PDA

View Full Version : Odd thoughts to wrap up the road trip.



Peck
01-14-2008, 02:15 AM
Ok, I stayed out of the Sacramento game because frankly I was still (and still am) fuming about that loss to the Suns.

I didn't want to rain on a win so I just bit my tongue and moved on. I didn't want to point out that it took Kevin Martin missing two bunnys late in the game or that Travis Diener was hitting more shots than he had all season combined.

You know the old statement, a win is a win, afterall.

So now we move onto this game with the Warriors and I just want to ask one question for all of those who are advocating our newest and latest lineup change.

What the h@ll are we doing?

No, really, what are we doing?

Is this a long term plan where this is how we will play for the next 5 years? Is this a stop gap measure just to stop the losing? Are we trying to develop the young players?

A show of hands, who actually thinks this will be the way to win in the east in a playoff series?

Ok, if this is not about winning in the playoffs what is it about?

Look, I'm fine with any of the above answers I guess. But I just want to know what the plan is.

My guess is that this is just a stop gap measure to try something new to get some wins and make the Simons goal of reaching the playoffs.

This cute lineup will work against the two teams we just played and we will play both of them again this week so for now it is fine.

But I can't wait till we try and small ball the Pistons. Oh that will be fun. Ah who am I kidding no matter what lineup we use they will spank us.

Anyway, I guess I'm just confused about why all of a sudden we are having a lineup change again.

On to the game.

I don't want to hear one word from any of the Jackson fans on here about how our fans treat good old Jax. Look I always said our fans were unfair to him but after that reception that Dunleavy just got Jacksons trips to the fieldhouse are like a welcome home parade for military hero's.

It's to bad that we blew what was a pretty good overall game for him.

Now why did we lose?

Well there are a number of things you could say led to our defeat.

How about Jamaal Tinsley's childish flagrant 1 that lit Montana Ellis on fire?

How about Jamaal Tinsley's inability to even pretend to slow down any of thier point guards who decided to drive the lane.

How about we got a full frontal view of why if Travis Diener isn't hitting his shots that he is mostly a liabilty on the floor.

But mostly how about a coach who thinks that an open three point shot is like the holy grail, not realizing that in any NBA game the opponet will give you a free open three all game long at some position knowing that you are most likely going to hit it at about 30% of the time.

Sorry, I think I will not talk about O'Brien tonight for fear that my thoughts on that Pheonix game are still tainting my thoughts. Yes, I still 100% blame him for that loss.

Were we beat by the better team tonight? My answer is yes so I guess what is there to gripe about.

Right now we are one of the worst teams in the league and I just don't even know how to dig out of this.

Oh, I guess I should give this up so I don't get scolded for not recognizing.

Jermaine O'Neal played one hell of a game. Now if we could only get him to play against 6'8" centers the rest of the year we will be in business.

I'm tempted to just erase all of this because frankly it's just filled with to much negativity.

But frankly right now I am lost as to what we are doing. Once I figure that ourt I guess I will feel better.

Again another question.

Long term, does anybody think Danny Granger should be the 4?

I would advocate trading away Foster and Diogu if it wasn't for the fact that in about 3 weeks when this hasn't worked Foster at least will be back for sure.

Diogu to be honest with you probably should be moved & I actually liked Ike. But he is not going to fit into this system and is far to concerned with his shots to be of any real use.

That end of the game play drawn up by O'Brien was pure genius wasn't it?

Can you imagine what Dwight Howard is going to do to us?

Oh well to end on something positive, at least Marquis played well.

granger33
01-14-2008, 02:35 AM
Alot of Negative thoughts there.

But that may of been our toughest stretch of games all season.

and we only had 1 real bad game v Utah.

We should/ could of beaten Suns and Warriors which would of made us 3-2.

Im liking this team now, we should be able to beat all the teams below us in the EC.

I do think we will go on a 5-6 game winning streak very soon.

JT was pushing for the All-Star game before he got injured, so his just getting back into his groove, his made some silly decisions but 10 games in he will be back to the stat sheet of 15/10/5.

Only 2 problems i have with this team are:

* Inconsistncy (up 15, next minute up 2)

* Murphy playing Over Foster

grace
01-14-2008, 02:44 AM
But I can't wait till we try and small ball the Pistons. Oh that will be fun. Ah who am I kidding no matter what lineup we use they will spank us.

Considering the Pistons just got their :buttkick: by the Knicks I'd say the Pacers have a fighting chance.

Stephen Jackson
01-14-2008, 02:45 AM
The reaction for Dunleavy wasn't THAT bad was it?

d_c
01-14-2008, 03:07 AM
The reaction for Dunleavy wasn't THAT bad was it?

Just the standard stuff. Booed during pre-game intros and booed everytime he touched the ball or was inbounding the ball.

I have good seats, but not THAT good of seats, so I couldn't hear any taunts.

Kstat
01-14-2008, 03:42 AM
Considering the Pistons just got their :buttkick: by the Knicks I'd say the Pacers have a fighting chance.

Yeah, because that says anything at all about the pistons.....

dohman
01-14-2008, 04:20 AM
Can you imagine what Dwight Howard is going to do to us?



lose?

Will Galen
01-14-2008, 05:35 AM
What the h@ll are we doing?

No, really, what are we doing?

Anyway, I guess I'm just confused about why all of a sudden we are having a lineup change again.


Obviously O'B is trying to find something that works.



How about Jamaal Tinsley's inability to even pretend to slow down any of thier point guards who decided to drive the lane.

Until we get a point guard that can stop penetration, OR get Artest, and Miller, back, OR their clones, we're just going to be an up and down team. Of course to be a contender we also need a finisher.

I just don't get to high or too low about the currant team.

Unclebuck
01-14-2008, 08:06 AM
Tinsley's play last night really, really bothered me for the reasons you mention Peck. The problem I have isn't that Jamaal was unable to stop their point guards from beating him, the problem is that he didn't even try to stop them. In earlier games he was in a defensive stance - last night he was not His attitude on the court last night was a disgrace and an embarrasment. I could theorize as to why it was, but it really doesn't matter, he was JT from the last two years, the JT that I hated.

Other than that though, Peck I have to disagree with you with. I hate that Jeff isn't playing, but I think small ball is the best way for this Pacers team to win games. It gets Williams on the floor, it gets Rush on the floor. Of course I would replace Murph with jeff, because the interior defense and rebounding when Murphy was the only "big guy" was a joke. But small ball is the way to go. Ike doesn't fit this system and he needs to be traded, because he has more value to this franchise as trade bait then he does as a player.

Jeff will play a lot of minutes when they need his defense - like against Howard, I'm not worried about that.

I really wanted the Pacers to win last night for Dunleavy - I just don't understand why the fans are so hustle towards him. Did he ever embarrass the franchise, did he ever badmouth the franchise - No, he left with class. it is the fans fault that they thought they were getting the next Larry Bird or Dirk when they drafted Mike. But more than that it seems like the media and the fans in the bay area have something personal against him

owl
01-14-2008, 08:26 AM
Obviously O'B is trying to find something that works.



Until we get a point guard that can stop penetration, OR get Artest, and Miller, back, OR their clones, we're just going to be an up and down team. Of course to be a contender we also need a finisher.

I just don't get to high or too low about the currant team.

Well said Will. That is about where I am at. Enjoy the spurts of good play and enjoy watching
some of the better players in the league that are playing the Pacers.


Q Jim Mora----Playoffs????

Unclebuck
01-14-2008, 08:31 AM
I think by any objective measure, the pacers have played a lot better in the past three games after going to small ball

Oneal07
01-14-2008, 10:58 AM
I think by any objective measure, the pacers have played a lot better in the past three games after going to small ball

Very true. The only thing that bothered me was that, Marquis and Tins wouldn't take it to Baron Davis, when he fully had 4 fouls. If we got him out of the game, we would have won. It would have definately changed the game even though Monta Ellis was on a hot streak

CableKC
01-14-2008, 03:03 PM
Just the standard stuff. Booed during pre-game intros and booed everytime he touched the ball or was inbounding the ball.

I have good seats, but not THAT good of seats, so I couldn't hear any taunts.
It's hard for me to guage how bad it was when Dunleavy was booed on a regular basis when he was a Warrior.....but I thought it was pretty bad.

IMHO...."standards stuff" is when fans "boo" the best player on the opposing team.....or booing opposing players when they attempt a FT.

Although I am clearly biased cuz I actually liked Dunleavy as a player both as a Warrior and Pacer....my impression was that the level of "booing" was on the level when fans just hates a particular player.

Young
01-14-2008, 03:18 PM
The playing time of players I don't like but will continue to vary until Jim gets a rotation he likes.

Jamaal was the old Jamaal last night. I guess he wasn't to happy about Diener taking his minutes away vs Sacramento maybe.

I'm just hoping that Jim can settle on a rotation by the all star break. Hopefully then we can play consistant.

OakMoses
01-14-2008, 03:33 PM
Long term, does anybody think Danny Granger should be the 4?


I don't mind Danny playing the 4. I assume that your complaint is about his defense/rebounding ability vs. other 4's.

Josh Smith, Kevin Garnett, Gerald Wallace, Joe Smith, Drew Gooden, Dirk Nowitzki, Kenyon Martin, Antonio McDyess, Al Harrington, Chuck Hayes, Tim Thomas, Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, Udonis Haslem, Yi Jianlian, Chuck Smith, Malik Allen, David West, Zach Randolph, Rashard Lewis, Reggie Evans, Boris Diaw, LaMarcus Aldridge, Mikki Moore, Tim Duncan, Nick Collison, Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, Antawn Jamison.

Those are the starting PF's in the league. How many of those guys would actually have an advantage over Danny that wasn't equalized by a disadvantage on their own part? I count 10 (Garnett, Nowitzki, Gasol, West, Randolph, Aldridge, Duncan, Bosh, Boozer, and Jamison). That's a fair bit, but it's not huge.

What it comes down to is this: Would you rather have Rush, Quis, and Williams getting more minutes, or Murphy, Ike, Harrison, and Foster getting more minutes? I'll take the former.

I do have an issue with Murphy playing over Foster, but that's not the point of this thread.

I wonder if the Warriors get those two key offensive rebounds last night if Foster's in the game?

Bball
01-14-2008, 04:43 PM
When you're at a size disadvantage doing things like boxing out will minimize some of the disadvantages. ...Of course even if you are at a size advantage, boxing out will put the other team at even more of a disadvantage (cough cough did you read that JO?).

-Bball

Since86
01-14-2008, 04:50 PM
This is going to be the umpteenth time I've posted it, but I don't get the big stink about boxing out, or lack there of.

John Wooden didn't teach his teams to box out, and he's considered one of, if not the, greatest coaches of all time. He taught that all 5 players should go after the ball, and not retreat to find a man, and essentially going the opposite direction as the ball.

JO's lack of boxing out might, or the whole team's, might not be the lack of talent/desire/ability/knowledge to do so. It could be JOB's coaching philosophy. It could be that JO feels like he's better just going after the ball.

One thing is definately for sure. Foster doesn't box out, and I've yet read someone *****ing about him not rebounding enough.

I don't particularly like JO as a player, but sometimes it feels like people will use a player's shoe size as a way to talk negatively about them.

Hicks
01-14-2008, 04:56 PM
If that's what Wooden truly believed, then to that I can only say "Nobody's perfect". If everyone boxes out someone, then they all have less distance to travel to get the ball, and they have a straight(er) line to travel to get to the ball. It's pretty simple to me. Jumping and the timing of your jump is important to rebounding, obviously, but the point is boxing out makes rebounding easier on you and harder on your opponent.

jmoney2584
01-14-2008, 05:11 PM
If that's what Wooden truly believed, then to that I can only say "Nobody's perfect". If everyone boxes out someone, then they all have less distance to travel to get the ball, and they have a straight(er) line to travel to get to the ball. It's pretty simple to me. Jumping and the timing of your jump is important to rebounding, obviously, but the point is boxing out makes rebounding easier on you and harder on your opponent.

Amen, it is also much more satisfying to see one of your players put a hard check on someone, throwing them completely out of the picture, and jumping up for a hard two-handed board and just crushing the rock upon contact. Mean, physical rebounds get my rocks off..i'm sorry to go there but how a player rebounds says a lot about his on court demeanor and desire to WIN.

Bball
01-14-2008, 05:15 PM
I think Wooden wanted his players to put a body on a man, box him out, and then go get the ball. Until I see something disputing that I will stick to my belief. I think what Since 86 is saying, but confusing with not boxing out at all, is that Wooden didn't want his players neglecting the ball once they'd boxed their man out and protected an area. But I don't think Since 86 is correct that Wooden didn't want his players to box out at all.

But... I've not really heard/read Wooden's actual comments on the subject so I could well be wrong. Surely, someone here could post some actual Wooden comments to shed some light on this.

-Bball

Anthem
01-14-2008, 05:19 PM
So now we move onto this game with the Warriors and I just want to ask one question for all of those who are advocating our newest and latest lineup change.

What the h@ll are we doing?

No, really, what are we doing?

Is this a long term plan where this is how we will play for the next 5 years? Is this a stop gap measure just to stop the losing? Are we trying to develop the young players?

A show of hands, who actually thinks this will be the way to win in the east in a playoff series?

Ok, if this is not about winning in the playoffs what is it about?

Look, I'm fine with any of the above answers I guess. But I just want to know what the plan is.
Peck, I'm right there with you. This has been my problem since the trade last year. What the heck are we trying to accomplish?

I meant to post this in the "Why I'm losing interest" thread, but you said it way better than I was going to.

NuffSaid
01-14-2008, 05:23 PM
Peck,

First off, I would encourage you to read the thread, "Let's Get Back to Looking at Some Positives... (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=36119)", not because I wrote it, but because I think you'll find some of your answers there.

Second, I agree that Foster should have seen some playing time last night (1/13/08) against the Warriors especially when they had their reserves on the floor (less Ellis, of course; he was a beast last night!), but I can understand why JOB didn't go that route. Foster doesn't poss as much of a scoring threat as Murphy. Granted, Murphy didn't do so hot himself last night, but can you imagine defenders shagging off Foster and doubling our only other hot hands on the night, Dunleavy and Quis, when JO wasn't on the floor? Against a quick team like the Warriors, unless you can find the right combination out there to pair Foster against where his lack of offensive firepower won't be such a liability, you're better off leaving him on the bench for the most part. Still, I'd liked to have seen Foster get some playing time at least in the 3Q when the Pacers could have used a few more 2nd shot opportunities.

The only explanation I can give you about Tinsley is he was in one of his pouting modes again. I noticed before the game when the Pacers where in their huddle how Tinsley was the only player NOT paying attention or looking inward toward the huddle. It wasn't like something else had his attention. It was as if he just didn't really want to be part of it. I had a sense then that something would go wrong during that game, and sure enough...he pulled a hockey move out of his *rse! I know this, if I were JOB I'd sit him down every time he pulls a stunt like that. In fact, I wouldn't play him in end-game situations (that final 3 minutes) unless I had to. I know the flagrant foul wasn't committed during the final 3-minutes, but it's his overall attitude that seems to cause him to loss it that's hurting him and the team right now. Besides, Tinsley's end-game decision making hasn't been the best of late. I'm just not sure he can handle the end-game "go-to-guy" pressure in the clutch or be counted on to make sound decision near the end of games to get this team clear through to the win. Sometimes, it's the little things that mean a lot, and he's just not doing those little things when it's crucial that they matter most of all.

I agree somewhat on your view on Ike. He's not the same player we saw emerging before his injury. He's regressed in the worse way. Maybe by JOB keeping him out of the lineup he'll get to watch and learn and get some practise time in because w/o another strong big to hold down the interior while JO is rotated out, this "1-4" lineup will have flashes of success, but won't BE as successful as it could be. Of the remaining bigs - Murphy, Foster, Ike, Harrison - only Ike has the ability to be that 8-10 ppg front-court player. Murphy doesn't like playing underneath the basket. Foster can only give you "gimme putbacks". So, unless they aren't there, he's not going to score much. Harrison is more likely to foul out that put points on the board. That leaves Ike, but his decision making is slow, and he tries too hard to power through defenders rather than making a power move to create space for himself, and he goes straight up with the ball instead of using some of that athleticism he has. This team needs to take a lesson from the Rockets and Lakers and hire a Big Man coach bad!!

I think JOB is going in the right direction with this lineup. As UB mentioned, the Pacers have looked better since going to it. Their defensive rotations are better, their shot selection has been better and they've begun to attack the basket more. If the Pacers can get that one forceful low-post player to spare JO, this lineup could work because only one other team in the East is using it - the Magic! - and until recently, they had some pretty good success with it. But like the Pacers, they're missing that one "big" to spare Dwight Howard, as well.

Hicks
01-14-2008, 05:24 PM
Phoenix does pretty well with small ball. They have not won a title with it, but you can't make EVERY move you make based on answering that question when you are not even good yet. Besides, who's to say they can't win a title or couldn't previously have one a title with that setup? I know they didn't and haven't, but it wasn't a situation of "why did they bother? There was no chance they would win."

CableKC
01-14-2008, 08:18 PM
Since no one has brought this up yet, I'm gonna just come out and say it......I don't think that Small Ball is going to work based off of the way this team is built.

A big part of it is that this feels more like a "Hey, this small lineup seemed to work against the Suns, we should do this all the time" knee-jerk coaching reaction then a well thought out plan.

I don't have to play a few more games of Small Ball to know that any team that plays us is simply going to attack the basket everytime ( A ) JONeal is the last player to make it back to the other end of the court ( cuz he tried to grab an offensive rebound and is still trailing ) or ( B ) whenever Murphy is on the court. This is what the Warriors did last night especially when JONeal started getting tired.

The only way that I can remotely tolerate the idea of Small ball with the current roster is to have Murphy and Foster play at the same time so that it AT LEAST looks like we have a decent chance of defending ( or more specifically clogging up ) the paint. As some have suggested before....Murphy and Foster seem to compliment each other well....I think that we should take advantage of that.

On top of that...JONeal averaged 36 minutes as the Center over the last 2 games when Murphy averaged only 14 minutes. I am guessing that a BIG REASON for this was because Murphy wasn''t cutting it on the defensive end ( which really isn't a surprise ). Without adding Foster to the mix....does anyone else think that JONeal can continue to keep this pace when we face teams that actually has 2 real FrontCourt players?

Even with JONeal doing very well against a Frontcourt lineup where he was the Biggest Frontcourt player on the court, unless we play the Warriors and Suns for the rest of the season....I just don't think that JONeal is in the condition to do what we need him to do as the only true Big Man on the court for 30+ minutes a game.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2008, 09:26 PM
Look, a big reason why I've always defended Rick was because I felt like he made choices meant to reduce risk and hide weak spots. People may hate the slower pace that results in, people may find his underspoken demeanor boring, but to me the reason the team ended up playing the style they did was because it gave them the best possible chance to win.

I don't think JOB is dumb anymore than Rick was. I think JOB is finding his way into this roster. Perhaps he was naive coming into the job, but as he gets results and deals with these guys long term he's probably going to push closer to what Rick did. Sure it will still be with his style to it, but ultimately he's facing the same limitations Rick did.

The roster is a mess, that's why the coaches have struggled with it. People ripped on Rick for putting Tins in the doghouse or "playing favorites", but now we see JOB doing the exact same thing. Is that pure chance or does it indicate something about the roster?


What this means is that I'm partially with Peck and partially with Will. There is a method to this, but at the same time it's a bit like flying a plane that just lost a wing. You try lots of things to make it work but in the end that sucker is just going to crash.

I wasn't talking smack when I said that if JOB got them to 44 wins or whatever it was that I'd carry the JOB for COY sign around the circle. It was because for this team to do that it would mean he had pulled it off, he had made this roster work. I stand by that, IF he does it it will be very impressive.

Anthem
01-14-2008, 11:36 PM
I wasn't talking smack when I said that if JOB got them to 44 wins or whatever it was that I'd carry the JOB for COY sign around the circle.
I think I predicted something like 32 wins for the year. We're actually above my expectations right now.

But the reason you allow 32 wins this year is because you'll be a lot better next year. So what are we doing to get better next year?

indygeezer
01-15-2008, 06:50 AM
This is going to be the umpteenth time I've posted it, but I don't get the big stink about boxing out, or lack there of.

John Wooden didn't teach his teams to box out, and he's considered one of, if not the, greatest coaches of all time. He taught that all 5 players should go after the ball, and not retreat to find a man, and essentially going the opposite direction as the ball.

JO's lack of boxing out might, or the whole team's, might not be the lack of talent/desire/ability/knowledge to do so. It could be JOB's coaching philosophy. It could be that JO feels like he's better just going after the ball.

One thing is definately for sure. Foster doesn't box out, and I've yet read someone *****ing about him not rebounding enough.

I don't particularly like JO as a player, but sometimes it feels like people will use a player's shoe size as a way to talk negatively about them.

Early on in his career the word on JO was that he didn't have the fundamentals to rebound and that he merely used his athleticism to jump over people grab the rebound before they got to it. Now that his hops are weakening I'm still not so sure that he doesn't rely more on brute strength than positioning. I'm going to pay a bit more attention to this.
Ah carp...how many in the NBA really boxout anyway? Most just occupy a space on the floor and then fight for the ball...there could probably be 3 fouls called on every rebound.

Will Galen
01-15-2008, 07:33 AM
You know what I'd try?

We got all those big leads with two bigs, but we keep blowing them with the same lineup. How about when we get the big lead and teams start cutting into it, then go small ball.

McKeyFan
01-15-2008, 11:30 AM
This is going to be the umpteenth time I've posted it, but I don't get the big stink about boxing out, or lack there of.

John Wooden didn't teach his teams to box out, and he's considered one of, if not the, greatest coaches of all time. He taught that all 5 players should go after the ball, and not retreat to find a man, and essentially going the opposite direction as the ball.

I won't believe this until you quote it from somewhere. I've asked before and gotten no response.

My Dad played for John Wooden, I've been to his house. And I've never heard anything growing up except how important it is to box out.

I'm not saying it's impossible for me to be wrong. But I'll need some documentation.

NuffSaid
01-15-2008, 12:22 PM
Look, a big reason why I've always defended Rick was because I felt like he made choices meant to reduce risk and hide weak spots. People may hate the slower pace that results in, people may find his underspoken demeanor boring, but to me the reason the team ended up playing the style they did was because it gave them the best possible chance to win.

I don't think JOB is dumb anymore than Rick was. I think JOB is finding his way into this roster. Perhaps he was naive coming into the job, but as he gets results and deals with these guys long term he's probably going to push closer to what Rick did. Sure it will still be with his style to it, but ultimately he's facing the same limitations Rick did.

The roster is a mess, that's why the coaches have struggled with it. People ripped on Rick for putting Tins in the doghouse or "playing favorites", but now we see JOB doing the exact same thing. Is that pure chance or does it indicate something about the roster?


What this means is that I'm partially with Peck and partially with Will. There is a method to this, but at the same time it's a bit like flying a plane that just lost a wing. You try lots of things to make it work but in the end that sucker is just going to crash.

I wasn't talking smack when I said that if JOB got them to 44 wins or whatever it was that I'd carry the JOB for COY sign around the circle. It was because for this team to do that it would mean he had pulled it off, he had made this roster work. I stand by that, IF he does it it will be very impressive.
I agree with you that RC's style initially suited the roster he had to work with, but even you have to admit that when that roster began to change RC's coaching style did not.

Example, while the Pacers still had JO and Foster as their only legit Bigs, RC continued to push the inside/outside game. By that time, the team had lost Artest, Al and Crosher. In return, they got Murphy and Ike, and had Harrison as a "up and coming Center"...:rolleyes:...and yet RC still pushed the inside/outside game. Granted, JO and Foster were still here, but I seriously doubt anyone would have believed that any combination of JO and any other Big on this roster post-Artest would have been as formidable as JO/Artest!! When you're able to get nearly 40 ppg from two of your front-court starters...'Nuff Said, but I'll elaborate anyway just so every understands where I'm coming from.

The Pacers had lost both Jones Boys, Reggie and SJax, and got Peja on a six month loan...:rolleyes:...threw away James White before the season inwhich he was drafted even began, and got Dunleavy, Ike and Murphy - a PF who would rather play like a SG - and a few other up and coming players through the draft and/or trades.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The makeup of the team slowly began to change, but RC continued to push his style of play on the roster. Granted, some of those changes occured during the course of a season, but many of them occured during the off-season which should have given him time to make the adjustments necessary to find an offense that truly fit the roster he had. But he didn't. That's why I said during the summer of '06 that the only way you bring RC back was if he got players who truly fit his coaching style.

In reality, no matter what position one may have wanted to "plug" players into, the '06-07 Pacers had 7-Guards (Tinsley, Armstrong, McLeod, Daniels, Green, Dunleavy, and Marshall), 5 Forwarded (Baston, Willliams, Murphy, Granger and Ike), and 3 Centers (JO, Foster and Harrison). The only way a true inside/outside scheme works is if you have good shooters and a helluva dominate interior presence.

JO and Artest gave the Pacers that dominante interior presence in '04-05. That's why they could afford to get away with not having another dominate Center to spar JO. You just plugged Crosher out there w/Foster and left Artest on the floor and you still had a rebounder, and shooter (w/Reggie sometimes) and a interior presence in Artest. That all began to change w/the Brawl, and the Pacers have never been able to acquire a "manageable" roster ever since. By "manageable", I'm referring to TPTB being able to move away from "damage control...patch-work mode w/the roster" to truly bringing in the types of players they want to play the brand of basketball they (including the coach) envision. That's still going to take another year or two, but they'll get there. In the meanwhile, JOB has to find those players on today's roster who fit his style of basketball. I think he's one player away from doing that.

IMO, the Pacers need another low-post player who can spare JO and give them 8-10 ppg and play some defense. I had hoped Ike or Harrison would be able to do that, but it's beginning to look as if both are a wash. If TPTB can acquire that player by the trade deadline w/o losing any of (who I believe are) the core players (1-8, but not necessarily in that order: JO, Granger, Dunleavy, Rush, Deiner, Williams, Quis, and dare I say it...Tinsley), I think this small-ball lineup of JOB's could very well work indeed.

Sidenote: I liked RC. I thought he was a very good coach, but he he was burned out and IMO had lost the team long before the end of last season. All the Artest/Brawl drama and then the injuries, etc., etc. It's alot to ask of anyone man to endure. If he ever returns to coaching in the NBA, I'd wish him well.

Peck
01-15-2008, 01:11 PM
I agree with you that RC's style initially suited the roster he had to work with, but even you have to admit that when that roster began to change RC's coaching style did not.

Example, while the Pacers still had JO and Foster as their only legit Bigs, RC continued to push the inside/outside game. By that time, the team had lost Artest, Al and Crosher. In return, they got Murphy and Ike, and had Harrison as a "up and coming Center"...:rolleyes:...and yet RC still pushed the inside/outside game. Granted, JO and Foster were still here, but I seriously doubt anyone would have believed that any combination of JO and any other Big on this roster post-Artest would have been as formidable as JO/Artest!! When you're able to get nearly 40 ppg from two of your front-court starters...'Nuff Said, but I'll elaborate anyway just so every understands where I'm coming from.

The Pacers had lost both Jones Boys, Reggie and SJax, and got Peja on a six month loan...:rolleyes:...threw away James White before the season inwhich he was drafted even began, and got Dunleavy, Ike and Murphy - a PF who would rather play like a SG - and a few other up and coming players through the draft and/or trades.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The makeup of the team slowly began to change, but RC continued to push his style of play on the roster. Granted, some of those changes occured during the course of a season, but many of them occured during the off-season which should have given him time to make the adjustments necessary to find an offense that truly fit the roster he had. But he didn't. That's why I said during the summer of '06 that the only way you bring RC back was if he got players who truly fit his coaching style.

In reality, no matter what position one may have wanted to "plugged" players into, the '06-07 Pacers had 7-Guards (Tinsley, Armstrong, McLeod, Daniels, Green, Dunleavy, and Marshall), 5 Forwarded (Baston, Willliams, Murphy, Granger and Ike), and 3 Centers (JO, Foster and Harrison). The only way a true inside/outside scheme works is if you have good shooters and a helluva dominate interior presence.

JO and Artest gave the Pacers that dominante interior presence in '04-05. That's why they could afford to get away with not having another dominate Center to spar JO. You just plugged Crosher out there w/Foster and left Artest on the floor and you still had a rebounder, and shooter (w/Reggie sometimes) and a interior presence in Artest. That all began to change w/the Brawl, and the Pacers have never been able to acquire a "manageable" roster ever since. By "manageable", I'm referring to TPTB being able to move away from "damage control...patch-work mode w/the roster" to truly bringing in the types of players they want to play the brand of basketball they (including the coach) envision. That's still going to take another year or two, but they'll get there. In the meanwhile, JOB has to find those players on today's roster who fit his style of basketball. I think he's one player away from doing that.

IMO, the Pacers need another low-post player who can spare JO and give them 8-10 ppg and play some defense. I had hoped Ike or Harrison would be able to do that, but it's beginning to look as if both are a wash. If TPTB can acquire that player by the trade deadline w/o losing any of (who I believe are) the core players (1-8, but not necessarily in that order: JO, Granger, Dunleavy, Rush, Deiner, Williams, Quis, and dare I say it...Tinsley), I think this small-ball lineup of JOB's could very well work indeed.

Sidenote: I liked RC. I thought he was a very good coach, but he he was burned out and IMO had lost the team long before the end of last season. All the Artest/Brawl drama and then the injuries, etc., etc. It's alot to ask of anyone man to endure. If he ever returns to coaching in the NBA, I'd wish him well.

I agree with what you are saying, however I don't know that it is a fault of Rick's that he coached "his style" till the end.

Do you think that Jim O'Brien would somehow change his style if he were presented with a roster of players who did not fit? Or would he try and make them play his way?

My guess is that coach's in general will not adapt to the team, they want the team to addapt to them.

I still believe Carlisle was a great coach and got a bum rap here, but I am also of the opinion that his time had come and it was time to move on.

As you said, last season was not the first season he had lost the team.

The one great fault that I find in the last half of his tenure is this.

He either did not know how to coach Jermaine O'Neal or he had no choice in how he coached Jermaine O'Neal.

I've said it before and I will say it till I die, Rick did not coach the style of play we saw here other than when he was with Jermaine. He did not coach that way in Detroit, he did not assistant coach that way when he was here in the 90's, he did not coach that way during the brawl and suspenion year.

Again, I don't know if it was because this is what Rick thought was best. Whether J.O. would not accept any other role or whether management said this is the way it had to be. I just don't know.

All I know is that our offense became predictable, easily guardable and stagnate, not to mention boring to watch.

But you do bring to the table a good point about all of the talent we have lost over the years, it's not just the G.S. trade.

Since86
01-15-2008, 01:37 PM
I won't believe this until you quote it from somewhere. I've asked before and gotten no response.

My Dad played for John Wooden, I've been to his house. And I've never heard anything growing up except how important it is to box out.

I'm not saying it's impossible for me to be wrong. But I'll need some documentation.

I'm going on what I heard him say, in person. I saw him speak at Hinkle Fieldhouse 6 or so ago, and when he said it the place went deafly quiet, like they couldn't believe he just said that.

This doesn't have a source either, but considering this thread was the second link from a google search I doubt a lot is going to be turned up anyway.


I used to coach boxing out and still do some boxing out drills, but they alone are not enough.
Since every college coach in America pays lip service to John Wooden, I will quote him on the three most important aspects of rebounding:
1. Assume every shot will be missed
2. Get your hands above your shoulders
3. Go get the ball
http://www.utefans.net/archive.php?action=View&id=2856

Notice there is no mention of finding a man, putting a body on a man, nothing about making contact with anything but the ball.

The author goes on with his observations:

The Utes are really bad at #2 and #3. They are so focused on boxing out that they have their hands down around their waste trying to contain their opponent, and their weight is leaning away from the basket, and they just stay there when the ball hits the rim, rather than GOING TO GET THE BALL, which is the real point of rebounding anyway. Bogut didn't box out much, but he went and got the ball.
I now try to teach my teams to 'clear out' -- go make contact with your opponent, push him out of the lane, then step away to get some separation and GO GET THE BALL.

The highlited part is what Coach Wooden said was his reasoning. He said that he found players turned it more into a fight over positioning than it was a fight over the ball. They would be so concerned with boxing out they forgot why they were boxing out in the first place.

I'm not saying which I think is better, I'm just saying there are different coaching philosophies about rebounding and JOB might be the reasoning behind it as opposed to the actual player.

But it still doesn't negate the fact that Foster doesn't box out and no one has a problem with it. He just beats his man, and everyone for that matter, to the ball. I think he "steals" a lot of rebounds from his teammates because of it.

Bball
01-15-2008, 01:54 PM
I think Wooden's method was "Check and go"... And I think it's still "boxing out". The only difference is how quickly you release and go for the ball.

And when you see a player smoke JO like he did in the GSW game you know there was no 'check' part to JO's rebounding method.

-Bball

Will Galen
01-15-2008, 01:58 PM
JO and Artest gave the Pacers that dominante interior presence in '04-05. That's why they could afford to get away with not having another dominate Center to spar JO. You just plugged Crosher out there w/Foster and left Artest on the floor and you still had a rebounder, and shooter (w/Reggie sometimes) and a interior presence in Artest. That all began to change w/the Brawl, and the Pacers have never been able to acquire a "manageable" roster ever since. By "manageable", I'm referring to TPTB being able to move away from "damage control...patch-work mode w/the roster" to truly bringing in the types of players they want to play the brand of basketball they (including the coach) envision. That's still going to take another year or two, but they'll get there. In the meanwhile, JOB has to find those players on today's roster who fit his style of basketball. I think he's one player away from doing that.

Very, very, good!

This is THE paragraph for those who wonder what the Pacers are doing.

I think they still need to do some damage control. I think Tinsley and Harrison need to go too. The problem is Tinsley is our starting point guard and we need to get another viable point before getting rid of him.

Myself, I would probably gamble and get rid of him and hope we get his replacement in the draft.

NuffSaid
01-15-2008, 04:18 PM
Will,

The problem w/moving Tinsley IMO is the same w/moving JO, Dunleavy and Murhpy - their huge contracts!

Hypothetically speaking, someone might be willing to take a chance on JO only because he was an All-Star and he's still a defensive force. He may not be putting up the numbers he did a year or so ago, but there's still some production in him. Truth is, his game is alot more rounded than it was 2-3 yrs ago, and that adds to his value. The fact that he's not getting the ball 18-20 apg but has still managed to score in the mid-upper teens is pretty good!

Tinsley's putting up All-Star-like numbers, but his end-game performance plus is decision making at times are questionable. I sure teams have inquired about him, but I'm not sure if he alone would garner this team a quality player in his place.

Murphy is alot like Foster in that he's a "servicable" player. Meaning that he'll never be a true starting C/PF; any team who wants him has to know exactly how they intend to "plug" him into their system.

Of the four players on this team w/large contracts, Dunleavy is probably the best trade commodity of the group. His stats have improved and have remained constant. He's a "system" player, but he's shown he can be creative at times as well.

So, I don't think it will be easy to move any of these players right now. That's why in the section of my most post you've quoted I said it's going to atleast another 2 yrs before TPTB can start making some moves because teams are more willing to take on expiring or near-expiring contracts in trades than they are contracts w/3+ yrs remaining on them.

Naptown_Seth
01-16-2008, 12:38 AM
I think I predicted something like 32 wins for the year. We're actually above my expectations right now.

But the reason you allow 32 wins this year is because you'll be a lot better next year. So what are we doing to get better next year?
Is murdering your way to the top still out?

Just checking. The alternate plans seem to be running thin.
Carn-son-it, dagnabbit, and assorted other old man grumbles.


The one ray of hope was the blurb in the Star about all the other times the team was way below .500 with more losses than they have now where they turned it on to make the playoffs (with at least 40 wins each time I believe).

Of course that's not a plan for the future, that's finding a way to win a little with what they've got.



Do you think that Jim O'Brien would somehow change his style if he were presented with a roster of players who did not fit? Or would he try and make them play his way?Ummmm, is this a trick question? ;) I mean you do know his style and who is on this roster, right? Thin at the 3 ball though Dun has saved it with a monster adjustment, weak with stars that create their own shot ala AI or Pierce, weak on perimeter defense. And $20m of the payroll is on a slow-down post scorer who must play because he's the only one holding the defense together.

I'd say there aren't many rosters that are a bigger mismatch to JOB's style, and I'm pretty sure he's been trying to make it work anyway. I don't fault him, Bird knew who he was when he was hired. You do what you do, if they didn't want that they would have picked someone else.


some of those changes occured during the course of a season, but many of them occured during the off-season which should have given him time to make the adjustments necessary to find an offense that truly fit the roster he had. But he didn't.And even pre-trade Rick DID TRY to force the roster to be uptempo, which was a mistake IMO because it was neither his style nor appropriate for the roster he had. That was an adjustment made in the summer after the FIRST TIME EVER that Rick ONLY made it to the first round of the playoffs. What a freaking loser, time to change styles.

That roster was headed for .500 yet again pre-trade. And expecting a massive overhaul when the major trade happened mid-season is crazy.

And yet Rick DID CHANGE things. When Dun arrived Rick used him as a spot up 3 ball. After that proved to be a mistake he stopped it and put Dun coming off 2pt curls and reduced his 3pt attempts (stats back this, not just opinion). Murph he started having go off dribble once he saw that he could. And it's not like anyone at PD was saying "boy Ike stinks, he chokes in the double team every time" at the time of the trade. In fact most of you were jocking Ike pretty hard. So like us, Rick had to learn Ike's game over time and adjust.

Tell me what JOB is doing with Ike that Rick didn't do? Exactly. And Harrison? Has JOB benched Tins in favor of the backup like RICK DID (Anderson, AJ, even Saras got a little run)? Has JOB not put Quis (and others) deep on the bench out of nowhere? Didn't Rick have to make do without Quis for most of the post-trade period, his main scorer off the dribble?

Look at the brawl year, look at the 3pt attempts before and after that. There's your flipping adjustment. They went from like 15-16 to 25-30 per game. If that's not changing style to match your roster I don't know what is.

And frankly I still hear you guys moaning about JOB having them feed the ball to JO. Anyone want to tell me what play JOB called to end the GS game? Anyone? I know, it was SOOOO different than what you guys say Rick did, right?

I'm sorry about the tone, but GD'it. There is a veritable laundry list of proof here that shows that Rick did adjust and that JOB has come to a lot of the same conclusions. I mean get back to me when JOB actually has won more than 35 with this group. I'm not saying he won't, but I am saying he's getting credit for solving something when the results aren't in yet and the current projection says nothing is different.

But why should I be surprised. 3 games in we had the Tins was right, Rick was wrong thread.

Naptown_Seth
01-16-2008, 01:16 AM
Very, very, good!

This is THE paragraph for those who wonder what the Pacers are doing.

I think they still need to do some damage control. I think Tinsley and Harrison need to go too. The problem is Tinsley is our starting point guard and we need to get another viable point before getting rid of him.

Myself, I would probably gamble and get rid of him and hope we get his replacement in the draft.
I do agree that bit by NuffSaid was solid. I do think the roster situation is that way.


I just think NS, Peck and some others still don't recognize that JOB is struggling through basically the same issues as Rick, which is basically trying to deal with a team that doesn't fit ANY styles.

I mean who would win more with this team, is this team built for the triangle? Or Utah's front line passing schemes? They don't have great defenders, they don't have a huge list of strong shooters, they don't have great speed or quickness or size.

3pt shooting in JAN, you've got 4 guys with 20 attempts
Dun and Danny, over 40%, awesome
But that's your SF and PF in small ball where Dun doesn't get beat by speed on defense as much.
At PG/SG you have Rush and Diener, both sub-31%. 31.

If you didn't like Jack's poor shooting, then WTF is there to like about Rush shooting 30% on nearly 5 attempts per game? That's your backcourt shooting. And thanks to only playing 4 games I didn't mention Tinsley's 1 for flipping 13 (8%) from 3 this month.

And good lord Tins and Troy are both SUB 1.00 on Points per Shot (in Jan) which is just off the charts bad. 1.10-1.15 is your "poor" range on that. Average guys run 1.20 area, stars run closer to 1.40.

And among the top 20 Assist per game players Tinsley ranks as one of the worst in Assist to TO ratio. The guys worse than him tend to be primary self-scorers like AI, Wade and Lebron...you know, guys who's PPS is hella higher than sub-1.00.

This roster just isn't functioning nearly as well as some people think, there is a real problem of mismatched talent, not just 1-2 guys away. Just like last year the "depth" stems as much from not having high quality starting talent as it does from having some great bench.

It's not about "if only they would play a different style". It's about getting a more functional mix of players. Then the style that suits them as a group will become more apparent I think.

BillS
01-16-2008, 10:05 AM
It's not about "if only they would play a different style". It's about getting a more functional mix of players. Then the style that suits them as a group will become more apparent I think.

I hate to just post "me too" but...

Me too.

Since86
01-16-2008, 02:48 PM
I didn't think I was gonna end up watching the game because I knew the outcome and score, but I watched it after classes this morning.

JO shouldn't be faulted at the end of his lack of boxing out. Beidrins (sp?) was on his left and Barnes was right behind him. No one rotated down when the Ws were swinging the ball. Most rebounds come off weakside, and JO protected the weakside. It caught the back of the rim and bounced off straight.

Could he have done better? Sure, but other than being so low almost under the basket he did what he should have.