PDA

View Full Version : A very informative final Jim O'Brien show tonight



Hicks
04-17-2008, 06:54 PM
I was able to listen to it all tonight (it's still on for a few minutes), and I will have it uploaded soon after it's over. Some interesting stuff is said throughout the show.

The only "bad" thing is that everyone so often the sound gets warped, but you can still understand what's being said 90% of the time.

Hicks
04-17-2008, 07:06 PM
Here it is:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/radio/thejimobrienshow041708.mp3

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/radio/thejimobrienshow041708.mp3

QuickRelease
04-17-2008, 07:52 PM
WOW! He cut zero corners about Tinsley being here next year, and also about JO.

Kaufman
04-17-2008, 08:13 PM
Well he basically is saying Tinsley will not be on the team next year.

Will Galen
04-17-2008, 08:14 PM
Thanks Mal!

Very interesting. Can't depend on Tinsley so they need to upgrade the point guard position.

Other than Rose there's not a point guard in the draft that could come right in and start. Doesn't think there is a point guard in the draft that can be had with the #11 pick that would be starter material for the Pacers. Need someone already established.

In the Orlando summer league again this year. Hopes the two draft picks would be joined on that team by Ike, Williams, and Graham.

He got 14 techs this year, more than usual because he was trying to convince his players to take charges and when they did and the refs called a foul on them he had to let the players know he was fighting for them. Also needed to let the refs know every time they went wrong on a call they were going to get an earful from him.

Says the only starters on a real good basketball team would be Dun, Dan, and JO.

Mark asked him if our success at the end of the year could carry over to next year. He said no because it came against sub .500 teams.

See's Shawne staying with the Pacers, but also said he's playing the same position as the Pacers two best players. Says he's got a future with the pacers, but one of those three might have to be traded.

Committed to not going over the luxury tax.

Granger is a budding all star.

Upped the tempo more than he liked when JO went down because that's the only way he thought we could make the playoffs.

Mark Boyle will be back next year unless they tell him to take a hike.

Before getting new players the franchise will spare no expense into looking into their backgrounds.

Me speculating; A couple things he said makes me think the Pacers are still interested in trading JO for Vince Carter. I'm putting different comments together here but, he echoed Bird in saying JO could be traded. He also said later that marquee players are hard to come by. Put those statements with him saying later that you could put the ball in Carter's hands and let him take over the game, and I got the impression that the Pacers are still interested in Carter.

Kaufman
04-17-2008, 08:15 PM
Wow its like he is throwing 70% of the team under the bus. Not that a few of them don't deserve it...

Shade
04-17-2008, 08:21 PM
Wow, he just kinda smacked down Murphy, Foster, and Diener a bit, basically saying they're not starting material.

"You have to wonder if [JO] will be in a Pacer uniform next year." :eek:

"Tinsley probably does not figure into the future..." :jawdrop:

No sir, I don't like this. I don't like it at all. I know that we want to hear changes are coming, but throwing pretty much the entire team under the bus is NOT cool.

Cobol Sam
04-17-2008, 08:23 PM
The world is crumbling around me! People in the Pacers organization are giving me straight talk and I don't know what to do!

Kraft
04-17-2008, 08:24 PM
Love it.

QuickRelease
04-17-2008, 08:26 PM
Wow its like he is throwing 70% of the team under the bus. Not that a few of them don't deserve it...

I think O'brien is just a realist. Some of these guys wouldn't be playing regularly on a good team.

Hicks
04-17-2008, 08:31 PM
Love it.

Yeah, I kind of like it, too.

QuickRelease
04-17-2008, 08:32 PM
Interesting that he put Ike at the end of the big man depth chart after David Harrison. O'Brien isn't high on Ike at all from the sound of it.

grace
04-17-2008, 08:35 PM
From what's been posted it doesn't sound like he likes anybody.

Hicks
04-17-2008, 08:38 PM
I disagree about him not being high on Ike because normally when I see/hear that, it suggests the coach is down on him. Does he think right now he's deserving of being a featured rotation player? No, but he goes on to say he's a great worker, a great person, and is picking up the D. He was also almost brutally honest about his weaknesses, but I didn't detect malice.

Shade
04-17-2008, 08:38 PM
I just don't like the position he's putting himself in. If you bad-mouth players, you:

(a) decrease their trade value, and
(b) create a strained relationship with any of those players that come back

I do like that it sounds like Shawne will probably be back.

Hicks
04-17-2008, 08:39 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if Jim is this honest with his players all the time, in a non-confrontational way, and that this won't come as a shock to them. Some may not like it being in the public, but then again if they're even a little honest with themselves they'll probably just accept it.

Shade
04-17-2008, 08:41 PM
From what's been posted it doesn't sound like he likes anybody.

If I were Quis, Graham, Owens, Flip, and Rush I'd be the most concerned. JOB didn't even mention them.

Anthem
04-17-2008, 08:43 PM
Says the only starters on a real good basketball team would be Dun, Dan, and JO.

A couple things he said makes me think the Pacers are still interested in trading JO for Vince Carter. For one, he echoed Bird in saying JO could be traded.
I'm fine with trading JO, but Vince makes no sense unless you're trading Dun as well.

SoupIsGood
04-17-2008, 08:44 PM
Wow, nice to hear. I guess we'll see now if he has any sway w/ mgmt. I like that he's being honest though.

Shade
04-17-2008, 08:45 PM
Sounds like we won't be drafting a PG. :mad:

Kegboy
04-17-2008, 08:54 PM
"Get better defensive players...Make sure we have a point guard who can defend his position."

Ouch.

Kegboy
04-17-2008, 08:55 PM
Sounds like we won't be drafting a PG. :mad:

I'm sure Chase Buddinger could do it in a pinch.

:devil:

Will Galen
04-17-2008, 08:57 PM
I'm fine with trading JO, but Vince makes no sense unless you're trading Dun as well.

Well he did mention later that one of Dun, Dan, or Shawne might be traded. I edited my post above so that might not have been in the first version.

I think the Pacers are looking at trading JO for Carter, and one of our three SF's for an established point guard, probably Dun. That would mean we would be taking a big man in the draft.

Come to think of it Bird seemed higher or big men in the draft than he did point guards in the press conference the other day.

I found it. It was in the Simon press conference. I think this is required reading if you want to know which direction the Pacers are going this summer. http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/transcript_080416.html


Q. As you identify the team's primary needs, are they more positional or do they involve certain skill sets?
A. You want skilled players. You'd like to have players that can play multiple positions. I think at the small forward-two guard, we're pretty well set with Danny (Granger), Shawne (Williams) and Mike (Dunleavy). Any time you go into the draft you look for point guards and you look for big guys. It's according to what's going to be there. If there's a point guard we really like we have to look at him. But if there's a big man there, you always like bigs. At the four position we could use another guy. We've got a lot of holes to fill.

Kegboy
04-17-2008, 08:58 PM
"I believe (JO's) a very, very tradeable asset."

owl
04-17-2008, 09:06 PM
At 11 the Pacers are going big. There is no guard who will significantly improve the defense
other than Rose at that position. At the bigs there will be more than one available who
could help.

QuickRelease
04-17-2008, 09:10 PM
I disagree about him not being high on Ike because normally when I see/hear that, it suggests the coach is down on him. Does he think right now he's deserving of being a featured rotation player? No, but he goes on to say he's a great worker, a great person, and is picking up the D. He was also almost brutally honest about his weaknesses, but I didn't detect malice.

Yeah, JOB did go on to say that some of the people ahead of Ike may not be here next year. But I don't know if I buy the argument. Ike produced when given the time, and as far as defensive liabilities, no one is more lacking in defensive ability than Troy Murphy.

Kegboy
04-17-2008, 09:14 PM
I would highly, highly recommend everyone listen to what Jimmy says about Ike, ESPECIALLY if you're one of the many who question why he doesn't play more. It's at 37 minutes in, and he talks about him for a good two minutes. I'd try and recap, but I couldn't do it justice. Very enlightening on Jimmy's opinion of him.

Hicks
04-17-2008, 09:17 PM
I would highly, highly recommend everyone listen to what Jimmy says about Ike, ESPECIALLY if you're one of the many who question why he doesn't play more. It's at 37 minutes in, and he talks about him for a good two minutes. I'd try and recap, but I couldn't do it justice. Very enlightening on Jimmy's opinion of him.

It really was.

AesopRockOn
04-17-2008, 09:18 PM
Sounds like he might not be around soon but he's talking the real talk. What a hardcore kid. Great recap, Will.

GrangerRanger
04-17-2008, 09:21 PM
it's good stuff

Young
04-17-2008, 09:25 PM
Wow impressed what he had to say about Ike's character.

Doesn't sound like he stands a chance in hell to play much though even if he does develope well. I don't think he fits into Jim's game plan which is to spread the court.

joeyd
04-17-2008, 10:09 PM
I don't know why JOB isn't higher on Foster. With his increased role on offense, if Foster could/were allowed to play more than 25-30 minutes a game, you are looking at someone who would be a very frequent double-double man. I think he also had a career year in assists, if I'm not mistaken. Granted, he can get taken to town on D, but where's the love?

D-BONE
04-17-2008, 10:17 PM
Trade JO and one of our SFs. Sounds like a plan. I'll take VC a PG for that.

owl
04-17-2008, 10:20 PM
Can VC play better defense than what the Pacers have now? I know he can score. If he is brought in do the
Pacers trade Dun or Shawne?

Kaufman
04-17-2008, 10:40 PM
Listening to his interview with Mark Boyle, a few things come to mind. Ok, one thing mainly comes to mind.

Our players don't fit his system he says.

Ike (who I'm not even a fan of) doesn't contribute to his system of spreading the floor. OK. And he preceded by throwing most of the team under the bus. I guess my question is ---

Wouldn't it be easier to just replace him?

He sounds like he wants to trade off the whole team! I'm not saying that a few don't need to go. That goes without saying. But If we are going to have 8 players that he plays and another 4-5 on the bench that are sitting - why pay them? And then, if that's the case - maybe there is a coach out there that can do more with what we have than him.

I don't know.

Just talking out loud. Its not that I don't think some players need to go. But I also think that he needs to be flexible and play what he has. This isn't college where the coach stays around for 30 years and recruits his type of players year in year out.

When JOB moves on, are we going to overhaul things again?

Kaufman
04-17-2008, 10:45 PM
By the way - I think this interview is something that will be referenced all summer.

Even though I find some of it incredibly arrogant on the coach's part, it is nonetheless one of the most compelling things I can remember ever coming directly out of the mouthpiece of a Pacers representative or employee.

clownskull
04-17-2008, 10:56 PM
i gotta say that it was very refreshing to hear the honesty from someone in the know on the state of this franchise and the current roster. i have been waiting for that for a long time.
i was also very pleased to hear his assessment of tinsley. i am tired of the he's good when healthy thing since he has proven he cannot stay healthy. it is no coincidence that he has missed so many games not to mention that his defense is sub-par.
tins needs to be gone.
if he is around next year - so be it but i hope not but, at least it's nice to know that he has a vote of no confidence from the coach- he's earned it.

pwee31
04-18-2008, 12:18 AM
Can VC play better defense than what the Pacers have now? I know he can score. If he is brought in do the
Pacers trade Dun or Shawne?

Shawne

Anthem
04-18-2008, 12:47 AM
Can VC play better defense than what the Pacers have now? I know he can score. If he is brought in do the Pacers trade Dun or Shawne?
Both.

Evan_The_Dude
04-18-2008, 06:45 AM
If we send J.O. to the Nets for Carter, I see us throwing in somebody (probably Shawne Williams) and picking up Marcus Williams -- who I think we should have taken with that pick in the first place. Marcus isn't great, but he has potential and has shown flashes which is the same that can be said of Shawne.

Rajah Brown
04-18-2008, 07:08 AM
I'll sum up his comments on Ike. He can't play outside as a PF to help
spread the court in O'B's system and he's undersized as when playing
the single post/inside guy.

Both aspects (along with his cluelessness on D) have been obvious
all season.

Unclebuck
04-18-2008, 08:12 AM
Thank, you, Thank you, Thank you.

A defensive point guard - yes

"It starts at the point guard spot" YES!!!!!!!!! - Thank you Jim.

Kofi
04-18-2008, 08:20 AM
I still like Randy Foye out of Minnesota and believe he'll be very available if the Wolves land Derrick Rose. 6'4", 213 lb., 40% three point shooter.

Speed
04-18-2008, 08:27 AM
I gotta say I'm amazed. I'm not a VC fan. I thought he looked on the precipice of not being able to be a go to player. His history bothers me with tepid interest in defense. You take on an extra year of contract. I worry it hampers Grangers development. I just have a ton of reservations about getting him here.

How does it make you any better than New Jersey, who is worse than the Pacers?

Hell maybe it makes you worse, the Pacers don't and won't have a Jason Kidd or Devin Harris.

R Jefferson = Granger
Krstic=Murphy

You basically rework the couple of positions that actually already are in good shape.

I hate to take one speculation and run with it, but I don't see how this helps, at all.

Otherwise, I appreciate his crazy frankness, but its counter productive going into this phase of the season, completely not the things you want to say publicly.

RWB
04-18-2008, 08:39 AM
Maybe JOB knows trying to be sneaky sneaky is useless since other GMs pretty much know the other team's weakness. Might as well let it be known to all teams in one swoop we're willing to do business so start calling. Also the players know up front yeah they're being shopped so no special meetings needed to soothe any egos.

count55
04-18-2008, 08:51 AM
Listening to his interview with Mark Boyle, a few things come to mind. Ok, one thing mainly comes to mind.

Our players don't fit his system he says.

Ike (who I'm not even a fan of) doesn't contribute to his system of spreading the floor. OK. And he preceded by throwing most of the team under the bus. I guess my question is ---

Wouldn't it be easier to just replace him?

He sounds like he wants to trade off the whole team! I'm not saying that a few don't need to go. That goes without saying. But If we are going to have 8 players that he plays and another 4-5 on the bench that are sitting - why pay them? And then, if that's the case - maybe there is a coach out there that can do more with what we have than him.

I don't know.

Just talking out loud. Its not that I don't think some players need to go. But I also think that he needs to be flexible and play what he has. This isn't college where the coach stays around for 30 years and recruits his type of players year in year out.

When JOB moves on, are we going to overhaul things again?

At the time Bird was hired, my brother and I listened to the type of team he envisioned, and we both thought that he'd basically have to get rid of all the players to do that. This was the summer before the 61 win team.

Essentially, Bird and O'Brien appear to be basically on the same page in terms of style and philosophy, so if it takes completely re-tooling the team, then it will be done.

And, if that doesn't work...yes, we will have to tear it down and start over again when Bird and Obie are fired.

Hicks
04-18-2008, 09:16 AM
For clarification, in case I just missed it, at no point does Vince Carter come up in the conversation during the show.....

count55
04-18-2008, 09:25 AM
For clarification, in case I just missed it, at no point does Vince Carter come up in the conversation during the show.....

I agree...I think it was just speculation from one of the posters. Not unreasonable speculation, but nothing directly attributable to JOB.

Unclebuck
04-18-2008, 09:25 AM
For clarification, in case I just missed it, at no point does Vince Carter come up in the conversation during the show.....

O'Brien does mention Carter. As a player who you can just give the ball to and tell him to create. He was contrasting Dunleavy to players like Kobe (someone else) and Carter

count55
04-18-2008, 09:27 AM
O'Brien does mention Carter. As a player who you can just give the ball to and tell him to create. He was contrasting Dunleavy to players like Kobe (someone else) and Carter

Ok..I was wrong...:blush:

Hicks
04-18-2008, 09:27 AM
O'Brien does mention Carter. As a player who you can just give the ball to and tell him to create. He was contrasting Dunleavy to players like Kobe (someone else) and Carter

Okay. But I wanted to clarify that Jim doesn't speculate us trading to get Vince Carter. Or a JO for VC trade, etc. As count55 said, it's reasonable speculation, but I don't want people thinking Jim's bringing it up because that would mean something more.

clownskull
04-18-2008, 09:31 AM
i'm glad vc's name was not mentioned. like speed, i don't see how getting him helps this team at all. his defense isn't above average. and he has been known to quit before. then the fact that his huge contract lasts longer than jo's- makes 0% sense. gotta give it a hell no!!

Tom White
04-18-2008, 09:41 AM
I don't think he was throwing players under the bus so much as he was just being honest.

For example, with Foster, he talked about how Foster is getting a bit older now (we've all talked about how Jeff has had hip and back problems over the years). He said Murphy ( if I remember right) could be a rotation player on a good team. Stuff like that.

I was surprised to hear him talk about Williams being in the future plans. My guess would be he thinks that Williams can be convinced to make improvements in his judgement concerning his own actions and who he associates with.

Someone mentioned the players that JOB did not speak about. For one thing, he wasn't really asked about some of them. The callers were obviously more interested in O'Neal and Tinsley, for one thing.

Mark Boyle made a nice comment at the end of the show about doing the show with JOB (and I assume, his honesty) had been a breath of fresh air.
Very nice comment, I thought.

Unclebuck
04-18-2008, 09:44 AM
I enjoyed O'Brien's show all season long (Sorry I missed so many towards the end of the season - but the 6:00 start time was not good for me). OB was honest all season long.

I enjoy coaches shows, or most of them.

Jonathan
04-18-2008, 11:52 AM
You all can thank me later if/when the Pacers Draft Lester Hudson.

Speed
04-18-2008, 12:10 PM
You all can thank me later if/when the Pacers Draft Lester Hudson.

Interesting read. One heck of a scorer, it appears. I don't see him on the radar for Mock drafts, maybe a camp invite, if not drafted, I'm guessing. He doesn't seem to be a good student didn't graduate from Juco had to sit out, something about not graduating from Highschool, played low level college competition, but lit up Memphis, which is impressive. He's 'gag' a combo guard with questionable handles and average athleticism, who will be 24 in August (only a year and half younger than Granger). All this is of course from the draft websites, so I really am not trying to be down on the guy, just giving a synopsis.

I've never seen him play. I wonder if he was at Portsmouth or if he'll make a name for himself in the predraft camps?

What do you know about him Jonathan?

Correction: I did find him on one mock draft, taken 46th overall.

NuffSaid
04-18-2008, 12:16 PM
Thanks Mal!

Very interesting. Can't depend on Tinsley so they need to upgrade the point guard position.

Other than Rose there's not a point guard in the draft that could come right in and start. Doesn't think there is a point guard in the draft that can be had with the #11 pick that would be starter material for the Pacers. Need someone already established.

In the Orlando summer league again this year. Hopes the two draft picks would be joined on that team by Ike, Williams, and Graham.

He got 14 techs this year, more than usual because he was trying to convince his players to take charges and when they did and the refs called a foul on them he had to let the players know he was fighting for them. Also needed to let the refs know every time they went wrong on a call they were going to get an earful from him.

Says the only starters on a real good basketball team would be Dun, Dan, and JO.

A couple things he said makes me think the Pacers are still interested in trading JO for Vince Carter. I'm putting things together here but, he echoed Bird in saying JO could be traded. He also said later that marquee players are hard to come by. Put those statements with him saying later that you could put the ball in Carter's hands and let him take over the game, and I got the impression that the Pacers are still interested in Carter.

Mark asked him if our success at the end of the year could carry over to next year. He said no because it came against sub .500 teams.

See's Shawne staying with the Pacers, but also said he's playing the same position as the Pacers two best players. Says he's got a future with the pacers, but one of those three might have to be traded.

Committed to not going over the luxury tax.

Granger is a budding all star.

Upped the tempo more than he liked when JO went down because that's the only way he thought we could make the playoffs.

Mark Boyle will be back next year unless they tell him to take a hike.

Before getting new players the franchise will spare no expense into looking into their backgrounds.
I listened to the show three times to be sure I didn't miss anything or misquote anything that was said. The above is a nice summary of what was said except JOB never claimed the Pacers were going after Vince Carter. He used Carter as an example of how if you put the ball in certain marquee players hands, i.e., Kobe, LeBron, how they would be are able to take over games and score the ball. But he in no way stated that the Pacers would be able to go out and simply acquire such marquee players - certainly not without making a trade which would very likely include one of the three players he mentioned as "core" players: Granger, Dunleavy and JO.

Now, the interesting thing here is that while JOB mentioned that JO is certainly tradable, he continued to speak as if he truly wanted him here next year. This speaks to my commentary in the "Trading JO this summer..." thread (post #37 (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=38576&page=2))" where I honestly believe that JOB, Bird and Herb have differing opinions on exactly where JO fits into the team's short- and long- term plans. JOB mentioned how JO could fit very well on the team if he came back in tip-top shape. I think Bird, on the other hand, would rather use him as trade bait to draw down the cap and "retool", whereas Herb, I think, would rather keep his investment and make it work. I go into detail on this conflict in the aforementioned post. Clearly, changes will come. Tinsley fits well within those plans; he's out! JO could be as well if the Pacers are able to find the right pieces. I doubt they will, but I can't say I blame them for trying. Regardless, please don't let it be for Carter. I like him. I just think he's getting too old.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 12:25 PM
I listened to the show three times to be sure I didn't miss anything or misquote anything that was said. The above is a nice summary of what was said except JOB never claimed the Pacers were going after Vince Carter. He used Carter as an example of how if you put the ball in certain marquee players hands, i.e., Kobe, LeBron, how they would be are able to take over games and score the ball. But he in no way stated that the Pacers would be able to go out and simply acquire such marquee players - certainly not without making a trade which would very likely include one of the three players he mentioned as "core" players: Granger, Dunleavy and JO.


I edited my post above because some didn't get it that I was speculating on Carter, even though I said I was putting comments together.

Naptown_Seth
04-18-2008, 12:29 PM
In the Orlando summer league again this year. Hopes the two draft picks would be joined on that team by Ike, Williams, and Graham.



Says the only starters on a real good basketball team would be Dun, Dan, and JO.

A couple things he said makes me think the Pacers are still interested in trading JO for Vince Carter. I'm putting things together here but, he echoed Bird in saying JO could be traded. He also said later that marquee players are hard to come by. Put those statements with him saying later that you could put the ball in Carter's hands and let him take over the game, and I got the impression that the Pacers are still interested in Carter.


Mark asked him if our success at the end of the year could carry over to next year. He said no because it came against sub .500 teams.


See's Shawne staying with the Pacers, but also said he's playing the same position as the Pacers two best players. Says he's got a future with the pacers, but one of those three might have to be traded.



Upped the tempo more than he liked when JO went down because that's the only way he thought we could make the playoffs.
1) He remembered that Graham was still on the team? I wish he'd remembered more often during games.


2) I like his honestly about the talent level, but then why would he trade JO for Vince if he thinks his other 2 guys are Dun/Danny? I really hope they aren't thinking of pushing a JO/Marbury salary solution down our throats, especially given the view on background checks and PR.

3) Love his honesty about those late wins. Given the fact that he previously talked about this history of his teams finally clicking you could anticipate him citing the late run as proof of that. It's very standup for him to not do that and instead be brutally honest.

4) I honestly didn't know he felt there was a tempo limit. This actually makes me feel pretty good to hear. You know Rick had to do the same thing, ramping up the 3 ball and outside game in the brawl and year after brawl seasons when JO was out.



I have to hand it to JOB, he's a straight shooter by comparison to most coaches. There are times I feel like he's blowing smoke for whatever PR reason, but he's good about not reciting the standard cliche-speak when he's not protecting or spinning a situation.

For the ESPN game they asked him the standard halftime questions and unlike most coaches he was pretty specific about what had gone wrong and what strategy they would try to adjust. Most coaches treat this like a big secret and fall back on "play better defense" instead of something like "force the traps out harder, cut out the room to split the trap, work the ball on the weakside skip pass after hitting the high post" (not accurate, just the general idea of his reponse).

I mean any decent coach is going to see what you are doing anyway. Maybe if they had a day to prepare, but by the time they hear about his halftime plan it's already in action.

Makes me puke to hear "we need to make more shots", though I'll accept "do nothing different, I liked the looks and think these guys can knock them down". I can read a box score, you're the expert so give me the reasons for the box score.

Naptown_Seth
04-18-2008, 12:35 PM
Interesting that he put Ike at the end of the big man depth chart after David Harrison. O'Brien isn't high on Ike at all from the sound of it.
I would address this to Shade as well. There are game tapes and scouts and agents. If it's a secret that he rarely used Ike and no one can guess why then they shouldn't be in the NBA GM business.

Look, WE know that Memphis has 3 PGs. Everyone knows. So if someone from that team mentions it they aren't giving anything away.

In the same sense is any NBA expert surprised to hear that Tins is not part of the future plan, that JO might be traded, that Troy and Diener aren't starting material, that JOB isn't high on Ike, Rush, Graham or Owens?

Games were played and JOB used some players, didn't use others. TPTB made calls about deals up to the deadline, maybe talked to players or agents after the deadline. WE MIGHT NOT KNOW, but people inside the key parts of the NBA know.


This is like "shhh, don't mention that we might like to draft Derrick Rose". Cat's outta the bag already.

Jonathan
04-18-2008, 12:38 PM
Interesting read. One heck of a scorer, it appears. I don't see him on the radar for Mock drafts, maybe a camp invite, if not drafted, I'm guessing. He doesn't seem to be a good student didn't graduate from Juco had to sit out, something about not graduating from Highschool, played low level college competition, but lit up Memphis, which is impressive. He's 'gag' a combo guard with questionable handles and average athleticism, who will be 24 in August (only a year and half younger than Granger). All this is of course from the draft websites, so I really am not trying to be down on the guy, just giving a synopsis.

I've never seen him play. I wonder if he was at Portsmouth or if he'll make a name for himself in the predraft camps?

What do you know about him Jonathan?

Correction: I did find him on one mock draft, taken 46th overall.

He had the first ever quad double in NCAA History.
10 Steals, 10 AST, PTS & REBS. He did it against a low caliber team but still nobody had ever done it before.
He seems to fit the bill of everything JOB was talking about last night
Good Defender (Check) 10 steals in one game is very impressive
NBA is a man's game (Check) The kid will be 24 not 18 or 19
I hope JOB does keep an eye for him like he told me he would.

Naptown_Seth
04-18-2008, 12:42 PM
Then at the risk of continuing the "moves" derail just briefly in terms of his comments. They could:

1) draft Love, transition offense starter thanks to outlet passing, his clear strength

2) trade JO for Vince, there's your #1 option so Danny isn't pressured, can go off dribble and draw fans

3) move Dun while he's hot and get a pretty solid PG in terms of contract cost

Now you are:
PG - Dun contract level
SG - Vince
SF - Danny
PF - Troy/Love
C - Foster/Troy

You make your 2nd round pick a defensive guard. Or those JO/Dun trades bring a pick or a pick upgrade to go after a Weaver for PG defense, perhaps Rush for SG defense.

Makes sense to me. Or they also go after Thabeet if he slips to around 20 or so.




JOB mentioned how JO could fit very well on the team if he came back in tip-top shape. I think Bird, on the other hand, would rather use him as trade bait to draw down the cap and "retool", whereas Herb, I think, would rather keep his investment and make it work.
I'd be shocked if this wasn't true.


He was contrasting Dunleavy to players like Kobe (someone else) and Carter<!-- / message -->
One of your 2 main offensive weapons and the coach CONTRASTS him with offensive go-to guys. I can't be the only one that sees this as a possible sign to go in line with what I (and others) have already said. Plus in terms of "value at its highest" will it ever get higher for Dun?

owl
04-18-2008, 12:55 PM
He had the first ever quad double in NCAA History.
10 Steals, 10 AST, PTS & REBS. He did it against a low caliber team but still nobody had ever done it before.
He seems to fit the bill of everything JOB was talking about last night
Good Defender (Check) 10 steals in one game is very impressive
NBA is a man's game (Check) The kid will be 24 not 18 or 19
I hope JOB does keep an eye for him like he told me he would.


Could you fill me in on what JOB said in regards to this player? He mentioned him?

Speed
04-18-2008, 12:56 PM
As another side note, do you think Bird and Obie could possibly be saying we want to take a BIG, BIG, BIG, not a point guard in the draft as a misdirection play?

And then take a point guard.

Are they that sophisticated?

I'd be impressed if thats the angle they are working!!

Hicks
04-18-2008, 01:00 PM
Could you fill me in on what JOB said in regards to this player? He mentioned him?

Jim had not heard of him.

Hicks
04-18-2008, 01:01 PM
As another side note, do you think Bird and Obie could possibly be saying we want to take a BIG, BIG, BIG, not a point guard in the draft as a misdirection play?

And then take a point guard.

Are they that sophisticated?

I'd be impressed if thats the angle they are working!!

I just don't see the point. Everyone else is going to take who they want ahead of us regardless of what we say or want.

Speed
04-18-2008, 01:06 PM
I just don't see the point. Everyone else is going to take who they want ahead of us regardless of what we say or want.


Could be someone behind you likes Love or a big that they have targeted and you can move down, get another pick or player in the process, and still get an Augustine or whoever it was you wanted at the PG position anyway, just a shot in the dark. I doubt its true.

Kegboy
04-18-2008, 01:23 PM
I just don't see the point. Everyone else is going to take who they want ahead of us regardless of what we say or want.

Perhaps, but he did it with Luke Jackson, and then I'm pretty sure did it again with Rodney Carney, even though he didn't quite get the chance to get him.

There is reason for misdirection. Just look at Chuck Person. Donnie feigned that he had zero interest in him, just to keep NY from moving up to get him.

Hicks
04-18-2008, 01:26 PM
Perhaps, but he did it with Luke Jackson, and then I'm pretty sure did it again with Rodney Carney, even though he didn't quite get the chance to get him.

There is reason for misdirection. Just look at Chuck Person. Donnie feigned that he had zero interest in him, just to keep NY from moving up to get him.

Well, but did Bird himself every say Luke Jackson was his guy, or was that just speculation? I remember the speculation, but I don't remember him saying anything about Luke until after he was asked about him following the speculation that had started.

Speed
04-18-2008, 01:36 PM
Then at the risk of continuing the "moves" derail just briefly in terms of his comments. They could:

1) draft Love, transition offense starter thanks to outlet passing, his clear strength

2) trade JO for Vince, there's your #1 option so Danny isn't pressured, can go off dribble and draw fans

3) move Dun while he's hot and get a pretty solid PG in terms of contract cost

Now you are:
PG - Dun contract level
SG - Vince
SF - Danny
PF - Troy/Love
C - Foster/Troy

You make your 2nd round pick a defensive guard. Or those JO/Dun trades bring a pick or a pick upgrade to go after a Weaver for PG defense, perhaps Rush for SG defense.

Makes sense to me. Or they also go after Thabeet if he slips to around 20 or so.




I'd be shocked if this wasn't true.


One of your 2 main offensive weapons and the coach CONTRASTS him with offensive go-to guys. I can't be the only one that sees this as a possible sign to go in line with what I (and others) have already said. Plus in terms of "value at its highest" will it ever get higher for Dun?

I'm not trying to revert this to a trade thread, but its interesting.

if NJ does have a desire for JO and you can get Lowry for Shawne or Dunleavy. NJ does have some interesting pieces.

1.) Richard Jefferson
2.) Marcus Williams
3.) #10 and #21 pick in this draft
4.) Lastly and this is really interesting to me, they have a 2 year non guaranteed contract for Keith Van Horn. I absolutely can not find how much its for???????

This leaves a lot of possiblities or pieces that I think would interest the Pacers. Jefferson was 10th in the league in scoring, I was shocked.

Marcus Williams is 22 yrs old and hasn't stolen anything since being in the league.

The 21 pick I think you could get a BIG thats a project, but who has the physical make up to play in the league. Heck Draft.net has Augustine on the board at the 21st pick, so who knows.

And Keith Van Horns contract lightens the salary cap burden.

All I'm saying is there might be a deal in all that stuff somewhere. And the article today talking about how Rod Thorn and Kiki VAndeweh are going to be in the big change mode.

Just something to think about, I guess.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 01:41 PM
I just don't see the point. Everyone else is going to take who they want ahead of us regardless of what we say or want.

It's teams behind us we have to worry about. If they know we will pick Jimmyjack and they want him, then they will make a trade to jump in front of us.

I also thought O'B could be using misdirection on point guards. There might be one that they like, other than Rose, but you know he's not going to sayso. He also said Bird might take a point guard with the 11th pick, so who knows if they are into misdirection.

Vince Neil
04-18-2008, 01:45 PM
Marcus Williams is 22 yrs old and hasn't stolen anything since being in the league.



:laugh:

CableKC
04-18-2008, 02:19 PM
As another side note, do you think Bird and Obie could possibly be saying we want to take a BIG, BIG, BIG, not a point guard in the draft as a misdirection play?

And then take a point guard.

Are they that sophisticated?

I'd be impressed if thats the angle they are working!!
Unless Bird actually learned something from DW....it could be a possiblity....but I really get the sense that Bird and ( obviously ) JO'B are more ( as many have noted ) straight-shooters.

Honestly...at the 11th pick.....I can see better Big Men options that can end up as likely Starters then PGs that can end up Starting.

CableKC
04-18-2008, 02:23 PM
It's been mentioned here before that many of us think that what the teams lacks is a player that can "create for other players". At this point...I don't think that Granger is anywhere near that point yet. With the lack of true-playmakers in the lineup, when he refers to players like Kobe and VC in the interview.....does he sound like we need a Playmaker to get the open shots that we need to make this offense work?

In Boston, JO'B had Pierce....in Philly, JO'B had Iverson....but in Indy....who is his "go-to" playmaker? No one, I guess. The hope would be that it is JONeal....but he does us no good if he is injured.

Can a Playmaker or player that can "create shots for others" be had in the draft?

Since86
04-18-2008, 02:45 PM
Listening to his interview with Mark Boyle, a few things come to mind. Ok, one thing mainly comes to mind.

Our players don't fit his system he says.

Ike (who I'm not even a fan of) doesn't contribute to his system of spreading the floor. OK. And he preceded by throwing most of the team under the bus. I guess my question is ---

Wouldn't it be easier to just replace him?

He sounds like he wants to trade off the whole team! I'm not saying that a few don't need to go. That goes without saying. But If we are going to have 8 players that he plays and another 4-5 on the bench that are sitting - why pay them? And then, if that's the case - maybe there is a coach out there that can do more with what we have than him.

I don't know.

Just talking out loud. Its not that I don't think some players need to go. But I also think that he needs to be flexible and play what he has. This isn't college where the coach stays around for 30 years and recruits his type of players year in year out.

When JOB moves on, are we going to overhaul things again?


Which is why I hated the idea of letting Rick go. If you need to replace the entire team to suit his style, you're going to be letting go those players who Rick lost.

If no matter what, those players are going to be traded, then why in the world do you downgrade your coach?

Rick is a better coach than JOB. You've limited your team by replacing a better coach, with a coach who isn't as good, just to appease team members who are going to be traded, and to make it look like your actually doing something, when what you needed to do was trade the damn players to begin with.

That's one part of it.

The second part of it is that this is a players' league. There are very few coaches that have the stature and tenure at a place that can openly bargain for certain types of players. I see Jackson, Sloan, Nellie, and I'm sure there are one or two more.

But JOB doesn't have all that great of a resume. He's not even close to being in the same category as those mentioned. Him needing to trade 80% of the roster to fit what he wants is stupid, IMHO. He's not a long term answer, and he has a pretty unique style, a style that doesn't fit how the playoffs are played.

Why are you going to build a team around a concept that doesn't work in the playoffs, which is what you're shooting for, and around a coach who's not going to be here very much longer?

Coaches can win or lose you playoff series. There was no reason that GS should have beaten Dallas last year, but Nellie outcoached Avery and that was the big difference. JOB isn't a strong enough coach with a good enough system to get the franchise in the position it needs to be. When he leaves the roster is going is going to have to be gutted again. I only hope we have players good enough to fetch replacements that will be needed.

Mourning
04-18-2008, 02:51 PM
Very interesting show indeed. Jamaal is definitely done and I didn't catch him beying negative all that much towards Ike to be honest ... and I like Ike.

Justin Tyme
04-18-2008, 03:29 PM
Listening to his interview with Mark Boyle, a few things come to mind. Ok, one thing mainly comes to mind.

Our players don't fit his system he says.

Ike (who I'm not even a fan of) doesn't contribute to his system of spreading the floor. OK. And he preceded by throwing most of the team under the bus. I guess my question is ---

Wouldn't it be easier to just replace him?

He sounds like he wants to trade off the whole team! I'm not saying that a few don't need to go. That goes without saying. But If we are going to have 8 players that he plays and another 4-5 on the bench that are sitting - why pay them? And then, if that's the case - maybe there is a coach out there that can do more with what we have than him.

I don't know.

Just talking out loud. Its not that I don't think some players need to go. But I also think that he needs to be flexible and play what he has. This isn't college where the coach stays around for 30 years and recruits his type of players year in year out.

When JOB moves on, are we going to overhaul things again?

I can think of 6 million reasons why JO'B won't be replaced by another coach! Heb Simon isn't going to pay 2 coaches. Simon is going CHEAP and isn't going to spend money. That includes using the MLE on FA's, just like last year. Bird is under financial restraints, which will make it hard for him to do much. That's why it is imperative that JO is traded with expiring in the deal for the 09-10 season.

jeffg-body
04-19-2008, 12:18 AM
You have to like the honesty, even if it is brutal. If the players don't like it they can use the offseason to improve their game.

JayRedd
04-19-2008, 02:58 AM
I'm just getting to this now, so sorry for the many responses...


Wow, he just kinda smacked down Murphy, Foster, and Diener a bit, basically saying they're not starting material.

Truth hurts.


"You have to wonder if [JO] will be in a Pacer uniform next year." :eek:

"Tinsley probably does not figure into the future..." :jawdrop:

No sir, I don't like this. I don't like it at all.

Honestly, I think it's the best thing I've ever heard from a Pacer coach.


I just don't like the position he's putting himself in. If you bad-mouth players, you:

(a) decrease their trade value

Like some others, I call shenanigans on this.

Other team execs don't listen to late-night radio shows to get their info on players. They use scouts, film and their own beliefs.

We -- and the idiots at Sportscenter, etc. -- like to think the "market value" of players is constantly fluctuating like it's the Dow Jones or something. I've always thought that was BS. Guys have a value and it changes gradually aside from major situations (injuries, "leaps," resurgences). JOB talking can't change the trade value of a guy overnight unless he says things like "F*** that guy." I mean, George Karl said JR Smith would never play for him again at the end of last season and look who his current 6th man is. Nellie wanted him gone but Denver GM couldn't get value so they kept him.


I don't know why JOB isn't higher on Foster. With his increased role on offense, if Foster could/were allowed to play more than 25-30 minutes a game, you are looking at someone who would be a very frequent double-double man. I think he also had a career year in assists, if I'm not mistaken. Granted, he can get taken to town on D, but where's the love?

C'mon...Jeff can't physically play more than 30 mpg. Nor does his flawed game allow for it.


Can VC play better defense than what the Pacers have now?

"Can" has never been a problem for Vince. "Will," in various meanings of the word, has been.


Maybe JOB knows trying to be sneaky sneaky is useless since other GMs pretty much know the other team's weakness. Might as well let it be known to all teams in one swoop we're willing to do business so start calling. Also the players know up front yeah they're being shopped so no special meetings needed to soothe any egos.

EXACTLY.

If GMs are listening to this, all this interview says is: "Everyone's available. And Danny's the only one we're even gonna hold you over the coals for. If, by some remote chance, you're interested in any one on our roster, please, please, please call."


I honestly believe that JOB, Bird and Herb have differing opinions on exactly where JO fits into the team's short- and long- term plans.

Yup.

A coach is about wins today. If he doesn't win immediately, he's gone. So JOB is clearly gonna prefer to have JO -- no matter how limited he may be compared to his old self -- than a 2009 draft pick, that helps him win exactly zero games.

Larry would have a slightly longer view, but he knows he needs to turn this thing around marginally quickly (i.e., 2-3 years max, with at least some progress shown within the next 12 months in some respect).

Herb needs to know that the franchise reverses course in terms of public perception and on-court success...but also in terms of dollars and cents. He's always been hands-off in the past and probably maintained a pretty long-term view, but based on his recent statements and his CEO move, he's clearly looking for a shorter term turnaround, IMO, at least in terms of public perception.


3) Love his honesty about those late wins. Given the fact that he previously talked about this history of his teams finally clicking you could anticipate him citing the late run as proof of that. It's very standup for him to not do that and instead be brutally honest.

...I have to hand it to JOB, he's a straight shooter by comparison to most coaches. There are times I feel like he's blowing smoke for whatever PR reason, but he's good about not reciting the standard cliche-speak when he's not protecting or spinning a situation.

Couldn't agree more. Again, this is the best thing I've heard in a long-term.

Constantly listening to some people talk about the benefits and importance of players that I think are inconsequential in this league such as Rush, Murphy, Daniels, Ike, etc., sometimes makes me think I'm taking crazy pills. Nice to hear J'Ob thinks they're garbage too.



All in all, this was fantastic.

I might not like Jimmy's offense...but I sure as hell like Jimmy the person.

count55
04-19-2008, 08:52 AM
I'm just getting to this now, so sorry for the many responses...



Truth hurts.



Honestly, I think it's the best thing I've ever heard from a Pacer coach.



Like some others, I call shenanigans on this.

Other team execs don't listen to late-night radio shows to get their info on players. They use scouts, film and their own beliefs.

We -- and the idiots at Sportscenter, etc. -- like to think the "market value" of players is constantly fluctuating like it's the Dow Jones or something. I've always thought that was BS. Guys have a value and it changes gradually aside from major situations (injuries, "leaps," resurgences). JOB talking can't change the trade value of a guy overnight unless he says things like "F*** that guy." I mean, George Karl said JR Smith would never play for him again at the end of last season and look who his current 6th man is. Nellie wanted him gone but Denver GM couldn't get value so they kept him.



C'mon...Jeff can't physically play more than 30 mpg. Nor does his flawed game allow for it.



"Can" has never been a problem for Vince. "Will," in various meanings of the word, has been.



EXACTLY.

If GMs are listening to this, all this interview says is: "Everyone's available. And Danny's the only one we're even gonna hold you over the coals for. If, by some remote chance, you're interested in any one on our roster, please, please, please call."



Yup.

A coach is about wins today. If he doesn't win immediately, he's gone. So JOB is clearly gonna prefer to have JO -- no matter how limited he may be compared to his old self -- than a 2009 draft pick, that helps him win exactly zero games.

Larry would have a slightly longer view, but he knows he needs to turn this thing around marginally quickly (i.e., 2-3 years max, with at least some progress shown within the next 12 months in some respect).

Herb needs to know that the franchise reverses course in terms of public perception and on-court success...but also in terms of dollars and cents. He's always been hands-off in the past and probably maintained a pretty long-term view, but based on his recent statements and his CEO move, he's clearly looking for a shorter term turnaround, IMO, at least in terms of public perception.



Couldn't agree more. Again, this is the best thing I've heard in a long-term.

Constantly listening to some people talk about the benefits and importance of players that I think are inconsequential in this league such as Rush, Murphy, Daniels, Ike, etc., sometimes makes me think I'm taking crazy pills. Nice to hear J'Ob thinks they're garbage too.



All in all, this was fantastic.

I might not like Jimmy's offense...but I sure as hell like Jimmy the person.

I generally agree with everything in this post. I think garbage might be a bit strong for some of those players, much like the opposing point of view that important or key or crucial is too strong. (In other words, they can be useful, but if you depend on them to be key contributors, you're going to be a bad team. Murphy's contract comes into the conversation, but that's largely thread hi-jacking.)

I think O'Brien will be fine for the transitional phase (next couple of years). I don't think he's the guy that we want when we are back to contending (because of the offense), but he's going to be good for the players and the franchise at this point in time.

JayRedd
04-19-2008, 12:46 PM
Yes..."garbage" was over the top. I don't think they're completely garbage...they can be 7th-8th men in this league maybe with Murphy having potential "first big off the bench" on a decent team.

NuffSaid
04-19-2008, 04:41 PM
Then at the risk of continuing the "moves" derail just briefly in terms of his comments. They could:

1) draft Love, transition offense starter thanks to outlet passing, his clear strength. I could go for that, but I doubt Love would be available by the time the 11th pick comes around.


2) trade JO for Vince, there's your #1 option so Danny isn't pressured, can go off dribble and draw fans. Like the concept, disagree with the player. Would rather find someone younger who could remain with the Pacers for a few years and still be a creative and threatening offense weapon. Vince, while still good, is on the downside of his career. Unless you're looking for a quick fix, I just don't see the rational in getting him especially if his acquisition takes away from your most dominate defensive player. Essentially, all the Pacers would be doing is trading defense for offense. Aren't they already a team that as currently constructed is merely trying to beat their opponents by throwing up more points than the other? At the very least what JO's end-of-season return showed was that the offense could continue to move along; the defenseD need to improve and it did though marginally. Still I'll take that over what wasn't there in his absence all day!


3) move Dun while he's hot and get a pretty solid PG in terms of contract cost.Sad to say but this (trading one of the "core" players) may be the only way the Pacers can acquire a "veteran" PG to replace Tinsley. If I had to choose which one to sacrafic, I'd reluctantly go with Duleavy...and I'd hate myself in the morning for having done so.


You make your 2nd round pick a defensive guard. Or those JO/Dun trades bring a pick or a pick upgrade to go after a Weaver for PG defense, perhaps Rush for SG defense.You are aware that Rush is a FA this year? So, unless you can do a sign-n-trade, I don't see him being used in the manner you suggest.


One of your 2 main offensive weapons and the coach CONTRASTS him (Dunleavy) with offensive go-to guys (i.e., Vincanity). I can't be the only one that sees this as a possible sign to go in line with what I (and others) have already said.Which was??
Plus in terms of "value at its highest" will it ever get higher for Dun?
No. I doubt Dun's value every gets any higher. JOB summed him up nicely, but I still wouldn't be too quick to trade him because when all esle fails you can always rely on Dunleavy (in JOB's system at least) to give you sound, fundamental basketball. And didn't we all ego Reggie's parting sentiments concerning this team to play the right way? Seems of all the players currently on this team Dunleavy personafide that philosopy the best, IMO.

Doddage
04-19-2008, 04:44 PM
I'm pretty sure he was talking about Brandon Rush, not Kareem.

BillS
04-19-2008, 04:50 PM
Sad to say but this (trading one of the "core" players) may be the only way the Pacers acquire a "veteran" PG to replace Tinsley. If I had to choose which one to sacrafic, I'd reluctantly go with Duleavy...and I'd hate myself in the morning for having done so.

That's how I feel. In the back of my mind, though, I sometimes think with the PR issues it might make sense to wait a year before trading Danny, Dun, or even Foster. We might miss a good deal but we aren't going to get cap relief for next year anyway.

Jose Slaughter
04-19-2008, 05:34 PM
I think O'Brien said that there were no point guards in the draft that could come in and start for us, other than Rose.

Thats a lot different than Bird not drafting a point. He might just do that, just that the Pacers will need to make a deal for a starter for the next season or two because....... & I've wanted to say this for such a loooooong time..... Tinsley won't be here!

JayRedd
04-19-2008, 06:17 PM
I think O'Brien said that there were no point guards in the draft that could come in and start for us, other than Rose.

Thats a lot different than Bird not drafting a point.

Yup.

He may very well think Augustin or Collison can't start on Day 1 (something very few coaches would ever admit that any college PG is capable of) but that by Year 2 they can be seasoned and groomed to take over the spot. Even guys like Conley weren't drafted with the expectation of starting on Day 1. Those types of PGs are few and far between (Rose, CP3, Deron, etc.). It's a tough positions as proven by the long route taken by the Billupses, Nashes and Tony Parkers of the world.

(Meanwhile, I'm not saying I agree Augustin or Collison are capable of starting in Year 2 or even Year 3 personally...just illustrating the concept.)


Plus in terms of "value at its highest" will it ever get higher for Dun?

Sure he will...His value will be even higher after he plays just as well next year and he has one year less on his contract.

OnlyPacersLeft
04-19-2008, 07:07 PM
this is the guy who is in charge of coaching our team? UHG...this is another reason to hate o'brien...he doesn't get it. He isn't the guy~!

Hicks
04-19-2008, 07:53 PM
this is the guy who is in charge of coaching our team? UHG...this is another reason to hate o'brien...he doesn't get it. He isn't the guy~!

What exactly do you think he doesn't get based off of this?

count55
04-19-2008, 08:47 PM
this is the guy who is in charge of coaching our team? UHG...this is another reason to hate o'brien...he doesn't get it. He isn't the guy~!


What exactly do you think he doesn't get based off of this?

OPL's love and admiration.

OnlyPacersLeft
04-19-2008, 09:29 PM
he's throwing our team under the bus here! And his style of play obviously isn't set for JO cause JO can't create his own shot really. Once the chucking isn't going down he needs an iso guy like carter to go to...uhg
you can't deny tins was making strides before he got hurt. And as for the phx game no one on that team would have stepped up because danny was in his typical shell that night.
do you guys really think he can lead us to a title? he'd screw up the celtics team they have now!

NuffSaid
04-19-2008, 09:33 PM
this is the guy who is in charge of coaching our team? UHG...this is another reason to hate o'brien...he doesn't get it. He isn't the guy~!
I think JOB gets it very well. We may not agree with some of his coaching moves, but I think he has a very good grasp of the Pacers' situation as far as the talent on this team and what it's going to take for them to improve. For example, nearly everyone complained when he went from a two-Big low-post to 1-4 lineup - 1 Big, 4 Guards (small ball). I thought it was smart because he played to the team's strengths. When you have a team that consists of at least 7 players who are fully capable of knocking down perimeter shots - Granger, Dunleavy, Murphy, Rush, Diener, Williams and Daniels (8 if you count Murray; 9 w/Graham; 10 w/Tinsley; 11 w/Owens) - and you no longer have your most dominate post player at your disposal, you have to shift your focus from a traditional lineup to whatever works best for your team. So, I give JOB credit where it's due. I didn't always agree that he had the "best" players out on the floor, but I certainly understood what he was trying to do.

Naptown_Seth
04-19-2008, 10:47 PM
I'm pretty sure he was talking about Brandon Rush, not Kareem.
that's a big 10-4 w00t
:D


As for JOB's comments on the draft in general, I will step into my arrogant shoes for a second and suggest that just maybe they see a lot of what I saw when I took the time to watch.

The team is being rebuilt and the FINAL goal is to have 2 stars, 3 starters and probably 3 other dependable go-to guys, all of whom should be expected to defend fairly well. We know PG defense and to a less degree SG defense is a priority, and that other than that it's open.

So with that in mind IS THIS TEAM ONLY A PG AWAY? Hell no. Not even close. So this draft just ain't fixing the problem. Knowing that and seeing Collison/Augustin you suspect that neither will start at PG. At the risk of stepping on Kofi's toes again, Westbrook isn't that guy either unless he has an epiphany.

That puts you back to drafting for your TRUE NEED, one of the 7 other guys besides Granger that you expect to be part of the serious playoff attempt 2-3 seasons from now. So if you can get Rose great, now you have star 2 and a PG solution.

But you don't take Augustin when you need to end up with a starting PG that can defend. And you don't take Collison as a starting PG simply because he's not all that big on giving up his own dribble.

I would draft Westbrook...as a dribble attack SG that can defend. That implies moving Dun by the end of next summer.

I would draft Love as a solid starter, not star, that fits the running game and plays smarter than any current Pacers. That implies moving Troy by the end of next summer, and assumes JO will not be back once his deal ends.

And there are some other guys I would consider too. My point is that they are going to have to roll with the punches on this draft and I think they know that. They also know that they probably aren't going to resolve their starting PG need in this draft like they'd hoped.

No big deal, they also plan on moving players over the next 2 years and will likely be high in next year's draft too. UCLA has a nice crop of freshman PGs coming in so who knows, the Pacers might end up with one of those guys next year, or trade into a decent defensive PG starter by next summer.

Naptown_Seth
04-19-2008, 10:49 PM
Sure he will...His value will be even higher after he plays just as well next year and he has one year less on his contract.
The contract is a known, sure. But he's shot well from 3 before and then come back with a 32% caliber stinker. What if that's next year?

Dece
04-19-2008, 10:55 PM
I think JOB gets it very well. We may not agree with some of his coaching moves, but I think he has a very good grasp of the Pacers' situation as far as the talent on this team and what it's going to take for them to improve. For example, nearly everyone complained when he went from a two-Big low-post to 1-4 lineup - 1 Big, 4 Guards (small ball). I thought it was smart because he played to the team's strengths. When you have a team that consists of at least 7 players who are fully capable of knocking down perimeter shots - Granger, Dunleavy, Murphy, Rush, Diener, Williams and Daniels (8 if you count Murray; 9 w/Graham; 10 w/Tinsley; 11 w/Owens) - and you no longer have your most dominate post player at your disposal, you have to shift your focus from a traditional lineup to whatever works best for your team. So, I give JOB credit where it's due. I didn't always agree that he had the "best" players out on the floor, but I certainly understood what he was trying to do.


The only people on that list I'd consider "capable shooters" are Granger, Dunleavy *this year, hope it lasts*, Rush, Williams and Murphy. Daniels is a terrible shot, Murray is maybe average (and he was only here 15ish games anyway), and Diener shoots even worse than Tinsley who is below average himself. Graham and Owens can't see the floor, so no reason to talk about them. We in no way shape or form have 8 "capable shooters."

Anthem
04-19-2008, 11:22 PM
So with that in mind IS THIS TEAM ONLY A PG AWAY? Hell no. Not even close. So this draft just ain't fixing the problem.
A top-2 pick would fix an awful lot of things for this team. Rose might not make us instant contenders, but Rose-Mike-Granger-JO-Foster looks a lot better than Diener-Mike-Granger-Murph-Foster.

avoidingtheclowns
04-20-2008, 12:45 PM
i too just had time to listen and i want to start off the bat by saying wow, o'brien.

i'm surprised so many of you are upset about o'brien "throwing players under the bus" by being honest. so many were always up in arms about rick's overly politically correct shows and pressers. there is no pleasing some people.

there was some discussion on here a few months ago about whether we had any players that could start for a good team in the league and we came up with JO and Danny and that Dun could be a 6th man. so if anything by saying we've got three people that could start on good teams the man is being more optimistic than most of us.

it is weird but this makes me feel better about the state of the franchise. i think because at the beginning of the season i got the impression that TPTB believed that we had a really good team. the fact that they know we're tremendously under-talented, that the end of the season run means jack... it at least makes me realize they're not insane.

one thing i haven't seen discussed in this thread (and apologies if i missed it) was the way the pacers are going to run their off-season FA and rookie camps. JO'B talked about the psychological evaluation they'll be doing. this was a bombshell to me -- not that i don't think we need it but that it seems bird has had a change of heart. i remember some article (and in turn some discussion on here) about the psychological/personality identifiers that danny ainge uses in his drafting and FA signing. i also remember the discussion about how bird doesn't believe in it at all -- that he puts more faith into what he sees on the court not the testing. it looks like he has changed his mind -- which in turn also makes me feel better about bird the GM.



Truth hurts.



Honestly, I think it's the best thing I've ever heard from a Pacer coach.



Like some others, I call shenanigans on this.

Other team execs don't listen to late-night radio shows to get their info on players. They use scouts, film and their own beliefs.

We -- and the idiots at Sportscenter, etc. -- like to think the "market value" of players is constantly fluctuating like it's the Dow Jones or something. I've always thought that was BS. Guys have a value and it changes gradually aside from major situations (injuries, "leaps," resurgences). JOB talking can't change the trade value of a guy overnight unless he says things like "F*** that guy." I mean, George Karl said JR Smith would never play for him again at the end of last season and look who his current 6th man is. Nellie wanted him gone but Denver GM couldn't get value so they kept him.



C'mon...Jeff can't physically play more than 30 mpg. Nor does his flawed game allow for it.



"Can" has never been a problem for Vince. "Will," in various meanings of the word, has been.



EXACTLY.

If GMs are listening to this, all this interview says is: "Everyone's available. And Danny's the only one we're even gonna hold you over the coals for. If, by some remote chance, you're interested in any one on our roster, please, please, please call."



Yup.

A coach is about wins today. If he doesn't win immediately, he's gone. So JOB is clearly gonna prefer to have JO -- no matter how limited he may be compared to his old self -- than a 2009 draft pick, that helps him win exactly zero games.

Larry would have a slightly longer view, but he knows he needs to turn this thing around marginally quickly (i.e., 2-3 years max, with at least some progress shown within the next 12 months in some respect).

Herb needs to know that the franchise reverses course in terms of public perception and on-court success...but also in terms of dollars and cents. He's always been hands-off in the past and probably maintained a pretty long-term view, but based on his recent statements and his CEO move, he's clearly looking for a shorter term turnaround, IMO, at least in terms of public perception.



Couldn't agree more. Again, this is the best thing I've heard in a long-term.

Constantly listening to some people talk about the benefits and importance of players that I think are inconsequential in this league such as Rush, Murphy, Daniels, Ike, etc., sometimes makes me think I'm taking crazy pills. Nice to hear J'Ob thinks they're garbage too.



All in all, this was fantastic.

I might not like Jimmy's offense...but I sure as hell like Jimmy the person.

JayRedd FTW

i was a huge rick fan and hated to see us lose a great coach, but i really like what i am hearing from o'brien. i still find his offense gimmicky but i think he could be the right coach at the right time to spark the next era of the pacers (even though, much like bob hill and to some extent larry brown in the early 90s, it probably won't involve him).

JayRedd
04-20-2008, 01:10 PM
The contract is a known, sure. But he's shot well from 3 before and then come back with a 32% caliber stinker. What if that's next year?

We shot 37.4% from three as a team this year.

The year of Mike's "stinker" came in a GS system which shot a collective 34.1% (and when he was being asked to play PF for God knows what reason).

So...I don't think MDJ is capable of those "stinker" lows in this system.

42.4% again is probably a pipe dream...but given the open looks of this system and his evident shooting ability, he will be 38% or over again next year.

And lets not act like other team scouts and execs don't know that 42% is an artificial number based on a gimmicky offense. JO'B's first two years in Boston, his teams shot 36.3% and 35.9% with horrible shooters.

Much like the economy...It's the system, stupid.

So it's not like we can just "sell high" like a stock on 42.4%...GMs don't think he's a better shooter than Peja because he stuck wide-open threes all season in Jimmy's "open three generating" offense.


JO'B talked about the psychological evaluation they'll be doing. this was a bombshell to me -- not that i don't think we need it but that it seems bird has had a change of heart. i remember some article (and in turn some discussion on here) about the psychological/personality identifiers that danny ainge uses in his drafting and FA signing. i also remember the discussion about how bird doesn't believe in it at all -- that he puts more faith into what he sees on the court not the testing. it looks like he has changed his mind -- which in turn also makes me feel better about bird the GM.

Or someone cough*theguyhemorrhagingmoneyfromoffcourtincidents *cough changed his heart for him.

Cobol Sam
04-20-2008, 02:00 PM
And as for the phx game no one on that team would have stepped up because danny was in his typical shell that night.


You are WAY OFF on that Phoenix game. What Jamaal Tinsley did during that game, lost the game for us. Not only that, it didn't resemble the play ground style of basketball I saw as a junior high schooler, it was EXACTLY the play ground style of basketball I saw as a junior high schooler. It made me sick to be a Pacers fan that night.

avoidingtheclowns
04-20-2008, 02:46 PM
Or someone cough*theguyhemorrhagingmoneyfromoffcourtincidents *cough changed his heart for him.

i'm not saying it didn't. most people seem to believe that bird is too stubborn to change his mind or accept a different way of doing things -- reality of the specific situation be damned. that's why i found the psychological testing to be an interesting little nugget.

Peck
04-20-2008, 04:49 PM
You are WAY OFF on that Phoenix game. What Jim O'Brien allowed Jamaal Tinsley to do during that game, lost the game for us. Not only that, it didn't resemble the play ground style of basketball I saw as a junior high schooler, it was EXACTLY the play ground style of basketball I saw as a junior high schooler. It made me sick to be a Pacers fan that night.

Fixed.;)

Will Galen
04-20-2008, 06:00 PM
JO'B talked about the psychological evaluation they'll be doing. this was a bombshell to me -- not that i don't think we need it but that it seems bird has had a change of heart. i remember some article (and in turn some discussion on here) about the psychological/personality identifiers that danny ainge uses in his drafting and FA signing. i also remember the discussion about how bird doesn't believe in it at all -- that he puts more faith into what he sees on the court not the testing. it looks like he has changed his mind -- which in turn also makes me feel better about bird the GM.

He might not have changed his mind. I think that could be Herb Simon's doing. What makes me think that is O'B saying in his show that the Pacers would, "spare no expense,' in checking out possible players.

I can't see Bird going from one extreme, 'doesn't believe in it at all,' to "spare no expense,' like that.

In other words I agree with Jays words here, quote: Or someone cough*theguyhemorrhagingmoneyfromoffcourtincidents *cough changed his heart for him." Which I didn't try to read the first time around.

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 01:27 AM
A top-2 pick would fix an awful lot of things for this team. Rose might not make us instant contenders, but Rose-Mike-Granger-JO-Foster looks a lot better than Diener-Mike-Granger-Murph-Foster.
Well I think I have agreed that you have a need for a 2nd star AND 3 other starters, as well as a PG that can at least hold his own on D.

If you hit for the #2 pick and get Rose you just solved the 2nd star and the PG who can hold his own. That's huge, though I would still say you are far from done.

I guess I just see this Dun thing and wonder if he's really part of the final plan. Is it wrong to want to add a few more players that can D at least as well as Danny is now (which has plenty of holes)? My vision of rebuild means Danny is the OLDEST dude on the team, with the exception of perhaps mid-level and lower vets (ala Foster) for stability, leadership and spot quality role playing. Perkins or Scott are examples of that. Now if you have Dun at THAT price then by all means keep him.

But they don't. I'd rather put his money into a guy that can help in more all-around ways. You look back at JO and hear people say now "they should have traded him when they could". I can't help but feel that this might describe Dun in the end.

People have drastically overrated the amount of improvement he brought to the table. He shot the 3 much, much better. Better than he has before by a few points even. But the rest of his game? Looks the same to me.

If Dun could get me Westbrook basically straight up I'd do it in a heartbeat, if you already hit for Rose that is. Now you have youth that's going to be ready to hit stride together in 3 years just as Danny has become your all-star with Rose just behind. W'brook at that point gives you that SG defense and fill-in scoring and for a lot cheaper even after the resign.

That's just one variation on the whole thing.

BTW, I'd really like to see Shawne stay (I started the thread after all) but it could make sense to deal him for Lowry depending on how other things shake out. I'm for that. Just look at the future depth chart, the future star roles and supplemental players to what Danny is doing and build toward that.

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 01:34 AM
i'm surprised so many of you are upset about o'brien "throwing players under the bus" by being honest. so many were always up in arms about rick's overly politically correct shows and pressers. there is no pleasing some people.
Ironically I'm one of the people that loved Rick and his approach, guarded as it was, and love how JOB has been.

To me JOB is not saying things the same way Larry Brown did. He's not really throwing people under the bus in a seemingly intentionally antagonistic way, it doesn't seem confrontational to me, just painfully sincere.



BTW Peck, one thing on the PHX game I have wondered: could it be that JOB was finding out about Tins at that moment, seeing where he would go with things and perhaps giving him enough rope to hang himself?

Maybe it was a moment of "so you want to run things then go ahead and let's see how it goes". Maybe they'd already butted heads on the issue. It's a tough read because I don't recall JOB going after Tins in post-game discussions so you got the vibe that he semi-approved of it.

But still I wonder. Right after that is when the situation went to hell with an "alleged" suspension and then a endless mysterious injury.

CableKC
04-21-2008, 02:14 AM
As for JOB's comments on the draft in general, I will step into my arrogant shoes for a second and suggest that just maybe they see a lot of what I saw when I took the time to watch.

The team is being rebuilt and the FINAL goal is to have 2 stars, 3 starters and probably 3 other dependable go-to guys, all of whom should be expected to defend fairly well. We know PG defense and to a less degree SG defense is a priority, and that other than that it's open.

So with that in mind IS THIS TEAM ONLY A PG AWAY? Hell no. Not even close. So this draft just ain't fixing the problem. Knowing that and seeing Collison/Augustin you suspect that neither will start at PG. At the risk of stepping on Kofi's toes again, Westbrook isn't that guy either unless he has an epiphany.

That puts you back to drafting for your TRUE NEED, one of the 7 other guys besides Granger that you expect to be part of the serious playoff attempt 2-3 seasons from now. So if you can get Rose great, now you have star 2 and a PG solution.

But you don't take Augustin when you need to end up with a starting PG that can defend. And you don't take Collison as a starting PG simply because he's not all that big on giving up his own dribble.

I would draft Westbrook...as a dribble attack SG that can defend. That implies moving Dun by the end of next summer.

I would draft Love as a solid starter, not star, that fits the running game and plays smarter than any current Pacers. That implies moving Troy by the end of next summer, and assumes JO will not be back once his deal ends.

And there are some other guys I would consider too. My point is that they are going to have to roll with the punches on this draft and I think they know that. They also know that they probably aren't going to resolve their starting PG need in this draft like they'd hoped.

No big deal, they also plan on moving players over the next 2 years and will likely be high in next year's draft too. UCLA has a nice crop of freshman PGs coming in so who knows, the Pacers might end up with one of those guys next year, or trade into a decent defensive PG starter by next summer.
Good post Seth.......this one draft or any single move that we make in the upcoming Offseason ( assuming that there is one ) won't make or ( shouldn't ) break this team.

To coin an analogy......we don't need to hit a homerun in the upcoming offseason....we just need to hit a single ( or hopefully a double ) so that we can get our team into scoring position over the next 2 seasons to score a run. A few "singles" ( small but smart move that makes sense to build the team for the next 2 or 3 seasons when we will be in a better financial position to make a push for the Championship ) instead of "swinging for the fences and possibly striking out" is what we need to do to win this game.

Peck
04-21-2008, 04:10 AM
Ironically I'm one of the people that loved Rick and his approach, guarded as it was, and love how JOB has been.

To me JOB is not saying things the same way Larry Brown did. He's not really throwing people under the bus in a seemingly intentionally antagonistic way, it doesn't seem confrontational to me, just painfully sincere.



BTW Peck, one thing on the PHX game I have wondered: could it be that JOB was finding out about Tins at that moment, seeing where he would go with things and perhaps giving him enough rope to hang himself?

Maybe it was a moment of "so you want to run things then go ahead and let's see how it goes". Maybe they'd already butted heads on the issue. It's a tough read because I don't recall JOB going after Tins in post-game discussions so you got the vibe that he semi-approved of it.

But still I wonder. Right after that is when the situation went to hell with an "alleged" suspension and then a endless mysterious injury.

We addressed this at the time this occured. Yes, it is totally possible.

However I would still argue that "testing" Jamaal at the expense of the entire team did nothing but further sink us into dispair.

I guess I don't understand the need to do this at the expense of the game.

But to answer your question not only is it possible my gut reaction is now that it is probable.

NuffSaid
04-21-2008, 10:10 AM
We in no way shape or form have 8 "capable shooters."
Sure we do. Check their stats and you'll find that except for Graham, Owens and Murray, every other players I've listed made 20+ 3-pt shots as a Pacer this year. Graham is the only one among them who made less than 10, but I attribute that to his lack of playing time, not his skill. He shot 50% from the perimeter (7-14). For a guy who only played in 22 games this year (128 total minutes), that's pretty darn good!

But don't confuse "capable" with them being deadly from the perimeter. Only Granger and Dunleavy came close to filling that bill, but even I wouldn't consider either as sure shots from downtown although Granger did get better at knocking down the shot w/the defender in his face as the season drew to a close.

JayRedd
04-21-2008, 10:35 AM
Marquis Daniels is in no way, shape or form a capable shooter from outside of 14 feet.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 11:13 AM
We addressed this at the time this occured. Yes, it is totally possible.

However I would still argue that "testing" Jamaal at the expense of the entire team did nothing but further sink us into dispair.

I guess I don't understand the need to do this at the expense of the game.

But to answer your question not only is it possible my gut reaction is now that it is probable.

I agree that it is probable, but I disagree that it was bad to sacrifice the game. Of course, I don't think it was a certainty that doing this "experiment" would result in a loss, either. I think with a team like ours especially, but really any team if it's early enough in the season it's a bigger pay-off in the long-term to experiment a bit to see what you have, rather than coach every game like you'll be fired if you lose it.

In a way it probably did pay off: The franchise finally seems to have accepted that Tinsley is not the answer.

NuffSaid
04-21-2008, 03:30 PM
Marquis Daniels is in no way, shape or form a capable shooter from outside of 14 feet.
Once again, don't confuse "capable" with "legitimate", i.e., a dead-eye, lights out shoter as I explained in my previous post on this matter. Neither Marquis nor Diener nor Tinsley nor even Owens are going to scare the defense enough to believe they warrant respect from the perimeter, but they've all knocked down the three point shot though not consistently. Still, do it once, twice, three times and that means you are very "capable" of doing it again. Would I necessarily count on them as legit perimeter scorers? Absolutely not! But they're all very capable of scoring from downtown as their stats attest to.

Regardless, the point I was trying to make concerning these players wasn't that they were legit perimeter threats, but rather that JOB coached to the team's strengths - in this case perimeter shooting. I wouldn't have given the green light to just about everyone to take that shot regardless of their capabilities. I would have limited it to just my Wing players (SG/SF), but when you've got so many players who can hit the shot why not maximize that ability to the fullest?