PDA

View Full Version : Is it an indication??



indygeezer
06-01-2007, 11:25 AM
The hiring of JOb could lead to interesting quesitoning. Is it an indicator that the team wanted experience to lead it through the Playoffs. In reality how often does a rookie coach lead a team deep into the PO's? Isn't it always the vet coaches that have the moxie to know how to coach and win during the PO's?

Or could it be construed as....With the trade of JO'n we'll be bringing in a bunch of younger players and we need an older wiser coach to handle them rather than some untried rookie not all that much older than some players themselves?

Shade
06-01-2007, 11:29 AM
I was actually going to ask the same thing.

To me, this hire means odds are we'll be keeping JO, unless a nutty offer comes along. Obie isn't exactly known for developing youth. Unfortunately, that means we'll also probably see Dun starting at the 2. :(

Hicks
06-01-2007, 11:32 AM
I want to kill this "youth" rep right now. He started a rookie all 82 games his year in Philly. He played Kyle big minutes as well, a second year guy.

That aside, yes indygeezer this probably is a sign that we wanted someone proven to get teams into the post-season and not someone new.

ABADays
06-01-2007, 11:41 AM
Dang - we could have had Slick!

Young
06-01-2007, 11:47 AM
Anyone remember JR Bremer? He was on the all rookie second team I believe under OB. Now he is not in the league.

Unclebuck
06-01-2007, 11:50 AM
I think we can trade JT and JO and still make the playoffs next season. I don't consider it an either or situation. We could sign a free agent point guard to help out. And I really think Daniels if he can stay healthy will play a lot of point next season.

OTD
06-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Slick would not have that job again. Plus how could he coach, from the locker room nearly every game. I remember his temper from the ABA days LOL

Unclebuck
06-01-2007, 11:51 AM
Anyone remember JR Bremer? He was on the all rookie second team I believe under OB. Now he is not in the league.

Wow, that was a name I did not remember.

But you are correct, here he is

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jr_bremer/index.html

avoidingtheclowns
06-01-2007, 12:09 PM
i think o'brien is here to get the team back in the playoffs, not rebuild. which is a little confusing, unless management feels that a team led by danny granger, mike dunleavy and marquis daniels is playoff material...

i mentioned this in another thread but as they're going ape-***** right now... a friend (die-hard laker fan) made an interesting point last night. he wondered if hiring o'brien was an indication that the pacers planned on dealing with boston, except making a run at paul pierce instead of trading JO. i don't necessarily believe we have the parts to trade for pierce but it was something i hadn't quite considered. it would also fit in with the no-rebuilding philosophy. i mean something like quis, murphy and shawne would work but would the celtics want that (probably only if pierce demands out) and would that even be a good move?

tinsley / greene
pierce
granger / dunleavy
o'neal / diogu
foster / harrison

financially that roster costs us around $63mil. for next season and thats only 9 players. so unless we would dump dunleavy, tinsley or foster for a couple of cheaper players i don't see how this would work.

RWB
06-01-2007, 12:31 PM
Or could it be construed as....With the trade of JO'n we'll be bringing in a bunch of younger players and we need an older wiser coach to handle them rather than some untried rookie not all that much older than some players themselves?

Geez, just my opinion but JOB was brought in to bring structure and take no prisoners. I think Bird was really disappointed in how Carlisle lost control of the team and seemed to be a pushover in his last year here.

I think Bird wants this team to understand especially the young guys that the times have changed and they will not put up with any BS.

Shade
06-01-2007, 12:51 PM
i think o'brien is here to get the team back in the playoffs, not rebuild. which is a little confusing, unless management feels that a team led by danny granger, mike dunleavy and marquis daniels is playoff material...

i mentioned this in another thread but as they're going ape-***** right now... a friend (die-hard laker fan) made an interesting point last night. he wondered if hiring o'brien was an indication that the pacers planned on dealing with boston, except making a run at paul pierce instead of trading JO. i don't necessarily believe we have the parts to trade for pierce but it was something i hadn't quite considered. it would also fit in with the no-rebuilding philosophy. i mean something like quis, murphy and shawne would work but would the celtics want that (probably only if pierce demands out) and would that even be a good move?

tinsley / greene
pierce
granger / dunleavy
o'neal / diogu
foster / harrison

financially that roster costs us around $63mil. for next season and thats only 9 players. so unless we would dump dunleavy, tinsley or foster for a couple of cheaper players i don't see how this would work.

No way in hell the Celtics would take that. Any trade that doesn't include JO starts with Granger, and probably still isn't enough.

OnlyPacersLeft
06-01-2007, 12:52 PM
right I just don't see O'brien as the guy to take over a team of young guys and build off them. I think he needs to be coaching superstars and players who can get to the playoffs. Why even mention PLAYOFFS or GOING DEEP IN THE PLAYOFFS AND WINNING IN THE PLAYOFFS if you are rebuilding? as you rebuild you don't make the playoffs! and if we trade away our star in JO we won't be making the playoffs anytime soon. 2-3 years atleast...with a fan base dwindling and ticket sales lowering and people not showing up to games can this team really afford to take away it's only star for andrew bynum? Will bynum sell tickets or jerseys? I doubt it.

avoidingtheclowns
06-01-2007, 01:02 PM
No way in hell the Celtics would take that. Any trade that doesn't include JO starts with Granger, and probably still isn't enough.

it was just a generic scenario to look at what the pacers end would be. danny and shawne's contracts aren't much different. but you're right about danny probably needing to be included, i just figured quis would be included and murphy for salary reasons and then i put shawne in there instead of danny. i apologize for disturbing the inner depths of your soul.

Shade
06-01-2007, 01:11 PM
it was just a generic scenario to look at what the pacers end would be. danny and shawne's contracts aren't much different. but you're right about danny probably needing to be included, i just figured quis would be included and murphy for salary reasons and then i put shawne in there instead of danny. i apologize for disturbing the inner depths of your soul.

Realistically, the best offer we could make them for Pierce would probably be:

Granger
Diogu
Daniels
Foster

So, we'd be left with a team of:

Murphy/Harrison
JO/Baston
Dunleavy/Williams/Marshall
Pierce
Tins/McLeod/Army/Greene

OnlyPacersLeft
06-01-2007, 01:13 PM
good enough for me^^^^^^^^^^^^

Robobtowncolt
06-01-2007, 01:18 PM
Hah, trying to imagine the local reaction around here if the Celts gave up Pierce for that. Wouldn't be pleasant.

Naptown_Seth
06-01-2007, 01:20 PM
I want to kill this "youth" rep right now. He started a rookie all 82 games his year in Philly. He played Kyle big minutes as well, a second year guy.

That aside, yes indygeezer this probably is a sign that we wanted someone proven to get teams into the post-season and not someone new.
And how much did Carlisle play Okur his rookie year, or Rebraca (though he was an old rookie, but Okur wasn't).

Hasn't stopped that rep from dogging RC. And in Indy he tripled Fred Jones minutes in his soph year over Isiah's amount, gave Harrison plenty of time his rookie year till he got hurt, gave Granger the most minutes of any player this last season (his soph) and had no choice but to play any and everyone most of the last 2.5 years. Who didn't get to play under Rick should be the question (answer Prince until playoffs, James Jones his rookie year).

So why not go ahead and pile on JOB too. Heck, while we are at it let me mention his rep for kicking puppies and spitting on kids' ice cream cones.


Geez, just my opinion but JOB was brought in to bring structure and take no prisoners. I think Bird was really disappointed in how Carlisle lost control of the team and seemed to be a pushover in his last year here.

I think Bird wants this team to understand especially the young guys that the times have changed and they will not put up with any BS.
Yep. Of course my criticism of Bird is this, was he not in a position himself to hand out punishments? What, if Cuban wanted to fine a player or rip into a player he wouldn't/couldn't? Of course not.

And don't give me "undermine the coach" because he did that anyway when he called the discipline into question last year. You don't just let someone trash a place because the security guard isn't handling it, not if you can do something about it yourself. "Oh well, it's his team"...BS, it's Larry's, Donnie's and the Simons too.

To me Bird talks tough but hasn't backed it up. Now he's hired O'Brien to handle the issue instead.

JOB might be up for it, I honestly can't tell. But let me ask you guys a question I haven't heard:

If this was the MAGIC or ROCKETS or GRIZZLIES hiring Jim O'Brien how many of you would say "hey, awesome choice, I knew that's who they should get"?

Sorry to be a jerk Buck and Mal, but it feels a bit like you guys are spinning positive in exactly the way you were suggesting others were destined to spin negative when we were talking about the reactions to SVG and Boylan (ie, mad about someone that a few weeks before no one cared about). I didn't see you guys or anyone else for that matter discussing him in the least, not for any reason at all. For that matter, neither did anyone in the entire NBA spectrum.

So the sudden "yes, he's going to fix things, he's just what we needed" seems a bit insincere. If he was such a great match all along, at least an obvious one, then why didn't anyone else notice?

Also, why in the heck did Bird not actually interview him in person? To me that's really odd. I just don't have any idea what to make of the situation, especially for a guy out of coaching entirely for 2 years with no apparent interest in coaching until a few days ago.



Geezer - option 3 is out there too. Rebound coach, the guy you get to hold you over till your ready for the next serious coach. I'm not saying I'm in that camp, just that I see it as a possibility. I felt that way about guys like Shaw too, they'd be easy to dump when the rebuild creates plenty of losing.

CableKC
06-01-2007, 01:29 PM
From various posts on PD, I seem to recall that there were some posts that indicated that the Celtics ( at least in the past ) liked what Tinsley brought to the team.

I maybe stretching here.....but was it the Celtics Management that liked what Tinsley brought to the team...or was it the Coach that liked what Tinsley could do...as in O'Brien ( a couple of years back ) or Doc Rivers ( as in now )?

I'm not suggesting the normal "let's trade Tinsley to the Celtics" response....I'm just wondering whether Tinsley is the type of PG that O'Brien likes.

RWB
06-01-2007, 01:43 PM
I just don't have any idea what to make of the situation, especially for a guy out of coaching entirely for 2 years with no apparent interest in coaching until a few days ago.


So I take it you're not willing to give Norman Dale a chance? ;)