that Rick's teams haven't underacheived for the span of a season, they have consistenly done better then was expected at the start of the season...esp. the brawl year when we got to the second round of the playoffs with all we had gone through that year.

Carlisle has always taken his share of the blame when things go wrong, and he is always trying to get better as a coach, and learn from his mistakes. He doesn't humiliate or call his players out in the press, he is a class act who doesn't try to make excuses when things go wrong. I also think he is a very good coach, one of the best in the league, but coaches are in the position to be heavily critisized and he also takes his share of it.

I am glad we don't have a coach who whines, or makes it about himself, or tries to deflect all blame from himself. As far as the lousy motivator and poor teacher...You have to consider that these guys are professionals, making gobs of money, and they are not going to respond to a college type motivation. The inmates run this league, and the coach's have to deal with it as best they can. It is hard to say that coach is a poor teacher when we don't see the practices, the extra time spent working with the young guys, the film sessions that break down a players weak points and try to help him improve. If you listen to RC's show he mentions those things in passing, and it is interesting to hear. Perhpas we thought too much of DH,or whoever else is dissappointing, and it isn't that coach isn't trying to teach these guys.

FlavaDave
11-28-2006, 11:36 AM
What this team needs is time.

ALF68
11-28-2006, 11:39 AM
I've been calling for his head for about 4 or 5 games now. He has no idea how to coach this team. Sarunas and Al had no business getting that minutes. He started a guy the past two games who then want to play a combined 11 minutes in the two games. I'm sorry that doesn't even make sense. Carlisle is completely out of touch. Get him out of here ASAP.

UH, where does the players bear any responsibility in you mind? At some point in time the players have to strap it on and get er done.

Putnam
11-28-2006, 12:22 PM
I took Naptown's statement as an over all statement meaning that Rick's teams haven't underacheived for the span of a season, they have consistenly done better then was expected at the start of the season...esp. the brawl year when we got to the second round of the playoffs with all we had gone through that year.


Not to nitpick, but you don't mean Carlisle's teams have "consistently done better than was expected at the start of the season." They were championship contenders at the start of the previous two seasons. What you mean is that things went wrong during the season (suspensions, injuries, trade requests, locker-room turmoil, etc.) that made those expectations appear unrealistic in hindsight.


I appreciate the rest of your post. You can't prove that Carlisle is "one of the best in the league" but I can't prove he isn't, except insofar as Pat Riley and a few other guys have some rings and Carlisle doesn't. You say you are glad we don't have a coach who "makes it all about himself." I agree with that, of course. But why not have a coach who makes it all about winning?

I'm not out for the coach's blood. He's the Pacers' coach and that needs to stay a given for the rest of the season. I personally don't see or hear anything inspiring about him. His comments on the radio show are less interesting than what I hear from the coaches of 1-A and 2-A high schools out here in Putnam and Montgomery counties. But that is just my opinion.



It is hard to say that coach is a poor teacher when we don't see the practices, the extra time spent working with the young guys, the film sessions that break down a players weak points and try to help him improve. Perhpas we thought too much of DH,or whoever else is dissappointing, and it isn't that coach isn't trying to teach these guys.

Harrison's mistakes are correctable. It is not that he's expected to run faster than he is able or consistently make a skyhook from 12 feet out. It is not a matter of skills, but of knowledge and habit. Harrison is expected to know how to take up a defensive position and stand there creating a seven foot wide barrier in the paint. But he's no better at it now than he was two seasons ago. There may be more to it, but the evident, obvious, apparent, simplest-and-best, Occam's Razor explanation is that Harrison isn't getting enough good teaching from the coaches.

D-BONE
11-28-2006, 02:08 PM
Putnam and Indyfan,

I find some valid points in both your posts. Yes, in theory RC should be able to teach these guys somethings, particularly the younger guys. On the other hand, I also agree with the point that teaching and motivation in the NBA are a totally different animal than at other levels.

So this debate is very complex and I don't know that any of us can have any more than our opinion based on obsevation. What I would say is that teaching or motivating someone is a two-way street. The teacher/coach hs to be effective at teaching, but equally as important the student/player has to be open to learning. In addition, the style of the teacher/coach may be perceived differently in as many ways as their are students/players and therefore be more or less effective in different relationships.

All I can say as far as DH is concerned is there's no evidence that RC and staff have been successful "teaching" but there's also no real evidence that DH has been an active and willing learner. From my own observation, DH has physical tools to work with, but indications of motivation, commitment, work ethic, self control, etc. are not particularly encouraging.

In my mind RC has the rest of this year to show what he's made of. If he can't develop something with the entire group, I would be open to looking elsewhere. But I'd add that I'd be at the point of looking for a house cleaning including players and coaches. I think this core will have had adequate chance to show something by then.

granger
11-28-2006, 02:15 PM
This team needs to use JO and Tinsley like Duncan and Parker..

Use their skills and ability to go to line more.


Oh about Carlisle's teaching, I remember Mehmet Okur was talking on Turkish Tv about he learned many things from him, while he was in Detroit

beast23
11-28-2006, 03:57 PM
"This team needs a new coach" ?

By team, I assume what is meant is "the present conglameration of players".

But the statement doesn't really go far enough. It could have stated "To be successful, this team needs a new coach" or "To be a championship contender, this team needs a new coach".

So, the statement as it stands is probably true. Another coach might have more success with our present hodge-podge of players. But no coach in existence could take our present group of players this season, or even after giving them ample time, let's say 'til hell freezes over, and transform them into a championship contending team.

We don't have enough perimeter shooters, willing rebounders or capable defenders. And we don't have a roster that the spectators seem to be able to identify with.

So where do we start in building a championship contending team? I'd say, let's start with our best pieces and go from there.

That would include Carlisle. It would also include JO, Harrington, Foster and Granger, with perhaps Williams, Marshall, Powell and Daniels sprinkled in to see how they develop. But it wouldn't include much else.

If you look at those players, that leaves a lot of wholes to be filled. Especially in the backcourt.

From a fundamental standpoint, we need perimeter shooters and willing/capable rebounders. But, we also need to find players with decent skills in the backcourt who are capable defenders. A decent big man tossed in might also help.

But, from my perspective, what we don't need is a new coach.

Bball
11-28-2006, 04:11 PM
IMHO this summer was management's chance to decide on 'coach or players'. They decided that 'coach stays'. So right now, any problems must be fixed by addressing the player side of the roster.

-Bball

Indyfan
11-28-2006, 04:16 PM
[QUOTE=Putnam;507821]Not to nitpick, but you don't mean Carlisle's teams have "consistently done better than was expected at the start of the season." They were championship contenders at the start of the previous two seasons. What you mean is that things went wrong during the season (suspensions, injuries, trade requests, locker-room turmoil, etc.) that made those expectations appear unrealistic in hindsight.


I appreciate the rest of your post. You can't prove that Carlisle is "one of the best in the league" but I can't prove he isn't, except insofar as Pat Riley and a few other guys have some rings and Carlisle doesn't. You say you are glad we don't have a coach who "makes it all about himself." I agree with that, of course. But why not have a coach who makes it all about winning?"





I appreciate your thoughts but I wonder why do you think he isn't all about winning? Of course he wants to win and will do whatever he can to win. I think most coach's want to win most of all. What I was refering to was the idea of coaches who always look to protect themselves from scrutiny, to deflect the blame when things go wrong, to make excuses, ie Larry Brown tends to do those things.

One of the best in the league is proven by his record so far...COY his rookie season at Detroit (and top 5 COY voting 4 of his other five seasons), 3- 50 win seasons in his first 3 years (which maybe only 2 other coaches have done, I'm not sure though, so correct me if I'm wrong). He turned the Detroit team around and gave them the prep work for the Championship run. He did great things his first year here, until Artest cracked under the pressure in the ECF, they were real contenders.

Shade
04-20-2007, 10:42 PM
:bump:

This is a pretty interesting read now.

ajbry
04-20-2007, 11:00 PM
I don't think JO is fit for an up-tempo offense, nor is jack.

I'd call this pretty interesting.

Jermaniac
04-20-2007, 11:05 PM
I said we needed a new coach 2 years ago.

miller31
04-20-2007, 11:07 PM
Mark Jackson anyone?........

Cobol Sam
04-20-2007, 11:08 PM
Mark Jackson anyone?........

Yeah! Also he has to play starting point guard as part of his contract.

Bball
04-20-2007, 11:22 PM
:bump:

This is a pretty interesting read now.

You guys bump these old threads and I cross my fingers I didn't say something that looks wrong in retrospect.

But re-reading my posts... I feel they still carry weight.

IOW... I agree with myself ;)

-Bball