PDA

View Full Version : We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again



Unclebuck
01-18-2007, 10:41 AM
I was watching NBATV last night (the replay of Peter Vescey's comments) and he said that even though Rick signed an extension over the summer he is not safe.(Vescey speak for his job is not safe) That was all he said and he did not elaborate.


Then I read MM blog and it seems players are starting to grumble in the locker room.


http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2007/01/more_and_more_a.html

One of the biggest winners in the trade was Rick Carlisle. There was mounting frustration in the locker room over his controlling coaching style, although nobody wanted to speak out publicly. Now more than a quarter of his roster has been turned over, bringing a renewed grace period.

__________________________________
So what is going on here. I will reserve my comments and judgements until later, but I'm curious what everyone thinks about this.


.

indyman37
01-18-2007, 10:45 AM
I had the thought the after this year, Rick was going to move into the front office. And if thats true, we should just wait until the offseason and get a coach that actually can coach the style of play the organization wants it to.

pacerfreak
01-18-2007, 10:59 AM
How many of us have seen the facial expressions of the players who are/were trying to figure out their role/position? I certainly am not surprised at all to hear that there is grumbling going on. I feel like Carlisle is the best we can get right now but he is very inconsistant. He says one thing and does another. He wants uptempo......right. I don't think he has a lot of security with the pacers after this season at all. It won't matter
how many new players we get, RC will not change his plan. I think Unclebuck is right in saying this may be somewhat of a grace period given to RC.

ChicagoJ
01-18-2007, 11:02 AM
Yeah, I updated JayRedd's Vecsey report in the trade thread with his full quote about Rick.

Here are your choices:

(1) The team is committed to getting a group of players Rick *can* coach.
(2) No matter what they do, Rick doesn't have the "people skills" of a HC. Best case scenario: he just hasn't developed those people skills yet.
(3) Vecsey's blowing smoke about Rick's status to emphasize just how badly the franchise wanted to get rid of Jackson and his lockerroom/ questioning authority disruptions
(4) Donnie and Larry want to give Rick a period of time with the roster *they* like to see how he does with it
(5) Tinsley really is the next to go
(6) Tinsley isn't going anywhere and Rick is the next to go

I don't know what to think yet. My opinion on Rick is well known. Having said that, the Pacers have nearly accomplished the impossible, since the brawl only three players remain: JO, Tinsley, Harrison. (And that's why you usually ship out the coach.)

I'm not opposed to giving Rick time with this new roster to see what he can do. But I'm certainly not opposed to a change, either.

Ike, Dunn, and Murphy may be half-court players, but they are not "stand around and watch somebody else play one-on-one players either."

The Pacers MUST be more aggressive in the half court offense, and they must try to run and get easy baskets when they can, or Rick "is" a big part of the problem.

For example, nobody is ever going to accuse the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Ainge/DJ Celtics of being an athletic, running team. But they played at a much faster pace than the current Pacers.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2007, 12:04 PM
Where's the unknown in the this? HARRINGTON questioned the system, twice in public. Done.

Al hit the bench in the 2nd half vs NJ and the comments were "it meant nothing"...um, really. Looks like it did actually. And then in the Kravitz thread I noted Rick's specific criticism of Al - the team scored worse on fast breaks with Al at SF and that's where Al wanted to play, ie "I did what Al wanted and he wasn't good at it."


Saras, while more stable this year, certainly hadn't earned Rick's trust as a big minutes PG.

Jack got the PT that indicated support from Rick, but if you'll recall my "no more fastbreaks" thread and comments by others all over the place regarding the breaks, Jack was probably the worst player on the break the team had, he was terrible at it. Add to this the public rips on Rick by Jack at times during games (as he came out), and I think you see a pretty consistant message in this trade...

Enough. Shut up and play the system because without it you guys aren't that good a team.


If they really want to run, it wasn't going to work with Al at SF or Jack at SG. Rick's numbers on break points with Al at SF support that view, and we all saw how poor Jack was as a break finisher.

GetMoney
01-18-2007, 12:21 PM
okay this is exactly what i said but then some1 deleted my post and gave me a 3-point infraction

wtf? there's no freedom of speech here? what kinda forum...

i simply don't think Rick should be our coach anymore. i wish bird would come back as head coach

Hicks
01-18-2007, 12:37 PM
okay this is exactly what i said but then some1 deleted my post and gave me a 3-point infraction

wtf? there's no freedom of speech here? what kinda forum...

i simply don't think Rick should be our coach anymore. i wish bird would come back as head coach

It wasn't what you said (in terms of the Pacers) that got the infraction.

GetMoney
01-18-2007, 12:38 PM
what did i say?

Since86
01-18-2007, 12:50 PM
I don't know what to think yet. My opinion on Rick is well known. Having said that, the Pacers have nearly accomplished the impossible, since the brawl only three players remain: JO, Tinsley, Harrison.
There are actually four players left from the brawl. You forgot about Foster.


For example, nobody is ever going to accuse the Bird/McHale/Parrish/Ainge/DJ Celtics of being an athletic, running team. But they played at a much faster pace than the current Pacers.

The whole league plays slower than teams did in the 80's. I quoted an article just last week about how scoring is down over 17pts/game since the '85 season.

Here's another site, stops at the 03-04 season, that has the scoring dropping even throughout the 90s and 00s.
http://www.baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/08/basketball_shoo.php

You need to look no further than the rest of the league to figure out why the Pacers aren't doing as much running. The whole entire NBA has slowed down.

EDIT: Here's a more updated league scoring average list
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/league_stats.html

Note: The P's were 3pts short of the league average for PPG last year.

ChicagoJ
01-18-2007, 01:00 PM
There are actually four players left from the brawl. You forgot about Foster.

Well, that's easy to do. :blush:


The whole league plays slower than teams did in the 80's. I quoted an article just last week about how scoring is down over 17pts/game since the '85 season.

Here's another site, stops at the 03-04 season, that has the scoring dropping even throughout the 90s and 00s.
http://www.baseballcrank.com/archives2/2004/08/basketball_shoo.php

You need to look no further than the rest of the league to figure out why the Pacers aren't doing as much running. The whole entire NBA has slowed down.

EDIT: Here's a more updated league scoring average list
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/league_stats.html

Note: The P's were 3pts short of the league average for PPG last year.

Most importantly, as I've said hundreds of times around here - the cause of the decreased scoring is not "better defense" but its slower play and fewer possessions per game. Control-freak coaches want the players to grind out the shotclock instead of take advantage of early opportunities to score.

That slow-moving Celtic team could generate ten to twenty more possessions per game.

LET 'EM PLAY!!

Unclebuck
01-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Some of Bird's comments yesterday about rebounding, playing hard, stopping dribble penetration seemed to be directed more at Rick and coahcing staff then at the players.

I have a meeting to go to

Hicks
01-18-2007, 01:14 PM
what did i say?

The posts you've been warned about or given an infraction for have all been either demeaning or hostile.

Since86
01-18-2007, 01:15 PM
Most importantly, as I've said hundreds of times around here - the cause of the decreased scoring is not "better defense" but its slower play and fewer possessions per game. Control-freak coaches want the players to grind out the shotclock instead of take advantage of early opportunities to score.

That slow-moving Celtic team could generate ten to twenty more possessions per game.

LET 'EM PLAY!!

I agree, but the league is filled with those types of coaches. So unless you find the next Don Nelson (who didn't have a team even get above the lowest Celtic PPG average of 106 in the 80s, from this season back to 1998 and I stopped looking after that) you're stuck with a grind it out coach.

You're not gonna get Mike D'Antoni or George Karl. And are you going to want Sam Mitchell, Bob Hill, or Eddie Jordan? Those are the only 5 coaches that cracked 100PPG last season.

If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.

Young
01-18-2007, 01:34 PM
I think that this is Rick's last year with the Pacers, it has to be.

If the Pacers want to get out and run the break more Rick has to go. He is to controlling. I don't think that he has the personality to let a team be free you could say.

Not only Carlise, I don't see the coaching staff as a whole being fit. I did before and I still do now, have a big problem with no defenseive minded coach. Not only that, one of our assistants is here just to babysit Jamaal Tinsley. We need to make a coaching change this summer.

Rick is a good coach. We could do much worse. But to get where we want to go Rick has to go.

GetMoney
01-18-2007, 01:50 PM
The posts you've been warned about or given an infraction for have all been either demeaning or hostile.

thas just the way i talk

no1 else seemed to have a problem with them... are you rick carlisle?

BillS
01-18-2007, 01:53 PM
I think that this is Rick's last year with the Pacers, it has to be.

I'd have to agree with this assessment. I think if Rick can't be successfull (and by that I mean a post-ASB run that at least leads to a hard-fought first round exit) after turning over players into a group that at least on paper fits with his preferred style of play, then his time has come.


If the Pacers want to get out and run the break more Rick has to go. He is to controlling. I don't think that he has the personality to let a team be free you could say.

However, I have to disagree with this. Rick spent a lot of time this year literally sitting on his hands, and yet the team's lack of ability to execute in a free-form offense was still clear. As I said last year, the perimeter shooting and spacing ability of this team simply does not allow it to be a successful fast-paced team - and the team was falling apart if the defense got back fast enough.

I give Rick props for trying to let the team free-flow. This year the players need not to blame Rick but to blame their own results when free-flowing.

ChicagoJ
01-18-2007, 01:56 PM
I agree, but the league is filled with those types of coaches. So unless you find the next Don Nelson (who didn't have a team even get above the lowest Celtic PPG average of 106 in the 80s, from this season back to 1998 and I stopped looking after that) you're stuck with a grind it out coach.

You're not gonna get Mike D'Antoni or George Karl. And are you going to want Sam Mitchell, Bob Hill, or Eddie Jordan? Those are the only 5 coaches that cracked 100PPG last season.

If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.

That's why I say the quality of coaching in the NBA is at an all-time low.

They're all lemmings, running over the cliff together, except for a handful of nonconformists that don't ever get to work with high quality teams. Well, Bo Hill had a chance in SA, and led them to 61-wins one season and the WCFs the next season before Popovich blamed him for D-Rob, Elliott, Person and others all missing the entire season with significant injuries.

Whatever happened to original thought and creativity?

ChicagoJ
01-18-2007, 01:59 PM
thas just the way i talk

no1 else seemed to have a problem with them...

That's not true, and we have rules here for a reason.

This is a moderated board, not a free-for-all where anything goes under the misguided notion of "free speech" (hint: this board is not run by the US government).

It isn't for everybody.

Young
01-18-2007, 02:00 PM
If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.

I don't know about that.

Rick Aldeman anyone? If the Pacers want to play up tempo there is a coach to do it with. He is probably the most proven coach that would be avaliable.

Stan Van Gundy could be another canidate. I don't know how interested he is in being a head coach again, but he would be a good choice if he wants to.

Terry Porter is someone I thought did solid in Milwuakee and should not have been fired. There is Mario Ellie, I think he is an assistant somewhere this year. I think that Tim Hardaway has been rumored to be interested in coaching but I don't know how good he would be. Mark Jackson's name has been brought up in the past as well I think.

Marc Iavaroni could be another possiable replacement. He is the Sun's top assistant.

Michael Cooper could be a canidate. He was the LA Sparks head coach, Denver Nuggets assistant and intern head coach, and now the head coach for the NBDL's Albuquerque Thunderbird. I think he would be an excellant choice for the new head coach.

There will be a lot of choices out there to pick from. I think that the Pacers need to not only replace Rick, but replace atleast some of the staff as well.

Since86
01-18-2007, 02:01 PM
thas just the way i talk

no1 else seemed to have a problem with them... are you rick carlisle?

No, but he's the creator of this site and what he says goes.

If you'd like to stay, you'd better get a handle on the rules of this forum.

imawhat
01-18-2007, 02:07 PM
and I think you see a pretty consistant message in this trade...

Enough. Shut up and play the system because without it you guys aren't that good a team.


If they really want to run, it wasn't going to work with Al at SF or Jack at SG. Rick's numbers on break points with Al at SF support that view, and we all saw how poor Jack was as a break finisher.



That's exactly what it is. The players were wrong in griping. They weren't good at running and they weren't going to get better. Now I feel like we've traded off the malcontents and replaced them with players who are better in transition. I'm actually more interested to see how Nelson's going to deal with Harrington and Jackson's (lack of) running games.

Since86
01-18-2007, 02:14 PM
I don't know about that.

Rick Aldeman anyone? If the Pacers want to play up tempo there is a coach to do it with. He is probably the most proven coach that would be avaliable.

Stan Van Gundy could be another canidate. I don't know how interested he is in being a head coach again, but he would be a good choice if he wants to.

Terry Porter is someone I thought did solid in Milwuakee and should not have been fired. There is Mario Ellie, I think he is an assistant somewhere this year. I think that Tim Hardaway has been rumored to be interested in coaching but I don't know how good he would be. Mark Jackson's name has been brought up in the past as well I think.

Marc Iavaroni could be another possiable replacement. He is the Sun's top assistant.

Michael Cooper could be a canidate. He was the LA Sparks head coach, Denver Nuggets assistant and intern head coach, and now the head coach for the NBDL's Albuquerque Thunderbird. I think he would be an excellant choice for the new head coach.

There will be a lot of choices out there to pick from. I think that the Pacers need to not only replace Rick, but replace atleast some of the staff as well.

And you know what type of a coach Tim Hardaway and Mark Jackson would be, along with the other assistances on your list?

Rick is given credit for running the offense under Bird when they went to the finals. A team that was #4 in the league in scoring with 103PPG.

What happened when he was given his own team? Just because you do one thing as an assistant, doesn't mean you do it as a head coach.

There's very few proven NBA coaches that try a running type scheme, and isn't even close to being considered running when compared to the 80's Celtics like Jay did.

The Ps aren't trying to completely rebuild, which would be what they would start to do if they brought in an unproven coach to run a system opposite of what they have in place.

The odds of landing a Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni are very slim.

Young
01-18-2007, 02:27 PM
And you know what type of a coach Tim Hardaway and Mark Jackson would be, along with the other assistances on your list?

Rick is given credit for running the offense under Bird when they went to the finals. A team that was #4 in the league in scoring with 103PPG.

What happened when he was given his own team? Just because you do one thing as an assistant, doesn't mean you do it as a head coach.

There's very few proven NBA coaches that try a running type scheme, and isn't even close to being considered running when compared to the 80's Celtics like Jay did.

The Ps aren't trying to completely rebuild, which would be what they would start to do if they brought in an unproven coach to run a system opposite of what they have in place.

The odds of landing a Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni are very slim.

I don't think it is about finding a Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni. Their teams run to extremes. I don't think that we have to do that.

However, if Larry wants an uptempo team I think that Rick has to go. Even if he doesn't I wonder if Rick has the locker room under control although with a trade like what was just made maybe that will change.

I'm not saying that really any of those coaches would be better than Rick or are the next Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni. I was just listing the possiable replacements should the Pacers let Rick go. Especially when you give an guy their first head coaching job in the NBA you are taking on the unknown. It's a gamble. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. I trust that if Larry and Donnie decide they need a new head coach they will be able to spot a quality one regardless of his head coaching experience.

I think that we have pretty much already completely re-built this team. Jermaine, Jamaal, Jeff, Danny, and David are the only current Pacers who have been with the Pacers over a full season. This team has made major moves. Why not change the coach?

Like I said. Rick is a good coach. I have been a supporter of him. He just doesn't seem to be the right fit here anymore. Rick has had a tough tenure here after his first year that I think that has taken its toll on the whole franchise that the team and Rick himself deserve a new start.

GetMoney
01-18-2007, 02:35 PM
lol wow

GetMoney
01-18-2007, 02:35 PM
do with me what you wish i could care less

Bball
01-18-2007, 02:48 PM
Who says we want a team that runs? Has that ever been a stated goal?

Also, what does JO want and what can Carlisle do to pacify him in this offense and still be effective?

-Bball

Roferr
01-18-2007, 02:52 PM
I agree, but the league is filled with those types of coaches. So unless you find the next Don Nelson (who didn't have a team even get above the lowest Celtic PPG average of 106 in the 80s, from this season back to 1998 and I stopped looking after that) you're stuck with a grind it out coach.

You're not gonna get Mike D'Antoni or George Karl. And are you going to want Sam Mitchell, Bob Hill, or Eddie Jordan? Those are the only 5 coaches that cracked 100PPG last season.

If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.

You may get a coach similar to RC but not the micromanaging of the team. Despite what he said and how hard he tried, he always reverted to calling set plays.

Since86
01-18-2007, 02:57 PM
Has the team shown the ability to pick and choose their own plays? Towards the end of last year, when Tins was down and AJ was starting, he started freeing AJ up to make his own decisions.

As a coach you first have to trust your team. I don't see a player, in a leading position that can make a play call, that RC can give that much responsiblity to.

ABADays
01-18-2007, 03:15 PM
Wow :-o you mean there are actually teams where the players don't grumble?

Roferr
01-18-2007, 03:16 PM
Has the team shown the ability to pick and choose their own plays? Towards the end of last year, when Tins was down and AJ was starting, he started freeing AJ up to make his own decisions.

As a coach you first have to trust your team. I don't see a player, in a leading position that can make a play call, that RC can give that much responsiblity to.

I see your point, but if the coach isn't going to trust his PG, why have one? I'd like to see JT and a couple others packaged for a possibility at Kidd.

CableKC
01-18-2007, 03:32 PM
I'm actually more interested to see how Nelson's going to deal with Harrington and Jackson's (lack of) running games.
I'm thinking more of how Nellie is going to figure out a way to make SJax and Harrington ( decent defenders but players that need the ball on the offensive end to be effective ) happy on the offensive end of the court.

The Ws already make the 2nd most FGA in the league...with Baron, JRich ( when he returns ) and Monte leading the pack 17 FGA / 14 FGA / 12 FGA a game.....with Dunleavy and Murphy averaging about 9.5 FGA and 6.9 FGA.

Is it possible for Nelson to run the offense to the point where he can squeeze out 3 to 5 more FGA a game for SJax and Harrington?

Roferr
01-18-2007, 03:48 PM
I'm thinking more of how Nellie is going to figure out a way to make SJax and Harrington ( decent defenders but players that need the ball on the offensive end to be effective ) happy on the offensive end of the court.

The Ws already make the 2nd most FGA in the league...with Baron, JRich ( when he returns ) and Monte leading the pack 17 FGA / 14 FGA / 12 FGA a game.....with Dunleavy and Murphy averaging about 9.5 FGA and 6.9 FGA.

Is it possible for Nelson to run the offense to the point where he can squeeze out 3 to 5 more FGA a game for SJax and Harrington?

The answer to that will be quite intriguing. There's only one ball and someone is going to have to take less shots. At first, I don't think it will be too much of a problem because of Jax's uncertain future and he won't play much because of it. Once and if he becomes available for the entire season for sure, then it will become a problem. However, Al is entirely a different matter. Can't see him happy with much less than 12-15 shots a game. Stay tuned, not that it's a problem for us anymore, it'll be interesting to check the box scores.

Alabama-Redneck
01-18-2007, 04:14 PM
Most everyone blames RC for the offensive style and he should share most of the blame but will someone put together a short, short list of the players, prior to the trade, that could throw a decent pass.

Most of the team could not hand-off the ball with out bobbling it. Part of the "Basketball Smarts" theory is knowing when to pass and being able to make that pass.

It is my understanding that the "new" players have these skills and it will be interesting to see a "Pacers" team that actually cuts, moves and receives the ball when they are supposed to.

JT is an excellent passer but if he does not "set" someone up for a shot the next pass from another player may be at someone's feet, into the seats or the opposition's hands.

This is just an old man's observation but think about who, on this team, can pass the ball.

:cool:

Hicks
01-18-2007, 04:20 PM
For the record, Carlisle said (somewhat emphatically IMO) on his show last night that he is not a fan of walk-it-up basketball.

Hicks
01-18-2007, 04:21 PM
lol wow


do with me what you wish i could care less

That's just how it's going to be here. If you think you can fit in with it, then by all means stay and post. If not, then you'll probably want to move on.

Unclebuck
01-18-2007, 04:33 PM
Wait just a minute:

Do the Pacers not run because Rick stops them from running

Or

do they not run because they aren't very good at it.

Look at the number of turnovers the first 15 games or so when they were running a lot more.

I still think this running vs not running is a silly argument and really IMO doesn't matter alll that much.

indyman37
01-18-2007, 05:28 PM
I think it's just like Bird said in the press conference, you have to get rebounds to start fast breaks and that is something we just haven't been able to do.

Putnam
01-18-2007, 05:37 PM
Look at the number of turnovers the first 15 games or so when they were running a lot more.

I still think this running vs not running is a silly argument and really IMO doesn't matter alll that much.


Unclebuck, could you explain why it is silly? I reckon nobody wants the team to run when it can't. We all agreed there was a problem with the 20+ turnovers in those early games.

But the question is, "Should they be able to run?", and "Should they keep working until they get it right?" I don't think that is silly.

We traded a couple of slow guys for a couple of slow guys. But we traded guys who didn't rebound for guys who do. We've got to wait and see what happens. Walsh and Bird emphasized the failure to rebound well as a reason for this trade. More rebounds means more opportunities for a fast break.

imawhat
01-18-2007, 05:41 PM
For the record, Carlisle said (somewhat emphatically IMO) on his show last night that he is not a fan of walk-it-up basketball.


He's said this repeatedly, but nobody believes him. It's hard for most to see, but he's always done what's best with the players he has.

I don't think we'll be a lot better now with transition offense, but it will show when we get turnovers.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2007, 06:35 PM
I think it's just like Bird said in the press conference, you have to get rebounds to start fast breaks and that is something we just haven't been able to do.
The problem with this view is that it's simplistic and overlooked the real issue. This team WAS getting opportunities to break. They just couldn't complete them at a very good rate. I'd guess it at around 50% scoring on at least 1 man advantages in hard transition (ie, running the ball toward the other end full speed after a change of possession).

And IMO that's pathetic. 3 on 2's need to be scored better than that, and what made it look worse is that it was happening on things like 3 on 1s and 4 on 2s as well.


It wasn't about generating chances at all. In fact often the turnover issues stemmed directly from poor break execution, not sloppy HC play. If the Pacers had only been converting their breaks instead of losing the ball out of bounds, giving it back in a steal or losing it on a foul, they'd have been looking at a pretty nice TO differential, as well as limiting the breaks by opponents (that came off these fast break disasters).


So some of the numbers cited as "causes" were really "effects" instead.

That's why they slowed down again. You've got to play smart and go to your advantages. You can't just bull ahead and cram some style into a team when it's not conducive to them winning games. If there is a team in the NBA that needed to stay as far from running and gunning as possible, it had to be the Pacers of the first few months.


I had hoped that guys like Rawle and Daniels might help affect that change, but with a core of JO, Jack, Al, Tins and Foster it wasn't realistic. And I do include Tinsley there, he's a much better HC passer than transition passer, despite some of his nice long outlet bombs he throws.

Team Indy
01-18-2007, 06:38 PM
I'm thinking more of how Nellie is going to figure out a way to make SJax and Harrington ( decent defenders but players that need the ball on the offensive end to be effective ) happy on the offensive end of the court.

The Ws already make the 2nd most FGA in the league...with Baron, JRich ( when he returns ) and Monte leading the pack 17 FGA / 14 FGA / 12 FGA a game.....with Dunleavy and Murphy averaging about 9.5 FGA and 6.9 FGA.

Is it possible for Nelson to run the offense to the point where he can squeeze out 3 to 5 more FGA a game for SJax and Harrington?

I don't think Mike D'Antoni can do a better job than Rick Carlisle with this team. How can he install his running system with players who can't shoot and can't handle the ball? However, soon we will be able to see what Don Nelson can get Jax and Al to do, albeit with Al at PF, a position more suited for him to run.

I think it was ESPN's Hollinger who mentioned that Indiana's pace factor had increased this season. He proceeded to say why they weren't very good at it, and it is because the lineup (6-3, 6-8, 6-9, 6-11, 6-11) was too big to run. Others posters have also mentioned that fastbreak points were up when he started Granger in place of Foster.

Bottom line is that I think RC is one the best coaches in this league and should not be fired.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2007, 06:45 PM
Unclebuck, could you explain why it is silly? I reckon nobody wants the team to run when it can't. We all agreed there was a problem with the 20+ turnovers in those early games.

But the question is, "Should they be able to run?", and "Should they keep working until they get it right?" I don't think that is silly.

We traded a couple of slow guys for a couple of slow guys. But we traded guys who didn't rebound for guys who do. We've got to wait and see what happens. Walsh and Bird emphasized the failure to rebound well as a reason for this trade. More rebounds means more opportunities for a fast break.

Good point, veto the trade and give Jackson 20 3PA per game. You know, till he gets it right. ;)

In other words, no, not every dog is a greyhound. You don't just stick a basset hound in the dog races hoping that sooner or later he'll learn to run better.


Rebounding, I agree a little. Jack is a SG so of course his rpg will be lower. Al did seem soft on the boards, so we will see if Murph or Dunleavy can match that at least (if they stay).

My one hope is that Dunleavy's smarts and passing will help improve the HC offense that this team should be resigned to working to it's fullest at this point.

ChicagoJ
01-18-2007, 06:48 PM
I don't care if they run or not.

I just don't want them to stand around and dribble off most, or half of the 24-second clock before they start running a play. I want them to be aggressive for 48 minutes per game, not passive for half (or more) of each possession, waiting on a play call.

Set a screen, make a cut, do something to get yourself or a teammate an easy basket!!

skyfire
01-18-2007, 07:53 PM
I dont think LB wants the Pacers to be a fast break team at the expense of defense.

I think he wants them to be more efficient at running the fast break when its there and to be a more free flowing offensive team in half court sets, instead of exclusively pounding the ball inside.

Jax and Al obviously weren't fitting into either of these ideals. It players time to adjust to a different system and it will take Rick time to adjust aswell. He has made good adjustments before (albiet somewhat slowly) and i think he can continue to improve.

PacerMan
01-19-2007, 12:41 AM
thas just the way i talk

no1 else seemed to have a problem with them... are you rick carlisle?

get used to it.

PacerMan
01-19-2007, 12:44 AM
That's exactly what it is. The players were wrong in griping. They weren't good at running and they weren't going to get better. Now I feel like we've traded off the malcontents and replaced them with players who are better in transition. I'm actually more interested to see how Nelson's going to deal with Harrington and Jackson's (lack of) running games.


Troy Murphy. Mike Dunleavy and Ike Diogu are better in transition?????? LOL
Maybe better than Curly, Larry and Moe.........

imawhat
01-19-2007, 03:25 AM
Troy Murphy. Mike Dunleavy and Ike Diogu are better in transition?????? LOL
Maybe better than Curly, Larry and Moe.........


You're looking at possibly the worst transition player in the entire NBA (on offense and defense) in Stephen Jackson and a one-dimensional transition player who can't dribble or pass well (and a mediocre finisher) in Harrington.

By default the team gets better in transition, even if Troy, Mike, and Ike never suit up. That was obvious tonight.

Cobol Sam
01-19-2007, 05:12 AM
I was thinking tonight that Rick Carlisle is a young coach still. He has never missed the playoffs. Plus he has kept this team competitive through perhaps the most turbulent 3 season stretch a franchise has experienced. Years including the brawl, key players missing half the season, injuries injuries injuries, and huge chemistry problems.

I think I'm a guy who has resisted the temptation to start doubting guys like Donnie Walsh, Larry Bird, and Rick Carlisle. The truth is the Pacers couldn't have been in much of a worse situation than what we were in the past few years. We have the opportunity now to see a completely retooled roster with young talent, emerging veterans, and a superstar in Jermaine.
Most likely this massive overhaul of the roster will not cause us to miss the playoffs, and several of the 'experts' on ESPN and TNT are saying we might even improve on last year's record while vying for more lucrative trades.

I hand Rick a lot of the credit for keeping the Pacers competitive. We aren't an elite team yet, but we are an improved team. We aren't Reggie Miller's pacers anymore, but we appear to have become a team worthy of respect and support.