PDA

View Full Version : Official Jim O'Brien Poll



OakMoses
06-01-2007, 04:02 AM
Perhaps we should give this some more time, but I think a gut-reaction type poll might be interesting.

Was Jim O'Brien a good choice?

Roaming Gnome
06-01-2007, 04:12 AM
:shrug: meh...

Naptown_Seth
06-01-2007, 04:16 AM
:shrug: meh...
Ditto. I don't dislike the choice and I certainly can see him having some positive impact. But is it enough to have me thrilled or anything? Nope. Just meh.

ajbry
06-01-2007, 04:17 AM
I was never a fan of his when he was in Boston and most of the Celts fans I'm friends with were generally underwhelmed by his coaching ability.

That said, he's coming to a team with basically no talent and little expectations, so overachieving isn't out of the question if he can motivate them to play their asses off every single day.

btowncolt
06-01-2007, 04:20 AM
Most of the Celtics fans I asked around here didn't really have anything bad to say about him, and they usually have something bad to say about ANYTHING.....

clownskull
06-01-2007, 04:34 AM
i voted yes simply because i am willing to give the guy a chance. but i know that we really won't know for sure until we are a good ways into the actual season.

BlueNGold
06-01-2007, 04:47 AM
I certainly know who he is, but not much about him. What is his style? Is he like Sloan or Skiles? Mitchell? The main thing I would like to see is a coach with a backbone...but one who will not detract from team chemistry.

LG33
06-01-2007, 04:56 AM
Jim O'Brien...LOL
(My gut reaction was to laugh at this news)

ABADays
06-01-2007, 05:12 AM
I didn't vote yes or no. Like others - MEH

Kegboy
06-01-2007, 05:24 AM
I voted yes because Larry made a convincing case that they're on the same page (and Larry's not a very good liar.) That's the most important thing. I think SVG's a better coach, but he and Larry wouldn't have worked well together at all.

I just hope to god he's lightened up on the "jack it up" offense he's run in the past. I think it would have been too much when Reggie and Mullin were here, so lord knows we don't need to be doing that now.

Unclebuck
06-01-2007, 05:32 AM
it is amazing to me how the tide has turned. if this poll was taken about an hour after the news got out. it would have been 75% against. But after the press conference, after the announcement that harter is coming and after everyone gets used to the idea a little, things are about 75% in favor

Diamond Dave
06-01-2007, 05:37 AM
I vote no only off of gut reaction. The truth is I don't know much about him and am willing to give him a chance. However, his previous tenures do not impress me.

pwee31
06-01-2007, 05:42 AM
Reggie didn't like it b/c he wanted Mark Jackson to get a phone call!?! Umm ok??

Hicks
06-01-2007, 05:56 AM
i voted yes simply because i am willing to give the guy a chance. but i know that we really won't know for sure until we are a good ways into the actual season.

Pretty much.

Hicks
06-01-2007, 05:59 AM
Reggie didn't like it b/c he wanted Mark Jackson to get a phone call!?! Umm ok??

Guess Mark didn't tell his buddy about what he said to the New York Post (saying he wanted no part of us because of Donnie/Larry not knowing what they're doing [basically]).

Roaming Gnome
06-01-2007, 06:50 AM
The reason I said:
:shrug: meh...

I was never really that impressed with what I seen with him as a Celtic, but I'm more then willing to see what he can do with what we have. I don't hate the selection...With what was available...I believe he is a good selection of the experienced coaches out there, for the money!

I guess my reaction was blah because I'm more afraid of what is going to happen to the roster.

ChicagoJ
06-01-2007, 07:37 AM
Dick Harter is coming too? See... this is what happens when the evil internet police accidentally mistake your favorite site for a gambling site and you work until ten pm on the night the Pacers hire a new coach.

If Dick Harter is coming this gets a big old :woot: from me.

I've got no real problem with O'Brien - two (at this time) minor concerns...

1) His teams historically love the three point shot. And you all know I hate the three point shot unless its used sparingly. He comes from the Rick Pittino school that foolishly believes passively shooting 33% from outside the arc is better than shooting 50% from inside the arc.

2) From reading the press conference, I'm really warming up to Seth's notion that Larry Bird is still solving problems we don't have. Do we have anybody left on our team that needs the discipline O'Brien is talking about? All the real knuckleheads have been traded.

O'Brien is very fundamental - I'll enjoy that and it should mix well with our fundamentally sound players like Dunleavy, Granger, Daniels, Ike, etc. JO's fundamentals aren't bad, and neither are Tinsley's (although he doesn't always play in a fundamental style).

In fact, when contrasting O'Brien and Carlisle, I'd say Jim is to "fundamentals" as Rick is to "control." They're both top-fifteen coaches, Rick just gets overrated because of his success early-on in the inept EC. But who was he battling with? O'Brien.

Unclebuck
06-01-2007, 08:14 AM
2) From reading the press conference, I'm really warming up to Seth's notion that Larry Bird is still solving problems we don't have. Do we have anybody left on our team that needs the discipline O'Brien is talking about? All the real knuckleheads have been traded.



This might not be the correct thread for this discussion. But I don't interpret discipline in this context to mean being strict with a ton of rules and a coach who is going to yell and scream. And the coach cannot impact off the court stuff.

One thing I took from the press conference is that Bird likes how Jim runs his practices which he has very hard practices.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
06-01-2007, 08:17 AM
This might not be the correct thread for this discussion. But I don't interpret discipline in this context to mean being strict with a ton of rules and a coach who is going to yell and scream. And the coach cannot impact off the court stuff.

One thing I took from the press conference is that Bird likes how Jim runs his practices which he has very hard practices.Thats good I guess. I always got the impression that Rick was a terrible practice coach, but a good in-game coach. I dont have any grounds for that assumption, but I just got the feeling judging by the way NONE of our players ever improved their game besides JO.

Btw, I voted no.

kybjones
06-01-2007, 08:38 AM
Another Bird blunder. I'm pretty sure if you put "Meh" or "Indifferent" as a poll choice, that the vast majority of "Yes" votes would move in that direction.

Puke.

The Hustler
06-01-2007, 09:11 AM
hmmm ... not inspiring ... not dramatic ...

but in my opinion necessary ... we dont want huge amounts of dram ... we hav had enough! .. we want to build and work hard to start to turn around the direction we are heading ... i think we could have made a lot worse decisions

Voted Yes

grace
06-01-2007, 09:18 AM
If one of the goals for the Pacers brass is to get me to go games again hiring O'Brien as the coach is not a good choice. I'm not saying that because they didn't hire Boylan. I've seen O'Brien coach. I wasn't impressed.

Ragnar
06-01-2007, 10:09 AM
it is amazing to me how the tide has turned. if this poll was taken about an hour after the news got out. it would have been 75% against. But after the press conference, after the announcement that harter is coming and after everyone gets used to the idea a little, things are about 75% in favor

I dont think people are all that excited about O'Brien. They are just relieved we did not do worse. I know that after SVG said no I thought for sure we would end up with the worst coach in the NBA. O'Brien hiring coming on the same day that everyone thinks we are trading J.O. and Jamaal for a bag of crap makes us think "well it could have been worse".

Saying at least it was not worse is not exactly a ringing endorsement.


Edit: to me it was more of a "at least we did not hire Brendan Malone"

#31
06-01-2007, 12:04 PM
Its really not fair to say something this fast... I say lets give him a chance! Voted Yes!

Slick Pinkham
06-01-2007, 03:56 PM
Harter makes it a definite win.

I lived in Boston for all of the O'Brien years. They were better and played harder under him than they did for the coaches both before and after him.

Not a real inspiring hire, but pretty safe, almost like SVG would have been. A Dick Harter defense makes it a very solid choice however. A real big man coach would make it even better.

If Harter is coming in, this may mean Chuck Person is out, unless he has a different role (shooting coach, player development?). Hopefully they can keep him in one of these roles, since he was pretty horribly miscast as a defensive coach anyway.

I kind of think O'Brien's love for Tinsley will fade if he shows up to practices impaired from night on the town, as rumored to have happened occasionally.

DisplacedKnick
06-01-2007, 04:22 PM
1) His teams historically love the three point shot. And you all know I hate the three point shot unless its used sparingly. He comes from the Rick Pittino school that foolishly believes passively shooting 33% from outside the arc is better than shooting 50% from inside the arc.


This is probably the wrong thread for this but ...

Is this really true? I know his Celts teams shot buckets of 3's - but they had Antoine, a bunch of other guards and nothing on the inside. I can't see entering the ball to Tony Battie and letting him take over with his awesome post game.

I don't recall the Sixers shooting tons of 3's when he was there.

As for the poll: First, how does one make their poll "official?" I've posted several polls but don't recall ever having it certified official.

Second - meh. Dick Harter makes it a yes but that's not really the question.

Kegboy
06-01-2007, 04:30 PM
This is probably the wrong thread for this but ...

Is this really true? I know his Celts teams shot buckets of 3's - but they had Antoine, a bunch of other guards and nothing on the inside. I can't see entering the ball to Tony Battie and letting him take over with his awesome post game.

I don't recall the Sixers shooting tons of 3's when he was there.

As for the poll: First, how does one make their poll "official?" I've posted several polls but don't recall ever having it certified official.

Second - meh. Dick Harter makes it a yes but that's not really the question.

Yes, as dipperdunk confirmed, the Sixers shot a ton of 3's too.

Rim, you've been to a forum party, so you're allowed to start "Official" threads and polls without permission. Check the bylaws.

:tongue:

PaceBalls
06-01-2007, 04:37 PM
Good choice, and it's great to have Mr. Harter back. I'm really looking forward to see what defensive improvements there will be next season.

The 3 second/freelance rule sounds very interesting and can be a big motivator for an uptempo game. We will see how long that lasts... I say 3 weeks or 10 games.

For me, I enjoy good team defense more than anything. So seeing TPTB hiring Jim and Dick with that in mind is a big plus and gives me a little hope that the team they field next year will at lesat be competitive. After the end of this last season and all the JO rumors, I have been expecting the worst. Worst as in the worst team in the NBA type of worst.

Here is to hoping.
/toast

Hoop
06-01-2007, 05:26 PM
I like the pick. I'd completely forgot this guy even existed. He's a better choice than most all of the candidates that had been talked about.

Most of all, I'm extremely happy that Mark Jackson is not anywhere near the Pacers.

Kegboy
06-01-2007, 05:29 PM
Most of all, I'm extremely happy that Mark Jackson is not anywhere near the Pacers.

You can say that again.

Roaming Gnome
06-01-2007, 06:25 PM
Ya know what? After reading the articles about what he has planned on Offense, Dick Harter comming back, and possibly an up and commer in Lester Conner on the staff....I'm starting to become really interested, if not a little pumped about the changes. I didn't vote at first, but after hearing the interview on the radio and the articles....I voted yes.

I like the idea that he is going to coach defense without limiting offense. One of my biggest gripes about Rick was that he often liked playing defense by limiting possessions. I was never really a fan of that even when it was successful.

I know a lot of you are tired of Jamaal, but I hope this "3 sec. rule" has JT licking his chops. I know that I can't wait to see it!

DisplacedKnick
06-01-2007, 06:26 PM
Yes, as dipperdunk confirmed, the Sixers shot a ton of 3's too.


Well, I didn't see his post but they attempted 1453 3's that year, which would have ranked them 12th in the league this season, behind teams like the Spurs, Heat and Nets.

That's hardly being mad bombers like they were in Boston where they shot over 2000.

aero
06-01-2007, 06:59 PM
I think this poll best fits the end of season next year, I really cant say yes or no until we see how he coaches.

Big Smooth
06-01-2007, 10:57 PM
There needs to be a third option in this poll for people who are on the fence. I can't really label this as a good or bad move at this time. It was certainly surprising and I do have some reservations about O'Brien but at the same time I do recognize he put together a decent track record in Boston and that one year in Philly. Not great but decent.

There really isn't much of a choice right now but to give the guy a chance and see what happens.

grace
06-02-2007, 12:09 AM
You can say that again.

Ditto.

Second sarcastic line.

pacerfreak
06-02-2007, 12:10 AM
Here's to hoping he does well. We could've done alot worse.

Moses
06-02-2007, 12:15 AM
I can't say I'm really disappointed with the decision. I would have preferred JVG/SVG..but I would take O'brien over Boylan and Mark Jackson any day of the week.

TripleThreat
06-02-2007, 12:54 AM
I can't say I'm really disappointed with the decision. I would have preferred JVG/SVG..but I would take O'brien over Boylan and Mark Jackson any day of the week.
i don't think that SVG was going to be a good fit. JVG maybe, but I'm warming up to this pick the longer that I think about it.

The thing that we have to admit to ourselves as fans of this team is that outside of our world, and without that skinny kid from UCLA around, this team just doesn't have the sex appeal that it has had in recent years. We may not have a choice to like or dislike this pick, because JO'B may have been the best option available that was willing to take the job.

Naptown_Seth
06-03-2007, 04:31 AM
1) His teams historically love the three point shot. And you all know I hate the three point shot unless its used sparingly. He comes from the Rick Pittino school that foolishly believes passively shooting 33% from outside the arc is better than shooting 50% from inside the arc.
Reason why it works (using realistic team PCT):
34 * 3 = 102 points
48 * 2 = 96 points

Reason why it doesn't work:
Less FTAs, less fouls on other team forcing players to sit or play softer defense.

It's not a crackpot idea to lean on the 3, and clearly if your % is strong it becomes common sense, but that's far more likely at the college distance than the NBA's arc.

Reality check for JOB, 3pt % with Indy last year
Dun 28%
Tins 32%
Quis 23%
McLeod 32%
Shawne 37%
Granger 38%
Murph 41%

Not only is that a rough list of numbers, but notice that all the decent 3pt firepower is tilted toward the bigs, 2 SF/PF types and one of your tallest bigs. I like Granger, but he's no Korver from 3. Even Troy isn't that good a shot.


edit - I looked back at where JOBs teams typically ranked on offense and defense, as well as 3P% in general, and actually he probably won't mind the poor 3P% of this group, but he will expect them to play top 10 defense. I'm not sold that as it stands now they can do that, and moving JO sure wouldn't help matters.

speakout4
06-03-2007, 01:38 PM
You can say that again.

Put me in that group too.. As the color announcer all I hear is a pugnacious know it all.

Smashed_Potato
06-03-2007, 05:48 PM
I was watching the press-conference and something caught my eye.. Bird was talking about Jim O'Brien structing practices and handling players very well did anyone get surprised by this comment?

Hicks
06-03-2007, 06:36 PM
What did you find surprising about it?

Smashed_Potato
06-03-2007, 06:43 PM
Because i remember players complaining about him as a coach.

BlueNGold
06-03-2007, 07:01 PM
Because i remember players complaining about him as a coach.

Maybe the NBA just needs to get rid of all the coaches and refs. All today's players seem to do is complain about them.

The inability for these prima donnas to take direction and show some degree of respect for others is really beginning to make the NBA a less desirable sport to follow. Kobe Bryant and Ron Artest come to mind. The high profile trade demands are the worst slap in the face for the fans. This shows just how unprofessional, incredibly selfish and immature some of these players can be.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
06-03-2007, 07:09 PM
Maybe the NBA just needs to get rid of all the coaches and refs. All today's players seem to do is complain about them.

The inability for these prima donnas to take direction and show some degree of respect for others is really beginning to make the NBA a less desirable sport to follow. Kobe Bryant and Ron Artest come to mind. The high profile trade demands are the worst slap in the face for the fans. This shows just how unprofessional, incredibly selfish and immature some of these players can be.Great post, couldnt agree more. The days of professionalism in players are gone, one of the last of those players probably being Reggie himself.

ChicagoJ
06-03-2007, 07:11 PM
Reason why it works (using realistic team PCT):
34 * 3 = 102 points
48 * 2 = 96 points


How many four point plays or fouls on three-pointers did the team benefit from?

They took 4738 2-pt FGAs last season and attempted 2158 FTs (making . Let's be conservative and say that only 2/3 of those applied to two-point shots (loose ball fouls, etc.)

They shot a poor FT %, but if you add 1065 points to the 2250 made two-point shots, you get 5565 points instead of 4500 points.

So the right math is:
34 * 3 points per make = 102
48 * 2.5 points per make = 120

JayRedd
06-04-2007, 11:05 AM
"Yes" and "No" as the only two options here is a little over-simplifying things, I'd say.

Not a horrible hire, but not particularly uplifting either.

My real choice here would be "ehhh..."

CableKC
06-04-2007, 12:43 PM
I have a few question to those that know something about basketball and JO'Bs offensive system.

1 ) Does JO'Bs offense require that we have good shooters?

2 ) Does JO'Bs offense require that we "dump the ball to one player and let him do his magic"?

3 ) Does it require the team to have very good ball-handlers?

4 ) Is there any requirement to have alot of ball movment?

5 ) Are "very good ball-handlers" usually very good at moving the ball around?

6 ) Who are our best 3pt shooters on the team?

If we need very good ball-handlers ( assuming that we get Odom in return ), then we have at least 4 good ball-handlers in Tinsley ( I'm guessing that he is one ), Marquis, Dunleavy and Odom on the roster.

As to 3pt shooters.....or at least players that can hit the occasional 3pt shot....we have Granger, Shawne, Tinsley, Dunleavy, Odom and Murphy ( assuming that he is camping at the top of the 3pt line ).

Part of my concern is that we are one of the worst shooting teams in the league....if we keep the current lineup...if we go "cold" from the field....what happens to JO'Bs "3-second rule"? It sounds like his offense requires that we have decent shooters from the field that can execute a play on their own and score on a consistent basis....something that we do not have.

Obviously....most of these questions are "pointed" questions to figure out which players...from an offensive POV are best suited to play in JO'Bs offense...and therefore likely players that we keep.

Kegboy
06-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Provided he were to run the same system he did in Boston and Philly, IMHO:

- Yes, it depends greatly on good shooters, because he loves the 3 ball.
- No, it doesn't depend on "dumping the ball", but the offense will be geared toward making the best player most effective.
- No, it doesn't depend on good ball handlers. Tony Delk? Come on.
- No, there's no emphasis on ball movement, although that's exactly how they beat us in '03.
- No, a good handle isn't as important as scheme and spacing. But in the freeflow 3-second offense, it will be important.
- Uh, um, best 3-pt shooters? I think you need to have "good" 3-pt shooters before one can be labeled "best".

CableKC
06-04-2007, 04:36 PM
Provided he were to run the same system he did in Boston and Philly, IMHO:

- Yes, it depends greatly on good shooters, because he loves the 3 ball.
- No, it doesn't depend on "dumping the ball", but the offense will be geared toward making the best player most effective.
- No, it doesn't depend on good ball handlers. Tony Delk? Come on.
- No, there's no emphasis on ball movement, although that's exactly how they beat us in '03.
- No, a good handle isn't as important as scheme and spacing. But in the freeflow 3-second offense, it will be important.
- Uh, um, best 3-pt shooters? I think you need to have "good" 3-pt shooters before one can be labeled "best".
BTW.....I didn't ask who on our team was the best 3pt shooter in the...I asked who was the best 3pt shooter on our team.

I guess it doesn't really matter.....we're screwed either way.

Kegboy
06-04-2007, 06:28 PM
BTW.....I didn't ask who on our team was the best 3pt shooter in the...I asked who was the best 3pt shooter on our team.

I guess it doesn't really matter.....we're screwed either way.

I just have a problem labeling somebody the "best" when we don't even have anybody I feel comfortable with taking a 3.

CableKC
06-04-2007, 06:49 PM
I just have a problem labeling somebody the "best" when we don't even have anybody I feel comfortable with taking a 3.
Okay....how about this....if we were down by 3pts and we had to take a 3pt shot...who would you want to take the 3pt shot?

But your comments highlight something that is frightfulingly obvious.....if we are going to take 3pt shots...we better get some consistent 3pt shooters on this team.

We have way more 3pt scorers ( IMHO...what I refer to as players that can hit a 3pt shot once in awhile ) as opposed to 3pt shooters ( IMHO...what I refer to as players that can consistently hit a 3pt shot when given the chance ).

Kegboy
06-04-2007, 08:21 PM
Okay....how about this....if we were down by 3pts and we had to take a 3pt shot...who would you want to take the 3pt shot?

But your comments highlight something that is frightfulingly obvious.....if we are going to take 3pt shots...we better get some consistent 3pt shooters on this team.

We have way more 3pt scorers ( IMHO...what I refer to as players that can hit a 3pt shot once in awhile ) as opposed to 3pt shooters ( IMHO...what I refer to as players that can consistently hit a 3pt shot when given the chance ).

Oh, probably Army. He's nowhere near our "best" shooter, but he's our most clutch.