PDA

View Full Version : Ok I think I need talked down off of the ledge, so to speak



Peck
01-24-2008, 05:32 AM
I need one of you O'Brien fans to help me come down off of the anti-O'Brien feelings I have developed over the past few weeks.

Yes, I freely admit that the Pheonix game sent me over the edge and I'm still mad about it.

However I feel that really it is just a symptom of the disease that I have.

Maybe I've been reading to much Naptown Seth lately but I feel that our offense has no structure to it at all. Basically if we have an open three shoot it and pray to God that on more nights than not that we hit at least 40% of them.

I see very few screens to open up shooters, I see very few back door plays ran, I thought we were going to run a pick and roll but that has happened less and less each game.

Basically if we are hitting our open jumpers we have a chance, if not.....

Look before some smart @ss gets on here and say's, "well you should not have complained about Rick". First of all I didn't, in fact I was one of the few supporters the guy had before he left but even I admit that his time here had come.

Second of all, that is a bogus argument. There are not only two styles of offense to play in this world and just because some people were repulsed by Carlisles offense does not mean they are wrong in not liking the "look to shoot once you have crossed the mid-court line" that O'Brien is bringing to the table right now.

Larry Brown didn't use either of these offenses and I think we did just fine under him.

Anyway back to O'Brien.

Not only does the offense sicken me, but the only thing worse than that is our defense or lack therof.

Ok, we don't have the talent to be a defensive unit here. Heck in fact we may not have the talent to even be a bad defensive unit.

But why accept bad defense from your players and not try and do something differant from the bench.

I swear to God there was one play in the first half that Mike Dunleavy actually pulled out a red cape and yelled Ole' as Sefolosha blew by him for an easy layup.

If Jamaal is sucking on defense, which I realize is when he is breathing, then why not give Owens a few min. You mean to tell me you don't think that Owens couldn't have done a 10X better job than either Diener or Jamaal?

Again, I realize that the guy has limitations to work with here, but come on. Something, anything would have been a nice change to try throwing at Kirk. How about Rush moving over or even try Daniels.

Anyway someone who still has absolute faith please help me out here because while I certainly am not saying fire the guy, I am saying my belief that his style of play will work over a season has almost faded to nothing.

Alabama-Redneck
01-24-2008, 06:26 AM
Save yourself a lot of headache, heartache and sleepless nights........JUMP !!!! :eek: :)

Roaming Gnome
01-24-2008, 06:43 AM
I see very few screens to open up shooters, I see very few back door plays ran, I thought we were going to run a pick and roll but that has happened less and less each game.

Basically if we are hitting our open jumpers we have a chance, if not.....


This has me worried....really worried! I'll be honest, I've been questioning this "style" for a while before the Phoenix game, but wanted to give it a full chance. It is just getting more difficult to give it a full chance when our wins feel like "chance" has more to do with the outcome then something comming from the bench.

I don't want to go there...but, it is getting harder to not go down this road!

indygeezer
01-24-2008, 07:09 AM
As one who DID NOT want JOB in the first place, I can calmly refrain from jumping. We are reaping what we have sown here.

I don't care if he is a "turn-around" coach...the turn we are taking appears to be for the worse, if that was possible.

Unclebuck
01-24-2008, 08:31 AM
I must admit I didn't watch one second of the Pacers v Bulls game last night, so I really cannot comment specifically on the game.

Seems as though the perimeter defense is a problem. Of coruse I've always said the defense starts with the point guard, - he's the most important defender on your team. I could write a book about the defense right now, but instead I will concentrate on the offense right now.

The offense is really simple - especially with JO out - they don't run any plays, they run a version of the passing game - except coming out of timeouts or in slowdown situations.

The offense looked great against the Sixers, the % of assists proved how well the Pacers were passing the ball and moving and hitting shots.

The theory behind this offense is to take the first open shot - simple as that.

As for the lack of screens, Haven't noticed that - will pay more attention tonight - I thought there were a lot of screens being utilized.

As far as Jim O'Brien overall, - I think he's done a very good job, although it is too early to draw any conclusions on his job performance for the season.

Sorry I'm kind of rambling here.

Surprised to hear that Rush didn't guard Kirk some of the time, he would do the best job - they must have needed him to guard the shooting guard.

LoneGranger33
01-24-2008, 09:12 AM
Interesting...

I wish you would step back from that ledge my friend
You could, cut ties to all the lies that you've been living in
And, if you do not want to see me again
I would understand.

LoneGranger33
01-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Peck must have me on ignore, because his posts sound like what I would say if I thought before I typed.

Hicks
01-24-2008, 09:23 AM
Peck, I think your mind will be made up on Jim until something you see for yourself changes your mind.

And what do you mean you didn't complain about Rick? You were all over him for making JO our #1 option on offense. JO Ball ring a bell? Come on.

As for subbing, here's what will happen: Nothing. You trade some better D for worse ball handling and worse passing on the other end of the floor. Hell, despite having a much better 3p% than JT, Owens astoundingly has a WORSE FG%. No net gain, and more than likely a net loss consider it's Andre Owens not some hidden diamond in the rough.

The only sub I would agree with trying right now is swapping out Daniels for Graham and see what happens. But that's no magic pill for this team either. When everyone's begging for the coach to put X in to stop the massive bleeding, that means we officially just suck.

Slick Pinkham
01-24-2008, 09:34 AM
I think that we can credit JOB for this team overachieving so far.

Based upon talent, all the pundits had this as a 25-win team.

We are meeting or exceeding most realistic expectations. Sure, we all HOPED for more, but that was based upon wishful thinking rather than concrete reasons to believe.

I think that we are in good shape to improve he backcourt via lottery. Maybe JO will shut it down for good and we can develop and evaluate less proven players like Ike.

Hopefully Tinsley regains some trade value soon.

Unclebuck
01-24-2008, 09:47 AM
The problem at the point guard position is that we can go with offense - but then the defense will really suffer (JT, Diener) or go with defense - but then the offense will really suffer (Owens, Daniels)

Evan_The_Dude
01-24-2008, 10:52 AM
I thin the best way to fix the defense is to stop throwing up long range bombs on offense. Though a J'OB supporter, I did say when he was hired that the long range bombs will lead to more opportunities for the opposition. I think somebody else said it here, but I'm going to say it too. It's funny how the defense is designed to stop dribble penetration, but give up more outside shots, yet he believes the best way to win offensively is to take outside shots.

At this point in the season the thing that's more frustrating than the losses is the lack of progress. We've tried the big man lineup and it seems we've abandoned that. Now if the small ball lineup doesn't work, then what? I like that Rush is playing so good asa starter, but I think we should go back to him as a 6th man since we're getting nothing out of Daniels off the bench these days (seems he's still hurting). I'd like to see us try Ike as the starting PF so we have that inside presence for our wings to play off of. That's something we haven't tried yet (with Ike).

The only real positive I'm seeing is that Danny has really stepped up his game this month. Not only shooting the three well, but he's been playing the defense, and getting to the basket and drawing fouls and converting the free-throws.

JayRedd
01-24-2008, 11:30 AM
I thin the best way to fix the defense is to stop throwing up long range bombs on offense. Though a J'OB supporter, I did say when he was hired that the long range bombs will lead to more opportunities for the opposition. I think somebody else said it here, but I'm going to say it too. It's funny how the defense is designed to stop dribble penetration, but give up more outside shots, yet he believes the best way to win offensively is to take outside shots.


That's what he does. That's what we're going to do.

If you want it changed, fire the guy.

If you want it to be more successful, find better shooters and penetrators.

DisplacedKnick
01-24-2008, 11:41 AM
I don't think JOB is a bad coach but I've thought ever since he was hired that the Pacers didn't have the players to execute his system.

Now my corollary is that even if you get JOB the right kind of players I worry about winning a championship with an offense so reliant on the long ball. But I do think, with the right mix, that he can coach a 50-plus win team. But Indy doesn't have the mix.

Jose Slaughter
01-24-2008, 11:43 AM
Bird mentioned before the season started that when Rick was here he and Donnie brought in players that fit Carlise's system & now that O'Brien is here he will need to bring in players that fit his system.

So far I don't think he's done much.

Once Bird brings in the right players for what O'Brien wants to do............. we'll be golden!

MyFavMartin
01-24-2008, 11:45 AM
That's what he does. That's what we're going to do.

If you want it changed, fire the guy.

If you want it to be more successful, find better shooters and penetrators.

The long range bombs have nothing to do why we don't know how to switch or fight through picks. This is basic, fundamental basketball and the Pacers know nothing of it. And it's not just Tinsley, I saw, Granger, Dunleavy, Rush, and Foster all messed up on defending picks. Commonly it left a Bulls player wide open underneath.

Also, no one knows how to stop dribble penetration. The lane was wide open all night and not having a healthy JO meant not having a shotblocker to deny the Bulls paintwork.

This team sucks. Small ball sucks. Get a good draft pick. Be better next year. Fire JOB and Harter and bring in Scott Skiles over the summer.

Unclebuck
01-24-2008, 11:51 AM
I mentioned all summer long that this Pacers will only be as good as what I considered as their three most important players: JO, JT and Marquis. JO is out, JT is not playing well right now and daniels hasn't looked good in over a month. So yes this team is going to struggle and I believe blaming the coach, isn't fair. Mike and danny aren't good enough to carry a team. Both are complementary players.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-24-2008, 12:18 PM
Mike and Danny aren't good enough to carry a team. Both are complementary players.

Which is a good start for the future, right? It's something to build on. They're both relatively young. Shawne Williams looks like a keeper. Kareem Rush has alot of what this team is looking for with his speed, outside shot & adequate defense.

CableKC
01-24-2008, 12:22 PM
I think I'm the only one that will freely admit this.....but I don't like Small Ball!

I don't mind using Small Ball on a situational basis.....like if we play other Small Ball / "super Up-tempo" offenses like the Suns and Warriors....cuz it appears to work at times....but I don't think it's any solution to how we should permanently run our offense...much less defense....especially against teams with that have the type of players that can take advantage of it.

I think that it magnifies how bad our interior and perimeter defense actually is. At least with a lineup that we had before the Suns game.....we seemed to be somewhat good at clogging up the inside and forcing the oppsoing team to beat us from the perimeter. Now...instead of teams having the option of killing us from the perimeter.....they can kill us when they drive to the hoop. Basically, any gains that we get from having a quick and small lineup of scorers is IMHO immediately negated by how bad our defense is.

If the main benefit of having a Small Ball lineup is to get Rush minutes to defend the Guards ans score alongside Granger....then have Dunleavy be our 6th Man and start Rush.

Admittedly, our Small Ball lineup could be more effective IF a healthy JONeal that could run, rebound and defend the paint on a regular basis was playing. But since we have an injured version of JONeal that can't do all of that "night in and night out" without wearing down or injuring some part of his body every other night, we are forced to rely on Foster ( who can rebound but doesn't really deter anyone from driving to the hoop ) and Murphy ( who pretty much has a sticker on his forehead that says "attack the basket" ). The only hope that I have ( and I am sure that many of you won't like it ) is that I think that Harrison will actually be used more then 10-15 minutes a game now. If anything....he is more of a deterrant for opposing teams that want to drive to the hoop then Murphy is.

grace
01-24-2008, 12:35 PM
Look before some smart @ss gets on here and says...

I thought for sure you were going to say "I told you this was going to happen."

Anyway I think the only thing that can save you now is a really excellent haiku, but that's not my forte. Sorry.

As for the game I really wish the Pacers had played like that during the game here in December.

McKeyFan
01-24-2008, 01:04 PM
I'd like to see Ike get more shots per game.

Last night he got one. He made it.

The other night he had several. Made most of them.

I guess there are problems with Ike on defense and he must have a problem picking up on things. But heck, we need some inside presence on offense and a go-to scorer.

I like JOB. I don't think he's given Ike enough of a chance. He should be allowed to make some mistakes like everyone else.

The other night he had two or three lovely assists. That was the one aspect of his game that we were worrying about. If he can put all those things together on offense, then we should consider overlooking his defensive issues.

Give Ike more time!

indygeezer
01-24-2008, 01:16 PM
As one who DID NOT want JOB in the first place, I can calmly refrain from jumping. We are reaping what we have sown here.

I don't care if he is a "turn-around" coach...the turn we are taking appears to be for the worse, if that was possible.


Please allow me to clarify. I wanted a west coast coach to come in and redirect the P's into the running game. I have nothing against JOB personally.

Unclebuck
01-24-2008, 01:33 PM
I like small ball, we need to get our best players on the floor together and Rush is clearly one of our best players

Naptown_Seth
01-24-2008, 01:43 PM
Peck, don't blame me, this is reality setting in unfortunately. :)

We had some pretty extensive summer discussions regarding JOB's style. He has a good record, but not better than Rick. His teams previously have relied on a couple of star players capable of either shooting the lights out or getting their own shot as the offensive "plan". And he looks for high caliber defense.

Okay, well Rick obviously liked a defensive focus, at least with the Pacers rosters he saw and Detroit to some extent. Post-trade the Pacers found themselves weaker on defense. Losing Ron also had a huge impact.

And yet in Defensive Points per Possession Rick had the Pacers at 9th. Of course that included pre and post trade. However the point is that there wasn't a lot of room to go up. I liked JOB and Harter coming in to try and improve it, but at the same time it was hard not to be concerned with the personnel they had to work with as a group.

And then back on offense you had to wonder who the creator for the team was going to be. They have role players, but without JO able to score off the low block they just haven't had that threat for the "role scorers" to work off of.

To me the math on all of this is as simple as can be. It was nuts to assume that suddenly out of nowhere Rick fell off the freaking table. If Sloan's Jazz dropped to 35 wins after a major trade you wouldn't just dismiss it as Sloan finally losing the team, even if he did. You'd say he needs different players or that the adjustments didn't work.

TPTB dealt from a PR standpoint, not a basketball standpoint. And as much as I can respect JOB I still question the very odd circumstances of his hiring. Phone interviews only out of left field after a major coaching option had a late falling out with the team? Isn't that weird to people? To me it FELT like JOB was a fall guy, that the team was stuck and didn't want to pay out big money to SVG only to have the roster continue to struggle.

I realize Bird says that JOB is his type of guy, said all the right things, etc. But as I understand it they never worked together previously and again their meeting was by phone only apparently. That's an odd way to hire a coach.


Look at the team's record. Now tell me I was just some negative hater to have the expectations I had. I wasn't alone either. It's not about not loving the team because lord knows I'm still watching and have tickets to several games to come. I was just facing the facts which to me didn't and still don't quite add up.

I do hope for some magic click that turns it around. I mentioned the Star blurb about all the previous 2nd half bursts to make the playoffs. That gives me some hope that something unforeseen can still happen. Unforeseen being the key word here though. People expecting it aren't/weren't being realistic.

The team IS rebuilding right now. Maybe Bird doesn't realize it, but missing playoffs and turning over a majority of your roster is rebuilding. Changing coaches is also part of that. Get into that mindset, ride out the darkness and hope for some vision and stabilization by 09-10. That's the part where I'm talking you off the ledge Peck. ;)

Naptown_Seth
01-24-2008, 01:54 PM
Yes, I do mean to tell you that Owens is not a 10x better PG defender. He hustles, he has some ability, but he's a backup at best. We can't keep expecting players to suddenly be so much more than they've ever shown. You find gems, you get guys that were overlooked, but you don't get entire teams of those players.

Even Detroit with Rip, Billups and Wallace didn't find gems. Rip was already a well versed scorer. Ben was a solid defending rebounder. Billups was a decent PG before getting to Motown. Those pieces fit together better, but none of those guys really made a dramatic change.

Even Nash grew slowly. His MVP seasons weren't really so different than what he was doing at Dallas. Maybe the tempo kicked up, maybe he was freed up to be more of the main guy away from Dirk. But this wasn't AJ becoming Nash.

Dun has already put up his best numbers. Danny is progressing slowly but steadily. How many more surprise jumps in ability could we count on? And why does everyone think that Ike, Graham, Diener, and Owens are all overlooked quality starter caliber players? Why does everyone think that Rush is secretly a super ace about to burst forth when Phil couldn't see it enough to keep him in LA?

At some point you have to realize that not every other person in the NBA is an idiot. Players get passed on for some reason, and it's not always just bad circumstances.


But that's no magic pill for this team either. When everyone's begging for the coach to put X in to stop the massive bleeding, that means we officially just suck.
And people think Mal and I just argue all the time. :)


PTom - they have overachieved certainly and JOB gets credit there. However isn't it possible that had Rick been given an offseason with the post-trade roster AND had Chuck swapped for Dick Harter that the team might have been this "overachieving" too? Plenty of people pointed to the loss of Quis as part of the downfall last year. Maybe there was some truth to that. They also had that rough March schedule that sent them reeling.

For all we know Rick would have had them at the exact same win total right now.

Why do I go on about this? Simple, Rick proved he could win with different rosters. Have Dun, Troy, Tins, Quis, JO, etc proven they can win with 3-4 different coaches and rosters? I mean hate Jackson all you want, but he's got a ring with SA and been to the 2nd round with both Indy and Golden St. This roster doesn't have that pedigree. JO, Tins, even Artest, have all seen their greatest success with Rick around. And while were at it, so did the Reggie Pacers too, even if it was just as the offensive assistant. Bird always said that Rick and Dick ran that show.

So you punt the guy with the great resume in favor of a crew full of blah resumes? I just think that's a mistake we will regret for some time.

CableKC
01-24-2008, 02:04 PM
I like small ball, we need to get our best players on the floor together and Rush is clearly one of our best players
With JONeal out....is our interior defense better or worse compared to before we went to "Small Ball"?

Since we started going Small Ball without JONeal.......we have given up ( on average ) 113 points to the other team over the course of 5 games. Prior to that....we were giving up an average of about 105 points over the course of the season ( with or without JONeal ).

I do concede that this 113 points skid does coincide with JONeal sitting out...which would make a difference. I wouldn't mind going with Small Ball with JONeal playing.....but are we going to count on him to be healthy to anchor ( pretty much ) the entire defense for the rest of the season?

Without JONeal.....where we are dependant on Foster, Murphy, Harrison and Ike ( who I don't even think would count as a Big Man )....does it make sense to go with Small Ball when the closest thing that we have to an interior defenders are Foster and Harrison?

As I said before.......the benefits of going with Small ball ( at least without JONeal ) on the offensive end comes at a high cost of giving up too many points on the defensive end. Again....like the answer to all of our problems.....we're just not built to play this kind of offense.

Unclebuck
01-24-2008, 02:12 PM
With JONeal out....is our interior defense better or worse compared to before we went to "Small Ball"?

Since we started going Small Ball without JONeal.......we have given up ( on average ) 113 points to the other team over the course of 5 games. Prior to that....we were giving up an average of about 105 points over the course of the season ( with or without JONeal ).

I do concede that this 113 points skid does coincide with JONeal sitting out...which would make a difference. I wouldn't mind going with Small Ball with JONeal playing.....but are we going to count on him to be healthy to anchor ( pretty much ) the entire defense for the rest of the season?

Without JONeal.....where we are dependant on Foster, Murphy, Harrison and Ike ( who I don't even think would count as a Big Man )....does it make sense to go with Small Ball when the closest thing that we have to an interior defenders are Foster and Harrison?

As I said before.......the benefits of going with Small ball ( at least without JONeal ) on the offensive end comes at a high cost of giving up too many points on the defensive end. Again....like the answer to all of our problems.....we're just not built to play this kind of offense.

The defense is much, much better with JO and Foster in the lineup together - no doubt about that. However, probably the three worst defenders on the team IMO are Murphy, Harrison, and Ike. So I don't see how playing any of those three are going to help the defense any.

CableKC
01-24-2008, 02:21 PM
The defense is much, much better with JO and Foster in the lineup together - no doubt about that. However, probably the three worst defenders on the team IMO are Murphy, Harrison, and Ike. So I don't see how playing any of those three are going to help the defense any.
I know that many of you dislike Harrison now....but I think that he did a decent job yesterday night of manning the Center spot from the defensive end.

I forget who said it....but someone said before that playing Murphy and Foster together seems to work real well together......but they said that things seems to click when the both of them are on the floor together.

OakMoses
01-24-2008, 03:02 PM
Yes, I do mean to tell you that Owens is not a 10x better PG defender. He hustles, he has some ability, but he's a backup at best. We can't keep expecting players to suddenly be so much more than they've ever shown. You find gems, you get guys that were overlooked, but you don't get entire teams of those players.

Even Detroit with Rip, Billups and Wallace didn't find gems. Rip was already a well versed scorer. Ben was a solid defending rebounder. Billups was a decent PG before getting to Motown. Those pieces fit together better, but none of those guys really made a dramatic change.

Even Nash grew slowly. His MVP seasons weren't really so different than what he was doing at Dallas. Maybe the tempo kicked up, maybe he was freed up to be more of the main guy away from Dirk. But this wasn't AJ becoming Nash.

Dun has already put up his best numbers. Danny is progressing slowly but steadily. How many more surprise jumps in ability could we count on? And why does everyone think that Ike, Graham, Diener, and Owens are all overlooked quality starter caliber players? Why does everyone think that Rush is secretly a super ace about to burst forth when Phil couldn't see it enough to keep him in LA?

At some point you have to realize that not every other person in the NBA is an idiot. Players get passed on for some reason, and it's not always just bad circumstances.


This is the best thing I've read all day. I really think you hit the nail on the head here. The one thing that does need to be taken into account when looking at players suddenly becoming "better" is the change in their situations. I think it's fairly obvious that Danny Granger plays better when JO is not on the floor. Granger's ability doesn't change, but his focus and mentality do. Chauncey Billups was putting up some monster games in Minnesota before they let him go, so it was not really a surprise that he was good when he got to Detroit. Caron Butler has always been a good player, but now that he's "the man" in Washington, he's playing like an all-star.

As far as the Pacers are concerned, Dunleavy is having a career year now that he's in a friendly system and environment. Rush has seemingly found a home and looks like he could be a decent starting SG in the league. Granger is starting to look like a good, but not great, all-around player. While there is a fair bit of talent on this roster, there is no savior waiting in the wings to emerge.

Doug
01-24-2008, 03:28 PM
I thought for sure you were going to say "I told you this was going to happen."

Anyway I think the only thing that can save you now is a really excellent haiku, but that's not my forte. Sorry.

Don't jump off the ledge,
You will not find peace that way.
Embrace the jump shot.

NuffSaid
01-24-2008, 03:43 PM
Basically if we have an open three shoot it and pray to God that on more nights than not that we hit at least 40% of them.

I see very few screens to open up shooters, I see very few back door plays ran, I thought we were going to run a pick and roll but that has happened less and less each game.

Basically if we are hitting our open jumpers we have a chance, if not.....
I do believe that small-ball is the best way for this team to go. However, I also believe that if this team continues to "live and die by the 3-ball", they will die more often than they live! The only way this team succeeds w/small-ball is if they are a team continuously in motion!! That means running more screens (whether baseline or up high as they've started to have some success w/using Foster as the screener) and curls (which Dunleavy is running more of, he's just not converting enough) and pick-n-rolls, as well as scoring in transition. In other words, this team has to mix it up in much the same way they did when they played against the 76ers (1/21/08). They can't settle for jump shots and hope to outscore their opponent from the field when 25-30% of the total shots attempts are outside the paint! That's a formula for disaster!!! They have to find a way to get inside and NOT become so one-dimensional, and in this case that one-dimension is perimeter shooting.


Not only does the offense sicken me, but the only thing worse than that is our defense or lack therof.

Ok, we don't have the talent to be a defensive unit here. Heck, in fact, we may not have the talent to even be a bad defensive unit. But why accept bad defense from your players and not try and do something differant from the bench?

I swear to God there was one play in the first half that Mike Dunleavy actually pulled out a red cape and yelled Ole' as Sefolosha blew by him for an easy layup.

If Jamaal is sucking on defense, which I realize is when he is breathing, then why not give Owens a few min? You mean to tell me you don't think that Owens couldn't have done a 10X better job than either Diener or Jamaal? Again, I realize that the guy has limitations to work with here, but come on. Something, anything would have been a nice change to try throwing at Kirk. How about Rush moving over or even try Daniels?
Praise, Glory! Somebody besides myself has finally come to the same conclusion. IMO, Owens is the BEST 1-on-1 defensive Guard on this team. I asking myself why JOB won't utilize the guy in situations where the opposing team's Guard needs to be colded off a bit. He's not necessarily going to lock a guy down, but he will slow him quite a bit. But JOB won't call his number.

Deiner got burned by Hinrich last night. I was screaming at the TV, "Rotate Owens into the lineup and put him on Hinrich for goodness sakes!" But that rotation never materialized, and the Pacers got their butts handed to them once again by two players, one of which I'm conviced could have been cooled off had the team's other defender been called off the bench much sooner.

Another thing that's still puzzling me is why hasn't Graham seen playing time since his outstanding performance against the Kings? There's just no way I'd be playing Quis nearly as much knowing what Stephen Graham brings to the floor.


Anyway someone who still has absolute faith please help me out here because while I certainly am not saying fire the guy, I am saying my belief that his style of play will work over a season has almost faded to nothing.
I still believe in the small-ball system w/this team. However, I'm now questioning the coach's decision making.

I like Deiner and I really want the guy to succeed, but he's no Tyron Lue. I mean, he's short compared to most other PGs, but unlike Lue, Deiner just can't get inside as nibbly. So, he's practically stuck with having to do his damage from the perimeter. Therefore, I question why JOB continues to go with him for long stretches when defensively he tends to get burned out there? And mind you, Deiner defended Hinrich as good as anyone could; he just doesn't have the height. Hinrich was shooting over him as if he wasn't even there!

I question why won't JOB use Owens in much the same way as the Pistons under Larry Brown used Lindsey Hunter - as a defensive stopper among his Guards?

I question why Graham doesn't see more playing time over Quis considering that Graham's a much more athletic player and has more skill? The guy's multi-faceted! He can shoot from just about anywhere on the court, he can drive the lanes and he can defend. So, why does he remain parked on the bench?

In this game, my boyz definitely died by the 3. But IMO they also lost because they didn't mix things up more and because the right players weren't on the floor at key moments during the game. Owens and Graham should not have seen garbage time. They both should have played significant minutes if for no other reason than to give the team more defense and scoring options.

jmoney2584
01-24-2008, 05:07 PM
I do believe that small-ball is the best way for this team to go. However, I also believe that if this team continues to "live and die by the 3-ball", they will die more often than they live! The only way this team succeeds w/small-ball is if they are a team continuously in motion!! That means running more screens (whether baseline or up high as they've started to have some success w/using Foster as the screener) and curls (which Dunleavy is running more of, he's just not converting enough) and pick-n-rolls, as well as scoring in transition. In other words, this team has to mix it up in much the same way they did when they played against the 76ers (1/21/08). They can't settle for jump shots and hope to outscore their opponent from the field when 25-30% of the total shots attempts are outside the paint! That's a formula for disaster!!! They have to find a way to get inside and NOT become so one-dimensional, and in this case that one-dimension is perimeter shooting.

Yes, I agree.


Praise, Glory! Somebody besides myself has finally come to the same conclusion. IMO, Owens is the BEST 1-on-1 defensive Guard on this team. I asking myself why JOB won't utilize the guy in situations where the opposing team's Guard needs to be colded off a bit. He's not necessarily going to lock a guy down, but he will slow him quite a bit. But JOB won't call his number.

Disagree. Owens being the best 1-on-1 defensive guard on the team isn't saying much EVEN if it were true. JOB should have slid Rush, Danny, 9insert athletic wingman here) etc. over on him on some possesions to mix it up on occasion because regardless of how much Ownes might "dog" on Kirk, the fact remains Hinrich is a much smarter basketball player than Andre Owens and while it might have been effective for two or three posessions, Owens isn't athletically gifted enough to rely on speed and strength alone in shutting down his man, or certainly at least THIS man. His basketball IQ is also much lower than KH's and he would have recieved the same "Kirked" treatment as everyone else. We just don't have a defensive stopper for the PG position and it is a SERIOUS weakness for this team. We need someone to "slow the conductors hand" so to speak.


Another thing that's still puzzling me is why hasn't Graham seen playing time since his outstanding performance against the Kings? There's just no way I'd be playing Quis nearly as much knowing what Stephen Graham brings to the floor.

Strongly agree. He played really well the other day and hasn't seen $#it for playing time since. Is a petition in order? Shouldn't we at least maybe judge if he is worth keeping around after the off season? Maybe he shows GMs enough to be a trade filler, ANYTHING just give him more time on the hardwood.

Peck
01-24-2008, 07:28 PM
Peck, I think your mind will be made up on Jim until something you see for yourself changes your mind.

And what do you mean you didn't complain about Rick? You were all over him for making JO our #1 option on offense. JO Ball ring a bell? Come on.

As for subbing, here's what will happen: Nothing. You trade some better D for worse ball handling and worse passing on the other end of the floor. Hell, despite having a much better 3p% than JT, Owens astoundingly has a WORSE FG%. No net gain, and more than likely a net loss consider it's Andre Owens not some hidden diamond in the rough.

The only sub I would agree with trying right now is swapping out Daniels for Graham and see what happens. But that's no magic pill for this team either. When everyone's begging for the coach to put X in to stop the massive bleeding, that means we officially just suck.


Oh come on, you know that I have always made it a point to say that I didn't know who to blame for that. It could have been Rick didn't know how to coach him (unlikely) or that J.O. demanded certain things, I didn't know which.

All I know is that he didn't coach that system in Detroit, he didn't coach that style when J.O. was out for extended games here.

He only coached that way when J.O. was there.

madison
01-24-2008, 07:36 PM
Gentlemen, please! Here's the facts going into the season. Mediocre roster with only 3 legit starters. Little depth. Key players with a history of playing only partial seasons (JO, MD and JT). When these guys are out, why is everyone surprised. On top of that, we got a coach -- and we needed a change -- who said three-ball is fine and dandy. Well, there's only one Suns and it ain't us. Defense is required, even in the NBA, and we don't have players that have the athleticism to compete. So, who's surprised at our record? Seriously. We're on track to win maybe 35 games. So, let's hope that gets us in the draft lottery. That's a sunnyside hope, eh?

Hicks
01-24-2008, 07:59 PM
Oh come on, you know that I have always made it a point to say that I didn't know who to blame for that. It could have been Rick didn't know how to coach him (unlikely) or that J.O. demanded certain things, I didn't know which.

All I know is that he didn't coach that system in Detroit, he didn't coach that style when J.O. was out for extended games here.

He only coached that way when J.O. was there.

True what you say about his offense in '98-'00 and in Detroit, but I remember you being pretty upset with the offense here, too. And as you'd say today about Jim vs. Tinsley, surely you would then also think Rick was supposed to tell JO "no" if JO wasn't doing what he wanted then, either.