PDA

View Full Version : Pacers Vs Grizzlie Post Game Thread



Bball
12-26-2008, 11:50 PM
Someone had to do it...

#1: All away games should be televised. No exceptions.

#2: We play too fast and put too much emphasis on offense. Slow it down and value each possession. Keep some gas in the tank for the 2nd half and 4th qtr

#3: Refocus on defense. Defense first, then offense. At least badger the passing lanes and get more active. I thought offensive freedom had to be earned through a dedication to defense (wasn't that the JOB MO?)

MiaDragon
12-26-2008, 11:54 PM
Kinda wish games like these would NOT be televised.

D-BONE
12-26-2008, 11:57 PM
Anybody listen to the radio broadcast? If so, what did you get as far as analysis/interpretation, either directly or reading between the lines, from Mark/Slick?

EDIT: At this point I think it's fair to say that the recurring themes of blown leads and/or close losses do not correlate well with who is or is not playing due to illness or injury. Everyone has been involved enough to draw that conclusion. It's an entire TEAM problem.

BlueNGold
12-26-2008, 11:58 PM
Bball - you can forget about defense. The style of play in the Golden State game is the goal. Of course, there is that small point that most teams are better than Golden State...

"It was like a playground game almost," Pacers point guard Jarrett <NOBR style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Jackhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif</NOBR> (http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04#) said. "but you try to keep it organized. . . . We played a controlled, chaotic style."
Pacers coach Jim O'Brien wasn't worried about trying to slow down the Warriors, the second highest scoring team in the league. His goal was just to make sure his team ended up on the "positive side of the ledger at the end of the game."
To do that, the Pacers needed a season high in points, attempted a season-high 106 shots and got by without starters T.J. Ford (groin) and Troy Murphy (stomach virus).
Five Pacers players attempted at least 10 shots and six players scored in double figures, led by Danny Granger's 41.
"I absolutely love it," O'Brien said when asked if he liked playing at such a high pace. "I think that's the way the game of basketball is meant to be played, with fast breaks."

Source: http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04

Quis
12-26-2008, 11:59 PM
Marquis' trade value is on the rise.

That's about all the positive I've got.

crunk-juice
12-27-2008, 12:05 AM
wow, what a pitiful, gutless team.

we are more pathetic than last season.

Spirit
12-27-2008, 12:10 AM
Jack is to blame for this loss.. he lost the ball with 30 seconds left and we never got the ball back except for the last possession, if i'm correct.

Bball
12-27-2008, 12:11 AM
Bball - you can forget about defense. The style of play in the Golden State game is the goal. Of course, there is that small point that most teams are better than Golden State...

"It was like a playground game almost," Pacers point guard Jarrett <NOBR style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Jackhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif</NOBR> (http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04#) said. "but you try to keep it organized. . . . We played a controlled, chaotic style."
Pacers coach Jim O'Brien wasn't worried about trying to slow down the Warriors, the second highest scoring team in the league. His goal was just to make sure his team ended up on the "positive side of the ledger at the end of the game."
To do that, the Pacers needed a season high in points, attempted a season-high 106 shots and got by without starters T.J. Ford (groin) and Troy Murphy (stomach virus).
Five Pacers players attempted at least 10 shots and six players scored in double figures, led by Danny Granger's 41.
"I absolutely love it," O'Brien said when asked if he liked playing at such a high pace. "I think that's the way the game of basketball is meant to be played, with fast breaks."

Source: http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04

I'm coming over to the side that O Brien is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The above is really driving it home.

I was 'understanding' last year and to a point this year- We needed to get our players some confidence that they could shoot and hit shots and weren't just there to pass the ball to JO. But the emphasis on the 3-ball.... the pedal to the metal play (with a team that isn't exactly a pedal to the metal team), and then the lost leads. At some point these lost leads start to make you wonder if there's anything we can do to maintain the leads and why we lose them in the first place. It's not just or solely a lack of 'clutchness' IMHO.

What it is is a team that doesn't value each possession enough. It's a team that is living too much off of just trying to outscore their opponent.

IMHO an open 3 isn't always the best play. Take a step closer.... find an open player closer to the basket... consider the clock/score and your own shooting percentage.

Save something in the tank for defense and for the 4th qtr.

To me, this team has proven that they can't play this tempo and stomp on teams with consistency. Instead, they've shown they CANNOT maintain it and teams just need to hang tough and wait for us to wear down.

....Yet we keep doing it....

joew8302
12-27-2008, 12:12 AM
Anybody listen to the radio broadcast? If so, what did you get as far as analysis/interpretation, either directly or reading between the lines, from Mark/Slick?

EDIT: At this point I think it's fair to say that the recurring themes of blown leads and/or close losses do not correlate well with who is or is not playing due to illness or injury. Everyone has been involved enough to draw that conclusion. It's an entire TEAM problem.


Outstanding post, I agree 100% with it being a team issue. Sorry if I came off rude last topic, but I am just incredibly frusturated with this organization being run into the ground. We get worse and worse each year.

Bball
12-27-2008, 12:13 AM
That all said.... we've proven we can be a competitive team. We just need to play a style of ball that takes advantage of our strengths.

It looks like we need a different coach to do that.

indytoad
12-27-2008, 12:17 AM
wow, what a pitiful, gutless team.

we are more pathetic than last season.

..for truth.

D-BONE
12-27-2008, 12:18 AM
Jack is to blame for this loss.. he lost the ball with 30 seconds left and we never got the ball back except for the last possession, if i'm correct.

Of course-everyone's favorite scapegoat. Even though we wouldn't have been in that position at all had it not been for his steal and score in the two possessions immediately prior after we'd gone down by multiple possessions.

Jack didn't have a good game, but I don't think the loss can be pinned on him individually. Outside Quis and Danny (and a solid job off the bench by Rasho), it doesn't appear anybody did much. And, most importantly, nobody out there is playing any D to speak of.

Bball
12-27-2008, 12:28 AM
Bball - you can forget about defense. The style of play in the Golden State game is the goal. Of course, there is that small point that most teams are better than Golden State...

"It was like a playground game almost," Pacers point guard Jarrett <NOBR style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Jackhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif</NOBR> (http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04#) said. "but you try to keep it organized. . . . We played a controlled, chaotic style."
Pacers coach Jim O'Brien wasn't worried about trying to slow down the Warriors, the second highest scoring team in the league. His goal was just to make sure his team ended up on the "positive side of the ledger at the end of the game."
To do that, the Pacers needed a season high in points, attempted a season-high 106 shots and got by without starters T.J. Ford (groin) and Troy Murphy (stomach virus).
Five Pacers players attempted at least 10 shots and six players scored in double figures, led by Danny Granger's 41.
"I absolutely love it," O'Brien said when asked if he liked playing at such a high pace. "I think that's the way the game of basketball is meant to be played, with fast breaks."

Source: http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04

Am I dreaming when I remember this:
I thought offensive freedom had to be earned through a dedication to defense (wasn't that the JOB MO?)

Did someone say that about JOB and he not say it himself?

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 12:28 AM
That all said.... we've proven we can be a competitive team. We just need to play a style of ball that takes advantage of our strengths.

It looks like we need a different coach to do that.

I think there are some small adjustments that could be made to make us a .500 team. I think JOb was starting to make those adjustments (e.g. putting McRoberts on the floor to at least slow down the onslaught), but he was short players tonight...so he is off the hook tonight regardless.

But his core philosophy is in my post above, and at best it is troubling. He "absolutely loves...fast breaks". You know that Golden State game is how he wants this team to play...and that's not changing this year and maybe never. ...but for now he's a decent coach for a young team. If we had the talent to contend right now, however, I would want him pushed to the curb asap.

D-BONE
12-27-2008, 12:29 AM
I'm coming over to the side that O Brien is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The above is really driving it home.

I was 'understanding' last year and to a point this year- We needed to get our players some confidence that they could shoot and hit shots and weren't just there to pass the ball to JO. But the emphasis on the 3-ball.... the pedal to the metal play (with a team that isn't exactly a pedal to the metal team), and then the lost leads. At some point these lost leads start to make you wonder if there's anything we can do to maintain the leads and why we lose them in the first place. It's not just or solely a lack of 'clutchness' IMHO.

What it is is a team that doesn't value each possession enough. It's a team that is living too much off of just trying to outscore their opponent.

IMHO an open 3 isn't always the best play. Take a step closer.... find an open player closer to the basket... consider the clock/score and your own shooting percentage.

Save something in the tank for defense and for the 4th qtr.

To me, this team has proven that they can't play this tempo and stomp on teams with consistency. Instead, they've shown they CANNOT maintain it and teams just need to hang tough and wait for us to wear down.

....Yet we keep doing it....

And, as you've alluded to before, our D was much more aggressive in the early part of the season, which could well indicate we are wearing down as the season progresses under the weight of what the offense demands physically, effectively mirroring the in-game trend.

However, I do give JOB credit for keeping us playing competitive ball with what, IMO, is a significant talent gap most nights in favor of our opponents. Add the fact that he hasn't had much in the way of defensive players since he's been here and he may deserve some slack.

Either way, I've said before and still maintain that JOB's offensive philosophy is more gimmick than substance and, ultimately, will likely be his ticket out of here whether it be sooner or later. I imagine it will be later.

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 12:32 AM
Am I dreaming when I remember this:
I thought offensive freedom had to be earned through a dedication to defense (wasn't that the JOB MO?)

Did someone say that about JOB and he not say it himself?

Well, if anyone can find a quote...I'm not sure if this is not a contradiction. He was giddy about that game...giving up 120pts to a dog team. Seriously, I am thankful we don't have more talent because it would be wasted.

Edit: Take the Purdue-Davidson game. Purdue shuts down Stephen Curry with solid defense...and wins the game. I wonder how it would have turned out if Painter told Moore and Hummel he wasn't worried about slowing down the high-scoring Curry...

Bball
12-27-2008, 12:47 AM
D-Bone and BlueNGold,

My fear is that our early season defensive intensity disappeared for precisely the reason that all the emphasis has been on the offense. There may be some marks you're supposed to hit on defense to keep OBrien happy, but I worry what has permeated the team is that O Brien really cares about the pedal to the metal offense. Just hit your marks on defense but make sure you keep it balls to the wall on offense. So as players settle into their roles they find it easier (and more accepted) if they take a little away from their defensive play to keep something in the tank for their offense.

And I could easily see that taking a toll on the defense we saw earlier in the year... both with the team wearing down and with the true emphasis being on the offense.

Defense is a constant... offense comes and goes. Value offensive possessions. That's my belief.

vnzla81
12-27-2008, 12:47 AM
lottery.........baby:dance::dance:

Unclebuck
12-27-2008, 12:57 AM
To this point this thread has been completely laughable. Grizzlies are as good as the Pacers so they should win at home and when you consider Granger went out with a concussion and our point guard missed the whole game - yeah Griz should win at home.

A few of you act like you thought the team was going to win 48 games this season.


Obviously, I didn't see tonight game, did listen to the fourth quarter - seemd as though he defense was the problem - but without seeing the game for myself, I really have no idea.


I do want to address your point bball that all the emphasize (by the coaching staff) has been placed on offense. I don't believe that for a second, but if that is the case (depending to what degree) then the coach should be fired whoever it is. No I don't believe defense has been ignored, in fact I'm sure it is emphasized as much if not more than ever

vnzla81
12-27-2008, 01:00 AM
To this point this thread has been completely laughable. Grizzlies are as good as the Pacers so they should win at home and when you consider Granger went out with a concussion and our point guard missed the whole game - yeah Griz should win at home.

A few of you act like you thought the team was going to win 48 games this season.


Obviously, I didn't see tonight game, did listen to the fourth quarter - seemd as though he defense was the problem - but without seeing the game for myself, I really have no idea

i agreed this tem is lucky if they win more than 25games

Bball
12-27-2008, 01:07 AM
I do want to address your point bball that all the emphasize (by the coaching staff) has been placed on offense. I don't believe that for a second, but if that is the case (depending to what degree) then the coach should be fired whoever it is. No I don't believe defense has been ignored, in fact I'm sure it is emphasized as much if not more than ever


I said my fear was the offense has been over-emphasized at the expense of the defense, not that it's been ignored. ...To the point that when players look to pace themselves they do it at the expense of the defense because the over-emphasis on offense has allowed that message to permeate the team. ...And that OBrien's real focus is the offense (regardless of the lip service he might be giving the defense) and playing a high octane game and that has sunk in and become a part of the team's mentality.

I'm waiting to see that proven wrong. The evidence seems to be stacking up in other direction.

-Bball

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 01:08 AM
Defense is a constant... offense comes and goes. Value offensive possessions. That's my belief.

That's my belief as well. This is not about tearing down JOb. It's not about saying this team should win 48 games. It's not even about this season. It's about a difference in philosophy with the coach.

Anyway, I "absolutely love" the half court game, ball movement and defense. I do not believe JOb has that view. Beyond that, I'm fine with him sticking around for awhile. We could have done worse and probably not much better based on what the team had to offer. Hopefully we make some more good trades, improve the talent level and get back to the playoffs.

Unclebuck
12-27-2008, 01:15 AM
. We played a controlled, chaotic style."
Pacers coach Jim O'Brien wasn't worried about trying to slow down the Warriors, the second highest scoring team in the league. His goal was just to make sure his team ended up on the "positive side of the ledger at the end of the game."
To do that, the Pacers needed a season high in points, attempted a season-high 106 shots and got by without starters T.J. Ford (groin) and Troy Murphy (stomach virus).
Five Pacers players attempted at least 10 shots and six players scored in double figures, led by Danny Granger's 41.
"I absolutely love it," O'Brien said when asked if he liked playing at such a high pace. "I think that's the way the game of basketball is meant to be played, with fast breaks."

Source: http://www.indystar.com/article/20081218/SPORTS04/812180417/1088/SPORTS04




If you read O'Brien's quotes, he says he wasn't worried about "slowing down" the Warriors. I interpret that to mean that the Pacers will continue to run - I do not interpret that to mean we are just going to let the Warriors score at will, or that defense isn't the highest priority.


Just on a really general point - I love defense and a controlled style more than anyone - but it seemed like most other fans were sick and tired of Carlsle's approach (where did all those people go) I mean I can dig out thread after thread from two years ago where fans were sick of Rick calling all the plays, sick of his refusal to allow the team to run.

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 01:20 AM
If you read O'Brien's quotes, he says he wasn't worried about "slowing down" the Warriors. I interpret that to mean that the Pacers will continue to run - I do not interpret that to mean we are just going to let the Warriors score at will, or that defense isn't the highest priority

Well, I agree that it did not mean he wanted to let the Warriors score at will...but I cannot agree that the statement is consistent with the view that "defense is the highest priority".

Certainly if defense were the highest priority, he would be concerned about "slowing down" the other team's offense. Isn't that just about the definition of defense?

Edit: Disclosure: I loved Rick's style, but we needed a PF who could hit better than 45% from the floor. Elton Brand would have been nice.

Unclebuck
12-27-2008, 01:27 AM
Certainly if defense were the highest priority, he would be concerned about "slowing down" the other team's offense. Isn't that just about the definition of defense?



No, the best way to slow down a fast break team is with a very controlled offense and when a coach talks about slowing down a pure run and gun team the coach is talking about doing so with a controlled offense - because that is the only way to do it. A coach cannot control how quickly the other team is going to shoot, but he can control how quickly his team is going to shoot


I think that O'Brien quote is being taken out of context - no actually it is simply being misinterpreted - Peck did it after the game last week and made a big deal about it, I just let is slide then.

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 01:35 AM
No, the best way to slow down a fast break team is with a very controlled offense and when a coach talks about slowing down a pure run and gun team the coach is talking about doing so with a controlled offense - because that is the only way to do it. A coach cannot control how quickly the other team is going to shoot, but he can control how quickly his team is going to shoot


I think that O'Brien quote is being taken out of context - no actually it is simply being misinterpreted - Peck did it after the game last week and made a big deal about it, I just let is slide then.

I agree that's probably the best way to slow the other team down, but that's the root of the problem with his philosophy. How do you reconcile this with his quote about "absolutely loving" the "fast break" style of play? He even went so far as saying that he believed that was the way basketball was meant to be played.

Certainly that's not consistent with the goal of using a controlled offense to "slow down" the other team's offense is it?

Unclebuck
12-27-2008, 01:42 AM
I agree that's probably the best way to slow the other team down, but that's the root of the problem with his philosophy. How do you reconcile this with his quote about "absolutely loving" the "fast break" style of play? He even went so far as saying that he believed that was the way basketball was meant to be played.

Certainly that's not consistent with the goal of using a controlled offense to "slow down" the other team's offense is it?

No I agree. And O'Brien never tried to slow the warriors down, I was just saying if he wanted to, he would have to do so with his offense, not with defense (I am talking about tempo, not points scored FG% and such). JOB is trying to play offense like the Suns of the past and the defense like the current Celtics. That is tough to do. I am getting really tired, so not sure I'm still making sense. But the Nets of '02 and '03 comes to mind as a team that was able to do both, run and still play good defense. Rick Carlisle has discussed this topic several times - about how difficult it is to achieve

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 01:45 AM
No I agree. And O'Brien never tried to slow the warriors down, I was just saying if he wanted to, he would have to do so with his offense, not with defense (I am talking about tempo, not points scored FG% and such). JOB is trying to play offense like the Suns of the past and the defense like the current Celtics. That is tough to do. I am getting really tired, so not sure I'm still making sense. But the Nets of '02 and '03 comes to mind as a team that was able to do both, run and still play good defense. Rick Carlisle has discussed this topic several times

I agree. It's very difficult if that's truly his goal. I don't think we can play that way with our talent level. Great teams like the Lakers of the 80's could do it, but mere mortals tend to get burned...particularly when they have no presence in the middle on defense..

Peck
12-27-2008, 02:17 AM
No, the best way to slow down a fast break team is with a very controlled offense and when a coach talks about slowing down a pure run and gun team the coach is talking about doing so with a controlled offense - because that is the only way to do it. A coach cannot control how quickly the other team is going to shoot, but he can control how quickly his team is going to shoot


I think that O'Brien quote is being taken out of context - no actually it is simply being misinterpreted - Peck did it after the game last week and made a big deal about it, I just let is slide then.


Peck did not. Peck only put up Jim O'Briens quotes and Peck only provided a puke face after the direct quotes.

Yes, that's right Peck is talking about Peck in the third Person. Peck seems to miss Jalen Rose interviews.

Obviously I did not see the game vs. the Grizz. I'll just say this. I think we all knew this season was just about building. Why do you think Roy is getting startst when O'Brien is saying he doesn't deserve them. I think Larry has already determined that this season is lost for any form of deep playoff run and has issued (although they will never admit it) the order that the rookies and younger players need to play.

I am fine with that to be honest with you. If we are not going to be anything of consequence this season (and it is looking more and more like that every day) the I really don't care to see much of Murphy, Foster, Rasho up front. McBob, Roy, Brandon and maybe even Graham need to be evaluated for next season and the seasons beyond.

As to JOB I will say this.

He has every excuse in the world going for him right now. Injury's, illness, lack of talent, etc., etc.

So honestly even though I know many of us don't want to, we have to give him a little bit of a break here.

However I will state this. I do NOT believe that he emphasizes defense more than any other coach we have had (except maybe Thomas) it's just that he pays it much more lip service. Lip service may be a little to harsh but I don't think he pays it any more attention than say Carlisle, Bird or Brown did. I just think he talks about it more. Honestly what basketball coach doesn't come in and talk about defense? It's just nothing but coach speak IMO.

CableKC
12-27-2008, 02:34 AM
Since the theme of turning the ball over at the worst times seem to be a recurring one with Jack, would you want Jack in as a finisher at the end of the game whether we are ahead or not?

I understand that at this point, due to injuries, we were forced to have him in the lineup.....but assuming that all things are equal ( ie, everyone is healthy )....should he close out games or not?

One of the things that the RealGM Blazer fans did warn me about when we acquired him was that he was a good player to have on the floor if you wanted to drive to the hoop and draw a foul....but he also had a tendency to cough the ball up at the worst times....something that we have seen.

I'm guessing that it maybe on a situational basis, but I suspect that the answer is probably not unless he is absolutely owning the other team AND we have a solid ball-handler in the lineup with him ( such as Ford, Diener, Marquis or even Dunleavy ) so that he is not handling the ball so much.

DGPR
12-27-2008, 02:37 AM
Peck did not. Peck only put up Jim O'Briens quotes and Peck only provided a puke face after the direct quotes.

Yes, that's right Peck is talking about Peck in the third Person. Peck seems to miss Jalen Rose interviews.

Obviously I did not see the game vs. the Grizz. I'll just say this. I think we all knew this season was just about building. Why do you think Roy is getting startst when O'Brien is saying he doesn't deserve them. I think Larry has already determined that this season is lost for any form of deep playoff run and has issued (although they will never admit it) the order that the rookies and younger players need to play.

I am fine with that to be honest with you. If we are not going to be anything of consequence this season (and it is looking more and more like that every day) the I really don't care to see much of Murphy, Foster, Rasho up front. McBob, Roy, Brandon and maybe even Graham need to be evaluated for next season and the seasons beyond.

As to JOB I will say this.

He has every excuse in the world going for him right now. Injury's, illness, lack of talent, etc., etc.

So honestly even though I know many of us don't want to, we have to give him a little bit of a break here.

However I will state this. I do NOT believe that he emphasizes defense more than any other coach we have had (except maybe Thomas) it's just that he pays it much more lip service. Lip service may be a little to harsh but I don't think he pays it any more attention than say Carlisle, Bird or Brown did. I just think he talks about it more. Honestly what basketball coach doesn't come in and talk about defense? It's just nothing but coach speak IMO.


I have to agree with you that the season is lost for a deep playoff run, and in all probability, the playoffs totally. Rasho probably isn't going to be with us past this season so lets see some more McRoberts and Roy. They need the valuable play time so give it to them. We are about to go 10 games under .500 on Sunday when we lose to the Hornets so what's to lose? I was listening to 1070 before the game and they were saying Dunleavy isn't in a day-to-day situation, it's more of a week-to-week situation, which doesn't sound very promising to me.

Things are going to get better for this team, but probably not this season. I'm still going to continue to support and watch them though.

Coop
12-27-2008, 02:41 AM
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/m-47-general-george-s-patton-medium-tank-2.jpg

Kuq_e_Zi91
12-27-2008, 02:41 AM
One a different note, I'm seeing a lot of different reports on Granger's injury. The Memphis announcers said they got word from the Pacers medical staff that it was a sore neck. ESPN has it being a sprained neck in their post game. Yahoo! has it as a concussion in theirs.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap;_ylt=AsJQyaGbGod2iMqXK9T7REa8vLYF?gid=200812 2629

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=281226029

Bball
12-27-2008, 02:55 AM
I'm not throwing OBrien under the bus yet. As Peck has pointed out, the man certainly has excuses he could use if he wanted. What I am doing is saying there is an undercurrent and we need to start watching it closely. We lost big leads last year and we're doing it again this year. Our defense was suspect last year and it's suspect again this year. The cast of characters has changed, the chemistry is better, yet there's still something brewing that we don't seem to be any closer to solving.

UB mentions Rick Carlisle. I don't have a problem with a controlled offense, I have a problem with a Jermaine ONeal dominated offense when that player continually comes up short and creates chemistry problems and leadership problems. There might've been nothing Carlisle could've done about it because ONeal had to be pleased at all costs. ...Or maybe he could've but had no support from TPTB or maybe he just didn't have the ballz to do it. I dunno... And it doesn't much matter why Carlisle did what he did because he isn't the coach now, isn't on the market, and we (apparently) aren't shopping for a coach. And Carlisle had to deal with Tins too.

I have a feeling we have a team NOW that Carlisle could do something with and some of these blown leads and 4th qtr losses would be turned around. I do think Carlisle is a better coach than OBrien... but I digress. That is beside the point.

I think we need to start looking at things from the POV of whether we're really maximizing our players right now and whether they are growing AND whether this is the style of ball we want to be playing in a couple of years.

If we continue to be offense first, defensive lip service, and watching the team peter out as the clock winds down game after game because they expended too much energy on offense... then it's time to admit we have a problem even if JOB hasn't exactly lost the team. There's nothing wrong with being ahead of the curve. This is not the Walsh years any longer so we don't have to wait until a problem blows up in our face and infects more and more areas before addressing it.

First you admit you have a problem... indentify it... and then do something about it.

The first thing you do might not be to fire the coach, but that shouldn't necessarily be off the list either. The only thing that should be off the list is ignoring the problem!

Bball
12-27-2008, 05:42 AM
A coach cannot control how quickly the other team is going to shoot, but he can control how quickly his team is going to shoot

No, but a coach can preach to his team about not allowing that team to have the looks it wants for those quick shots.

I love it when an opposing team takes a rushed, defended shot.


-Bball

Justin Tyme
12-27-2008, 05:48 AM
Jack is to blame for this loss.. he lost the ball with 30 seconds left and we never got the ball back except for the last possession, if i'm correct.

Wow, you gave the Jack hatred a days break. The whole game revolved around Jack's TO. He's the culprit. Couldn't be the lack of "D" giving up another 100+ point game to a team that had only averaged 86 points the last 4 games, losses, they played, or it couldn't be that Memphis shot twice the amount of foul shots as the Pacers? Your Jack hatred is getting old. Why don't you try looking at what the real problem/problems with this team losing is? It's not Jack.

Justin Tyme
12-27-2008, 06:26 AM
I'm coming over to the side that O Brien is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The above is really driving it home.

I was 'understanding' last year and to a point this year- We needed to get our players some confidence that they could shoot and hit shots and weren't just there to pass the ball to JO. But the emphasis on the 3-ball.... the pedal to the metal play (with a team that isn't exactly a pedal to the metal team), and then the lost leads. At some point these lost leads start to make you wonder if there's anything we can do to maintain the leads and why we lose them in the first place. It's not just or solely a lack of 'clutchness' IMHO.

What it is is a team that doesn't value each possession enough. It's a team that is living too much off of just trying to outscore their opponent.

IMHO an open 3 isn't always the best play. Take a step closer.... find an open player closer to the basket... consider the clock/score and your own shooting percentage.

Save something in the tank for defense and for the 4th qtr.

To me, this team has proven that they can't play this tempo and stomp on teams with consistency. Instead, they've shown they CANNOT maintain it and teams just need to hang tough and wait for us to wear down.

....Yet we keep doing it....


Bball:

I've read the entire thread, that's been posted to date, and your posts have been on target and extremely enjoyable to read. I couldn't agree more with what you have posted.

Justin Tyme
12-27-2008, 06:41 AM
Was there some reason, illness or injury, that McBob didn't play? Murphy misses 3 or so games with a stomach virus, loses 20 pounds, and has to be a little rusty; yet he plays 35 minutes. If McBob was not injured or ill, why wasn't he playing?

Evan_The_Dude
12-27-2008, 08:03 AM
I'm coming over to the side that O Brien is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The above is really driving it home.

I was 'understanding' last year and to a point this year- We needed to get our players some confidence that they could shoot and hit shots and weren't just there to pass the ball to JO. But the emphasis on the 3-ball.... the pedal to the metal play (with a team that isn't exactly a pedal to the metal team), and then the lost leads. At some point these lost leads start to make you wonder if there's anything we can do to maintain the leads and why we lose them in the first place. It's not just or solely a lack of 'clutchness' IMHO.

What it is is a team that doesn't value each possession enough. It's a team that is living too much off of just trying to outscore their opponent.

IMHO an open 3 isn't always the best play. Take a step closer.... find an open player closer to the basket... consider the clock/score and your own shooting percentage.

Save something in the tank for defense and for the 4th qtr.

To me, this team has proven that they can't play this tempo and stomp on teams with consistency. Instead, they've shown they CANNOT maintain it and teams just need to hang tough and wait for us to wear down.

....Yet we keep doing it....

I think JOB has this team playing the style that works best for the players we have. What team effectively plays a half court or "controlled" offense that doesn't have a good post player? With all that's been said, we could easily be a .500 or above team right now if we didn't have the unfortunate injuries and illnesses and bounces of the ball that went the other way.

It's not like we're getting blown out every game. But I think if we took more time on offense, we'd probably end up being forced to take even more 3-pointers and long shot attempts inside the arc because we don't have any good post players that would leave our other guys with a good shot. I believe if we slowed it down a bit offensively, we'd get blown out instead of coming up slightly short of a victory. I know a loss is a loss, but at least when the team loses by 3, they know they're almost there. When they get blown out every game they just flat out suck. This team just needs a good post player or 2 to make us pretty dangerous.

deekay85
12-27-2008, 08:14 AM
No defense, no wins! Simple is that.
We have to concentrate on our defense.
Thats the only solution!

Bball
12-27-2008, 08:33 AM
No defense, no wins! Simple is that.
We have to concentrate on our defense.
Thats the only solution!

It doesn't get much more to the point than that.

It's less about the offense and more about the defense... Let our defense dictate our offense.

-Bball

Putnam
12-27-2008, 09:01 AM
it seemed like most other fans were sick and tired of Carlsle's approach (where did all those people go) I mean I can dig out thread after thread from two years ago where fans were sick of Rick calling all the plays, sick of his refusal to allow the team to run.

:wave:

D-BONE
12-27-2008, 09:40 AM
Since the theme of turning the ball over at the worst times seem to be a recurring one with Jack, would you want Jack in as a finisher at the end of the game whether we are ahead or not?

I understand that at this point, due to injuries, we were forced to have him in the lineup.....but assuming that all things are equal ( ie, everyone is healthy )....should he close out games or not?

One of the things that the RealGM Blazer fans did warn me about when we acquired him was that he was a good player to have on the floor if you wanted to drive to the hoop and draw a foul....but he also had a tendency to cough the ball up at the worst times....something that we have seen.

I'm guessing that it maybe on a situational basis, but I suspect that the answer is probably not unless he is absolutely owning the other team AND we have a solid ball-handler in the lineup with him ( such as Ford, Diener, Marquis or even Dunleavy ) so that he is not handling the ball so much.

Generally, I would gladly have someone else controlling the ball in late-game situations. I am more comfortable (somewhat) with some of the people you list. Although, honestly, none of those guys has exactly established a reputation a clutch.

TJ has a game-winning bucket at Philly, but he's dribbled himself into wild shots and throw aways late ,too. Daniels had a late game BA and the ball pilfered last night on two separate stretch possessions. Diener MIGHT be the best candidate to protect the ball until moving it to someone else, but I don't like him taking a shot, particularly if he has to manufacture it.

Dunleavy...I honestly don't think of him as an "option" anymore. If he makes it back this year, great. I look at the team as is now as what we have to work with this season.

xtacy
12-27-2008, 09:57 AM
I do think Carlisle is a better coach than OBrien.

thier names being mentioned in the same sentence is an insult to carlisle.

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 10:26 AM
I think JOB has this team playing the style that works best for the players we have. What team effectively plays a half court or "controlled" offense that doesn't have a good post player? With all that's been said, we could easily be a .500 or above team right now if we didn't have the unfortunate injuries and illnesses and bounces of the ball that went the other way.

It's not like we're getting blown out every game. But I think if we took more time on offense, we'd probably end up being forced to take even more 3-pointers and long shot attempts inside the arc because we don't have any good post players that would leave our other guys with a good shot. I believe if we slowed it down a bit offensively, we'd get blown out instead of coming up slightly short of a victory. I know a loss is a loss, but at least when the team loses by 3, they know they're almost there. When they get blown out every game they just flat out suck. This team just needs a good post player or 2 to make us pretty dangerous.

This is a very good post, regardless of what I posted. That is, it's hard to say how effective this team would be with a Rick Carlisle style of play. However, I am not really advocating a plodding offense for this team. I think the recipe to improve this team's chances are adjustments, not a completely different style.

BTW, while some of JOb's statements and his apparent philosophy is close to polar opposite with my own, I do think he has been moving, albiet slowly, in the right direction on adjustments by putting McRoberts on the floor. So this is about adjustments, not a huge change. And this is not about McRoberts being a great player. This is about putting the right mix of players on the court to grind out wins in the 4th quarter...which at this point means adding a dash of energy and interior defense.

Unclebuck
12-27-2008, 10:45 AM
Peck did not. Peck only put up Jim O'Briens quotes and Peck only provided a puke face after the direct quotes.

Yes, that's right Peck is talking about Peck in the third Person. Peck seems to miss Jalen Rose interviews.


However I will state this. I do NOT believe that he emphasizes defense more than any other coach we have had (except maybe Thomas) it's just that he pays it much more lip service. Lip service may be a little to harsh but I don't think he pays it any more attention than say Carlisle, Bird or Brown did. I just think he talks about it more. Honestly what basketball coach doesn't come in and talk about defense? It's just nothing but coach speak IMO.



Peck, I stand corrected - my bad

To really answer that question, we would need to see all of training camp, all of practices.....hear the huddles.....The bottonline and the only thing we can say for sure is the Pacrers defense right now isn't good at all.

In general when a team has a talent deficit which the Pacers do on most nights, the best way to win is to limit possessions (thinks Cavs under Fratello) because the more possessions there are the better chance the talent will show.

One thing I do hate is when Murphy and Rasho are on ther floor at the same time, sloooooooow

D-BONE
12-27-2008, 10:56 AM
This team just needs a good post player or 2 to make us pretty dangerous.

We need a good, dynamic player or two, preferably an inside presence like you describe and/or a PG. At this point, I'd take any dynamic player I could get my hands on regardless of position. We just need good, multi-faceted players.

I like Ford, Jack, and Diener individually and as a collection compared to the frustration and inconsistency of Jamaal. Unfortunately, I don't think individually or collectively they are sufficient to take us where we hope to go.

If you could combine the offense and speed of TJ with the size and D of JJ, then we might have the starting PG we need. This is the story of our personnel. Multiple players who are good at at one or two things, none that are good at three, four, or five things.

We also lack sufficient toughness-including mentally. Here is where a real inside presence and a gritty, top-flight PG really make a difference.

Naptown_Seth
12-27-2008, 11:54 AM
Jack is to blame for this loss.. he lost the ball with 30 seconds left and we never got the ball back except for the last possession, if i'm correct.
Yes, close losses to Memphis are usually about final possessions. I can't tell you how many times NBA title teams got that final lucky bounce to barely beat 9-10 win teams.

Maybe the issue is that you are playing tit for tat with a terrible team in the first place.


On the radio - Slick and Boyle did seem to blame Jack somewhat, but it was long before that final play. PG DEFENSE is the current issue, guys getting to the lane at will has crept back in over the last 3 weeks.

Not sure what's happened but we aren't getting stops out front and that's really cascading into the front line.



Not only is Quis playing into a mid-season trade, but Hibbert has been showing a real build up in his short offensive game. Sure Roy's got the rookie foul problem, but you have to think that it's likely to go away and that when it does it would be nice if he could go 8-12 from the floor most of the time.

With his rebounding and scoring he really does have Rik written all over him. You learn to bite the bullet on the glass and just enjoy the go-to scoring like we did with Rik. Plus in Roy's case you get a better post defender in the long run. The solution to Rik's rebounding was Dale and then Tony. We'll have to pair Roy with something similar.


Rush is logging big solid minutes and seems to be benefitting from them.


After flipping to a playoff expectation early on I'm seeing what I expected back in the summer. This is an early step, they will get a solid pick out of this year AND will have been developing Danny, Roy and Rush (hopefully McBob too) and this will turn into a really solid core.

If the losses keep piling up they may yet end up with a shot at Thabeet after all, though Griffin still seems way out of reach.


Yes, that's right Peck is talking about Peck in the third Person. Peck seems to miss Jalen Rose interviews.
Oddly this makes Seth like Peck even more.

Naptown_Seth
12-27-2008, 11:59 AM
But the Nets of '02 and '03 comes to mind as a team that was able to do both, run and still play good defense.
That Nets team had no offense, it was all driven by the defense, thus the running. They sucked in the half court most of the time and lived by the steals from halfcourt to midlane. It was like a pack of wolves just waiting for that mistake and the minute they got one you could hear the starter pistol fire.

Pretty impressive but offensively not pretty, and that was with Kidd who was a one-man playmaker himself.


The Pacers haven't been good enough to lock people down and I think they are trying to play a more well-rounded offense than the Nets did. There's just not enough energy and talent to go around, not to mention ball protection on their own part. These Pacers are exactly the kind of team those Nets teams preyed on.

Justin Tyme
12-27-2008, 12:04 PM
I think JOB has this team playing the style that works best for the players we have. What team effectively plays a half court or "controlled" offense that doesn't have a good post player? With all that's been said, we could easily be a .500 or above team right now if we didn't have the unfortunate injuries and illnesses and bounces of the ball that went the other way.

It's not like we're getting blown out every game. But I think if we took more time on offense, we'd probably end up being forced to take even more 3-pointers and long shot attempts inside the arc because we don't have any good post players that would leave our other guys with a good shot. I believe if we slowed it down a bit offensively, we'd get blown out instead of coming up slightly short of a victory. I know a loss is a loss, but at least when the team loses by 3, they know they're almost there. When they get blown out every game they just flat out suck. This team just needs a good post player or 2 to make us pretty dangerous.



Evan, please don't take offense, I'm really not ragging on you. It's my frustration of how the Pacers are playing, the low expectation of some for the Pacers, and the lack of accountability for those in charge.

1st paragraph sounds like an excuse a fired coach gives the FO and ownership why not to fire him. Or a bunch of shouldas, couldas, wouldas that loyal fans give for their team not winning. The Chicago Cubbies/IU crys of the past of "wait until next year" are being heard. I want to see results this year and not have to wait until next year. I'm not looking for 48 wins, but a team that makes progress going forward and not backwards. Is that really too much to ask?

The season is 35% over and the Pacers can't beat a team that had less wins than they did. I don't want to hear it was a home game for Memphis or that the Pacers had a couple of players out. The last time I checked there was 15 players on the roster, and one of those players who had been playing well in the absence of players didn't even get in the game. Again was McBob ill or injured? If not, why wasn't he playing? A coach needs to adjust the game to the circumstances at hand, not just go ahead as always. It's like he's saying his type of game is the only type that games can be won with. IOW, no flexibility for his way/style of coaching. I'm tired of continual lip service to his wanting the team to play "D". If they aren't, then whose fault is it? Who is suppose to be instilling playing "D" in the players, if not the coach? How many games have the Pacers given up over 100 points to their opponents? Bird knew full well JO'B forte wasn't defense. Dick Harter was hired to coach "D". Where is the "D"? Sure 100 pt+ shootouts are entertaining, but it's only a matter of time b4 they become nothing but another boring loss. Is this the way to get fans to Conseco and keep them coming, watching an entertaining loss? If so, then TPTB and ownership might want to rethink that strategy.

I don't want to keep hearing this team is nothing more than a 30 win team, the schedule gets better(it makes no difference if this team can't win), or when Dunleavy gets back. What's the excuse going to be when Dun gets back and the ship keeps sinking? So the status quo just keeps going on until things will get changed by getting a good player in the draft and/or Bird will make trades that will cure the ills of losing for next season? Why not try to change what isn't working with 2/3 of the season yet to be played? Lets just continue, as always, w/o trying to stop the bleeding by doing something different. Maybe the Simons can apply for some of the $700 billion the government is giving away to companies that got into trouble by poor management decisions. Those that refused to change from doing what got them into the problem of failure in the 1st place. The criteria seems to fit.

Naptown_Seth
12-27-2008, 12:13 PM
I have a feeling we have a team NOW that Carlisle could do something with and some of these blown leads and 4th qtr losses would be turned around. I do think Carlisle is a better coach than OBrien... but I digress. That is beside the point.This is the reason I wanted them to keep Rick. They moved him to get the good Tinsley back, to get the high flying offense in place, to get people under control.

Then JOB found he couldn't get Tins under control any better than Rick; I'd say less so because Rick had to work with Tins for years and even got a good portion of outstanding play out of Tins at times. And JOB found he couldn't fix the off-court issues simply by being tough with Shawne's crap lingering on for one, along with Harrison and other junk.

So you end up with JOB getting the roster fixes Rick earned by putting up with all this crap. People say it's easier to change coaches and I just disagree with that. Rick has had ONE losing season, and that was only after the GS trade sent the team down the toilet. Sloan even had a losing season, but he wasn't fired for it.

In the end you easily could have said that instead of moving Rick you were going to give up on Tinsley and JO, and especially if you are working behind the scenes and know what is going on.



Why this rant? Look at the type of roster Rick is coaching in Dallas. Nothing like any of the 3-4 flavors of Pacers he coached, nothing like the 2 very different Detroit rosters he coached. But there he is winning again, getting the team back on track to be what they were when Avery was COY.

There is something to be said for a playbook. And there's also something to be said for letting the inmates run the asylum. I know it's easy to have hindsight, but the thing is I was complaining about not dumping the guy with the proven track record back then too.

Look at the guys Rick coached - how many of them had far greater success away from Rick? Only the 2nd year Pistons team went a bit further and only after they added Sheed. Prior to that they weren't winning any more games and oh by the way Larry Brown had only gone to the Finals one time prior to that season, yet had this playoff winner rep that was totally undeserved (Bird took basically the same roster farther with Rick as one of his main guys).

Sorry, but its frustrating because it really didn't have to go this way. The Lakers got lucky and Phil came back to them. Look at the impact there. Coaches matter and even a player of Kobe's caliber can't be blatently appeased, he had to concede and have Phil return.



Sidebar - how many players make great GMs? How many top notch players make great coaches? Then WHY IN THE F WOULD YOU LET THEM MAKE THE CALLS ABOUT WHO SHOULD PLAY AND WHO SHOULD COACH THEM while they are still playing?


Thanks, I needed that. :D

imawhat
12-27-2008, 01:19 PM
Not sure what's happened but we aren't getting stops out front and that's really cascading into the front line.

It's very simple, imo. They stopped forcing guys to the corners in game 9.

Again, I am scratching my head as it was clearly working.

WetBob
12-27-2008, 01:45 PM
Was there some reason, illness or injury, that McBob didn't play? Murphy misses 3 or so games with a stomach virus, loses 20 pounds, and has to be a little rusty; yet he plays 35 minutes. If McBob was not injured or ill, why wasn't he playing?

There was 0 reason why he wasn't playing. It makes 0 sense as well.

Murph and Quis are in the hospital for 3 days, come back, and play 35 and 37 minutes respectively. Someone explain that to me.

vnzla81
12-27-2008, 02:00 PM
Larry and JOB need to give this season a loss start playing the rookies and try to make a trade or two to free up cap space for next year, at this moment the pacers got some pieces that have good value in Marquis,Rasho,Jack,even Murphy(two years left). they need to get some draft picks and maybe one or two young players,also use this pieces to get rid of Tinsley in a package.This team is only getting better one or two more athletic guys and we have a good team.

imawhat
12-27-2008, 02:04 PM
Larry and JOB need to give this season a loss start playing the rookies and try to make a trade or two to free up cap space for next year, at this moment the pacers got some pieces that have good value in Marquis,Rasho,Jack,even Murphy(two years left). they need to get some draft picks and maybe one or two young players,also use this pieces to get rid of Tinsley in a package.This team is only getting better one or two more athletic guys and we have a good team.


We're 3 1/2 games out of the 8th seed. Let's wait until we're 10-15 games back before we declare this season over.

We're not that far away from winning, at all. We could easily be 16-13 right now. We'll eventually have all of our players healthy and we'll start winning these close games.

Justin Tyme
12-27-2008, 03:19 PM
We're 3 1/2 games out of the 8th seed. Let's wait until we're 10-15 games back before we declare this season over.

We're not that far away from winning, at all. We could easily be 16-13 right now. We'll eventually have all of our players healthy and we'll start winning these close games.



Not until the coach finally comes to the conclusion that playing run n gun with no "D", isn't going to get the Pacers anything but more losses. More exciting, closer, and entertaining losses to some, but losses just the same. If it is allowed to continue, I hope Bird has been putting in his due diligence scouting college players he will have an opportunity to select in the lottery. With the way this team is being allowed to play helterskelter, playing poor to little "D", and using a short rotation, it's a lottery bound team. If things don't change, the "possible" highlites of the 08-09 season will be if Granger gets chosen as an Allstar, and which college player the Pacers select in the lottery in June. As a Pacers fan, I expected to see more than that.

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 03:44 PM
There was 0 reason why he wasn't playing. It makes 0 sense as well.

Murph and Quis are in the hospital for 3 days, come back, and play 35 and 37 minutes respectively. Someone explain that to me.

Murph and Quis are paid a lot more than McBob. So is Foster. That's why there needs to be a compelling reason to play McBob over those guys. What it all comes down to is: The NBA is as much or more about business than it is basketball. If the owner is shelling out 10M/yr for Murphy, McBob simply has to make a much, much stronger case to get on the floor.

Perhaps what McBob brings on defense is becoming more compelling. It certainly should be from what I've seen. He is the only player on the team, except for maybe Foster, capable of even slowing down a Zach Randolph. Even though he's only played in a few games, he has been the reason we have won a couple games this season.

He really does bring an element to this team that is sorely needed. We have enough 3pt shooters in Granger, Rush, Dunleavy(when he returns) and Jack...and maybe even TJ. We simply do not need Troy Murphy and his tired 4th quarter legs launching threes. We need someone who can grind out buckets and make some defensive stops on the other end. McBob may not be the answer to that, but he's a lot closer. It's all about the mix of players.

xtacy
12-27-2008, 03:52 PM
We're 3 1/2 games out of the 8th seed. Let's wait until we're 10-15 games back before we declare this season over.

We're not that far away from winning, at all. We could easily be 16-13 right now. We'll eventually have all of our players healthy and we'll start winning these close games.

things will have got more serious around the league by the time we get all of our players healthy. i highly doubt this will happen too btw.


Not until the coach finally comes to the conclusion that playing run n gun with no "D", isn't going to get the Pacers anything but more losses. More exciting, closer, and entertaining losses to some, but losses just the same. If it is allowed to continue, I hope Bird has been putting in his due diligence scouting college players he will have an opportunity to select in the lottery. With the way this team is being allowed to play helterskelter, playing poor to little "D", and using a short rotation, it's a lottery bound team. If things don't change, the "possible" highlites of the 08-09 season will be if Granger gets choosen as an Allstar, and which college player the Pacers selected in the lottery in June. As a Pacers fan, I expected to see more than that.

agreed. the problem is the mentality thanks to JOB. we are losing close games right now. when teams starts to take the games more seriously especially after the all-star break judging from the fact that we can't defend any team i don't think our losses will be even close.


Larry and JOB need to give this season a loss start playing the rookies and try to make a trade or two to free up cap space for next year, at this moment the pacers got some pieces that have good value in Marquis,Rasho,Jack,even Murphy(two years left). they need to get some draft picks and maybe one or two young players,also use this pieces to get rid of Tinsley in a package.This team is only getting better one or two more athletic guys and we have a good team.

agreed about the trades especially about quis. this may sound crazy to most of you. i don't think there is a chance that we will sign him this summer. he will go somewhere else and we won't be able to get anything in return. i think if we shop him now we can at least get some draft picks like memphis is doing right now. they are rebuilding and doing a great job doing it. i won't be calling the thing we are doing rebuilding untill we make some moves to get young guys or draft picks.

WetBob
12-27-2008, 03:55 PM
Murph and Quis are paid a lot more than McBob. So is Foster. That's why there needs to be a compelling reason to play McBob over those guys. What it all comes down to is: The NBA is as much or more about business than it is basketball. If the owner is shelling out 10M/yr for Murphy, McBob simply has to make a much, much stronger case to get on the floor.

Perhaps what McBob brings on defense is becoming more compelling. It certainly should be from what I've seen. He is the only player on the team, except for maybe Foster, capable of even slowing down a Zach Randolph. Even though he's only played in a few games, he has been the reason we have won a couple games this season.

He really does bring an element to this team that is sorely needed. We have enough 3pt shooters in Granger, Rush, Dunleavy(when he returns) and Jack...and maybe even TJ. We simply do not need Troy Murphy and his tired 4th quarter legs launching threes. We need someone who can grind out buckets and make some defensive stops on the other end. McBob may not be the answer to that, but he's a lot closer. It's all about the mix of players.

My complaint about JOB's rotation pattern has much more to do with the fact that he is going to absolutely wear people down. It is imperative in the NBA to try to steal minutes whenever possible. Murphy and Marquis have got to be a little out of condition in their first game coming back from illness, and they play those huge minutes?

Isn't it possible that the reason we can't hold a lead, can't win a close game at the end, and on occasion look absolutely pathetic is because we are playing guys way, way too many minutes and they are getting just worn down? It is an 82 game season, you can't play guys 35 and 37 minutes a night, let alone guys that have been stuck in the hospital for 3 days.

He has to start giving these guys a break.

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 04:15 PM
My complaint about JOB's rotation pattern has much more to do with the fact that he is going to absolutely wear people down. It is imperative in the NBA to try to steal minutes whenever possible. Murphy and Marquis have got to be a little out of condition in their first game coming back from illness, and they play those huge minutes?

Isn't it possible that the reason we can't hold a lead, can't win a close game at the end, and on occasion look absolutely pathetic is because we are playing guys way, way too many minutes and they are getting just worn down? It is an 82 game season, you can't play guys 35 and 37 minutes a night, let alone guys that have been stuck in the hospital for 3 days.

He has to start giving these guys a break.

I have looked at that angle and have a bit different interpretation. I have looked at other teams after they ran over us in the 4th quarter and noticed their starters had about the same number of minutes. Not sure if that's the case last night...but I have concluded that some players are capable of playing at a high level for 40mpg on a regular basis while others are not. If you think about it, that should not be surprising.

As for the Pacers, I think Murphy is one player that should not play extended minutes. I would be fine if he played none, I'm also fine with him putting in 20mpg. I also think Foster's losing some zip that his game is dependent upon. I also think Rasho and Hibbert are not guys you want out there for 40mpg. None of our bigs are high energy types except for that dude from Carmel and maybe Maceo Baston...but Maceo is getting a little old.

So, yes, I do think the front court rotation needs to add a couple guys who have spent most of their time on the bench. Mix in 5-10 minutes of Maceo and 15-20 minutes of McRoberts and I think we would be placed in the best position to win.

Minutes like the following:

Rasho/Hibbert - Split 40C
Foster - 8C, 12PF
Murphy - 20PF
McRoberts - 16PF

Maybe squeeze 6-8 minutes out for Baston from the above.

Bball
12-27-2008, 04:23 PM
I have looked at that angle and have a bit different interpretation. I have looked at other teams after they ran over us in the 4th quarter and noticed their starters had about the same number of minutes. Not sure if that's the case last night...but I have concluded that some players are capable of playing at a high level for 40mpg on a regular basis while others are not. If you think about it, that should not be surprising.

.

But are those players being asked to score 100+ ppg on a regular basis? Are all of their games on the same pace as the Pacers? And... Why does a team called the Pacers not pace themselves better? ;)

-Bball

BlueNGold
12-27-2008, 04:43 PM
But are those players being asked to score 100+ ppg on a regular basis? Are all of their games on the same pace as the Pacers? And... Why does a team called the Pacers not pace themselves better? ;)

-Bball

All good questions. I would think that a team used to running would have better endurance. The opposite seems to be the case. It's no secret that we lack great athleticism at the C and especially the PF position among our regular starters. The fact we lack endurance in the 4th quarter should be obvious by now.

As for the Pacer's name, yes they should rename themselves temporarily to the Racers.

BTW, I think JOb wants to play like the Laker's of the 80's and dig up Show-Time. If we had two of the 25 greatest players of all-time on the same team, I suppose we could do it too. Remember the great offense AND defense back in the day? Well, while Magic's Lakers could dominate with Show-Time, it's tough to pull it off without great talent. Call it high risk high reward basketball. Right now we are losing that bet.

Justin Tyme
12-27-2008, 04:47 PM
But are those players being asked to score 100+ ppg on a regular basis? Are all of their games on the same pace as the Pacers? And... Why does a team called the Pacers not pace themselves better? ;)

-Bball

You beat my reply in regards about a fast pace 40 minutes and a slower pace 40 minutes. It wears on players that play it night in and night out. They'll be wore out by the time this supposed easier schedule gets here.