PDA

View Full Version : The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread



Pages : [1] 2

kbills05
12-31-2008, 10:00 AM
just wanted to know when Jim O' brien will be held accountable for all of these losses. i mean sometimes i wonder what on earth he is doing. he doesn't play McRoberts he takes Hibbert out in the 4th quarter when he was doing good in the 3rd quarter and he did the same w/ Rush in the Milwaukee game. This guy is an average coach. Bird needs to bring in a Avery Johnson or someone like that , that has a winning recipe for success. And what's mind boggling is JOB continues to show that his teams do not and will not play defense... your thoughts?

Putnam
12-31-2008, 10:14 AM
If "held accountable" means fired, then not 'til the end of this season, or possibly next season. If "held accountable" means Bird looming large and demanding better, then it is probably happening every day.

If O'Brien is an average coach, he's nevertheless a coach who goes into every game with less talent on the floor than his opponent.

Jonathan
12-31-2008, 10:16 AM
listened to the game last night but Slick said the problem was this "we have player's on our or team that like to pick @ the ball on defense leaving players wide open." I do not blame the coach for leaving a super-star player like Joe Johnson wide open.

Shade
12-31-2008, 10:19 AM
Not for a while.

Brad8888
12-31-2008, 10:30 AM
Our players have heart and hustle and enough talent to be competitive most games. What they don't have is a leader to look to in tight game situations to give them the calm confidence to follow through with the game plan and continue to execute down the stretch despite being dead tired. I believe that this is a function of coaching and game management.

At every level in basketball, active coaching during the game can make a big difference. While O'Brien does do this more now than he once did, he still makes a lot of mistakes in game flow management and player rotations based on their performance during the game, not just due to the amount of time he plans for them to be on the floor prior to the start of the game.

Our team generally goes into every game believing it can compete, but unfortunately goes into every game with a less talented coach who lacks the ability to manage the flow of games when his players are not doing so correctly themselves.

Unclebuck
12-31-2008, 11:11 AM
Every coach, every player, every front ofice worker should be held accountable. But your question sems to suggest that "being held accountable" means he should be fired. He should not, these losses aren't his fault.

I avoided this forum after last nights game because the suggestion that OB should be fird I knew would be brought up and i'm tired of trying to explain why he shouldn't.

I have been watching a ton of NBA basketball for over 25 years, the Pacers have had a number of coaches some good, some bad, and JOB is one of the best coaches they have had

Justin Tyme
12-31-2008, 11:15 AM
who goes into every game with less talent on the floor than his opponent.


Every game? There are teams in every sport thruout the years that have had less talent than their opponents and have had winning teams. There is more than enough talent on this team, even w/o Dunleavy, that it shouldn't be 10-21.

The person that needs to be held accountable is Bird. He hired the coach, he assembled the players, and he's the one that is allowing the coach to play a gun n gun style game with little "D" with a success of lossing 19 games out of 21 when the Pacers allow a 100 plus points to be scored.

People say the Pacers are losing the game in the 4th qtr. Hum, how many points did the Hawks have going into the 4th qtr? W/o going and looking it up to be precise in was in the 80's. You can't give up that many points and expect to win a close game in the waning minutes of the 4th qtr.

Again, who has the power to change things? That's Bird and he's the one that needs to be held accountable.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 11:25 AM
This is a rebuilding year.

Look, you can put me at the very front of the Get Rid of Bird Bandwagon. But I think Bird deserves one more draft and offseason because this team is very far from being a completed project.

I don't think its much better than a 10-21 team, but I think O'Brien should be accountable for the fact that Rush and Hibbert (and McRoberts and Jack) should be farther along after thirty games. Its one thing to be 10-21 and letting those guys play primary roles and learn from their mistakes. Its another thing to be 10-21 and having us wonder why Daniels and Murphy and Rasho and Foster and Ford keep getting "heavy" minutes.

travmil
12-31-2008, 11:41 AM
He doesn't have talent my butt. Yeah they're not gonna win a title but they have enough talent to be better than they are. I don't even post on this board anymore because of this stupid JOB love affair that some of you have. JOB isn't even average as a coach. Calling JOB average is a complete insult to average coaches everywhere. His mind boggling decisions and late game substitutions are a joke. He doesn't have a go to play that will get you a bucket out of a timeout, and even if he did he'd draw it up for Jarrett Jack. He gives minutes to players that don't deserve them. I've made it clear that in my opinion JOB isn't even fit to coach in a YMCA youth league, and I've seen nothing out of him this season to change my mind.

Jonathan
12-31-2008, 11:50 AM
travmil if we fire JOB we give up on this season is all. Who takes over? We have an intern coach in Lester Conner.

Roaming Gnome
12-31-2008, 11:51 AM
I have been watching a ton of NBA basketball for over 25 years, the Pacers have had a number of coaches some good, some bad, and JOB is one of the best coaches they have had

UB, I know that you have said more then a few times that J'OB is one of the best coaches that the Pacers have had. I was just wondering what specifics that you had in mind that make him rank that high. I've stated for a while that Jim is a "filler" coach, but your continued glowing praise of him makes me wonder what I'm missing when judging Jim O'Brien from a fans perspective.

aceace
12-31-2008, 12:02 PM
Are we going to blame JOB for the recent illnesses? Injuries? Mike D. not playing? Rush shooting horrible recently? Jack taking it coast to coast missing when we could have had the last shot? etc. etc. JOB is not a bad coach just a victim of unusual circumstances this year. He has not lost the team and therein is where the decision comes.

duke dynamite
12-31-2008, 12:14 PM
travmil if we fire JOB we give up on this season is all. Who takes over? We have an intern coach in Lester Conner.
You're right. Firing our coach, albeit now or after the season is a major step backwards. I was on the "JOB isn't doing his job" bandwagon, but now I kind of feel we have a hidden gem in a coach. I really think that Jim is capable of leading a good group of players far, but what we have now is what you see. It won't get much better overnight, but give it time.

*In some kind of parallel dimension, I would like to see what Ol' Les could do as a head coach.

Putnam
12-31-2008, 12:18 PM
I don't even post on this board anymore because of this stupid JOB love affair that some of you have. JOB isn't even average as a coach. Calling JOB average is a complete insult to average coaches everywhere. His mind boggling decisions and late game substitutions are a joke.

O'Brien's coaching is adequate to keep the Pacers close in every game since the Milwaukee blow-out loss. Loss after loss is hard to bear, but the Pacers are playing at a reasonable level despite all those losses.

The Pacers have outscored their opponent in 5 of the last 6 games (or held the opponent to fewer points than they scored themselves if you want a defensive slant to it) when you consider field goals only. The Pacers pretty consistently give up more free throws than they get, and that has been the margin in losses to the Clippers, Nets, Grizzlies, Hornets and Hawks. Unless he is instructing the players to commit all those fouls, it is hard to blame the coach for player errors.

MrSparko
12-31-2008, 12:19 PM
Who's available exactly that everyone's dying to have?

I can't wait to see Eddie Jordan lead this same bunch of players to 50 wins next year. :laugh:

Unclebuck
12-31-2008, 12:51 PM
UB, I know that you have said more then a few times that J'OB is one of the best coaches that the Pacers have had. I was just wondering what specifics that you had in mind that make him rank that high. I've stated for a while that Jim is a "filler" coach, but your continued glowing praise of him makes me wonder what I'm missing when judging Jim O'Brien from a fans perspective.

Hey, I saw you on TV last night at the start of the Pacers telecast, you were walking through the concourse.

I want to address your question, but can't now, and when I answer I want to do it justice, so maybe over the next few days I'll start a thread to explain why I think he is a good coach

indygeezer
12-31-2008, 01:01 PM
UNCLEBUCK...remember me challenging you a couple of years ago with..."Welcome to the '80s"? The P's then started games good, got leads, and then lost in the 4th. Night in and Night out. Sound familiar? (Sorry, didnt know where else to put that, so here 'tis)

Aren't we already paying at least one other guy NOT to coach the Pacers right now? And who's heading up the offices and is Bird's boss now? JOB has as safe a job as any coach could have until the end of his current contract, and then we'll see what happens.

xtacy
12-31-2008, 01:20 PM
He doesn't have talent my butt. Yeah they're not gonna win a title but they have enough talent to be better than they are. I don't even post on this board anymore because of this stupid JOB love affair that some of you have. JOB isn't even average as a coach. Calling JOB average is a complete insult to average coaches everywhere. His mind boggling decisions and late game substitutions are a joke. He doesn't have a go to play that will get you a bucket out of a timeout, and even if he did he'd draw it up for Jarrett Jack. He gives minutes to players that don't deserve them. I've made it clear that in my opinion JOB isn't even fit to coach in a YMCA youth league, and I've seen nothing out of him this season to change my mind.

couldn't agree more.

JayRedd
12-31-2008, 02:05 PM
Where is this "talent" everyone keeps talking about?

By my calculations, we have one bona fide NBA starter in Danny, a theoretical NBA starter who has lost his job on every other team he's played on in TJ, and a bunch of bench players.

Daniels has been playing out of his mind at times this year, but he's not a starter. Troy is an ideal 7th man. Jeff is a specialist off the bench. Rasho is a solid, backup, journeyman center. Jarrett is a suitable backup PG without much vision/creativity.

No one else has any NBA track record at all.

Phil Jackson, Pop or Jerry Sloan could maybe have eeked 13 wins out of this slop. Otherwise, he's doing fine.

And, in fact, it's my position that the reason we've been down to the last possession (NO, PHI, LAL, HOU, ORL, PHI) or at least the last minute (ATL, MEM, DET, BOS, DAL) with a chance to win more than a third of our games, is the fact that teams have a very difficult time matching up to our spread offense. Other teams spend all week gearing up for regular, run-of-the-mill offenses and then have to come to Conseco for the fourth game of a road trip. They are caught off guard and unable to know what's even going on until the third quarter. Even then, they have no solution and can't rotate even near well enough to match up with our shooters or stop our ball reversal penetration.

More importantly, Danny is thriving in this offense.

If we had Flip Saunders, Avery Johnson or a more traditional coach, Danny would be easier to game plan for. Instead, we have a wide-open scheme where, even without the screens that Reggie depended on throughout the 90s, there is a genius of floor spacing that allows Danny to get 3-4 uncontested threes per game. Similarly, it is that same phenomenal spacing that creates dribbling lanes for Danny. Last year, he still struggled to find them. This year, he is taking advantage of them greatly. And, now, as he has learned to be aggressive and that he can get to the rim, he not only uses the large holes -- he makes his own and has learned to react to the now quick-to-come double teams on his penetration.

Maybe he learns how to do this in a different system. Maybe not.

Regardless, JO'B's offense has given Danny a confidence and tailor-made scoring options that he would never have benefited from otherwise.

And, to me, that evolution in our only League-wide significant player is worth even a 0-82 season.

Eventually, Jimmy's scheme will prove unnecessary. It's not really a "Playoff" system. No one wins seven game-series (seres? serieses?) shooting 25 threes a night. But during our franchise's (hopeful) transition back into a legitimate NBA franchise with legitimate NBA talent, his gimmicky system is keeping us competitive. Sure the W/L record doesn't support that, but everyone from CP3 to John Hollinger is continually singing the song that we're much better than our record and that "that's a good team." When it comes to our players, I honestly don't think we're any better than 10-21. But I do think Jim O'Brien and his style is better than that. And it will have some effect on the W/L record before these 82 games are over.

Suaveness
12-31-2008, 02:11 PM
Boy you people have high expectations with a mediocre team.

rexnom
12-31-2008, 02:18 PM
Where is this "talent" everyone keeps talking about?

By my calculations, we have one bona fide NBA starter in Danny, a theoretical NBA starter who has lost his job on every other team he's played on in TJ, and a bunch of bench players.

Daniels has been playing out of his mind at times this year, but he's not a starter. Troy is an ideal 7th man. Jeff is a specialist off the bench. Rasho is a solid, backup, journeyman center. Jarrett is a suitable backup PG without much vision/creativity.

No one else has any NBA track record at all.

Phil Jackson, Pop or Jerry Sloan could maybe have eeked 13 wins out of this slop. Otherwise, he's doing fine.

And, in fact, it's my position that the reason we've been down to the last possession (NO, PHI, LAL, HOU, ORL, PHI) or at least the last minute (ATL, MEM, DET, BOS, DAL) with a chance to win more than a third of our games, is the fact that teams have a very difficult time matching up to our spread offense. Other teams spend all week gearing up for regular, run-of-the-mill offenses and then have to come to Conseco for the fourth game of a road trip. They are caught off guard and unable to know what's even going on until the third quarter. Even then, they have no solution and can't rotate even near well enough to match up with our shooters or stop our ball reversal penetration.

More importantly, Danny is thriving in this offense.

If we had Flip Saunders, Avery Johnson or a more traditional coach, Danny would be easier to game plan for. Instead, we have a wide-open scheme where, even without the screens that Reggie depended on throughout the 90s, there is a genius of floor spacing that allows Danny to get 3-4 uncontested threes per game. Similarly, it is that same phenomenal spacing that creates dribbling lanes for Danny. Last year, he still struggled to find them. This year, he is taking advantage of them greatly. And, now, as he has learned to be aggressive and that he can get to the rim, he not only uses the large holes -- he makes his own and has learned to react to the now quick-to-come double teams on his penetration.

Maybe he learns how to do this in a different system. Maybe not.

Regardless, JO'B's offense has given Danny a confidence and tailor-made scoring options that he would never have benefited from otherwise.

And, to me, that evolution in our only League-wide significant player is worth even a 0-82 season.

Eventually, Jimmy's scheme will prove unnecessary. But during our franchise's (hopeful) transition back into a legitimate NBA franchise with legitimate NBA talent, his gimmicky system is keeping us competitive. Sure the W/L record doesn't support that, but everyone from CP3 to John Hollinger is continually singing the song that we're much better than our record. I honestly don't think our players are. But I do think Jim O'Brien and his style is better than our record.
Stop giving UB your login info, JayRedd, he's ruining your attempts to become the Paul Walker of this forum.

Peck
12-31-2008, 02:20 PM
Boy you people have high expectations with a mediocre team.

They would need to win 11 games in a row to be considered mediocre.

Dr. Awesome
12-31-2008, 02:21 PM
Boy you people have high expectations with a mediocre team.

There is a fine line between losing games and blowing games with awful play calling and poor substitutions.

I've never been one to look at a coach and say "Wow, he just lost the team the game.", but I do it so often with Obie. I'm asking someone here who likes Obie to name me one time all season, that having Jack at SG was a good idea? How about one last possession game that came remotely close to working?

I didn't see the Rockets game, I know we scored on the last second possession, but it looked more like a broken play than anything else, but I can't say for sure. In most other games, his play every single time is "Give it to the PG for a one on one." Its that simple, and the few times he draws something else up - its a turnover before we even shoot it.

Jim O'Brien is incapable of coaching a middle school team. How he convinced Bird otherwise is beyond me.

LG33
12-31-2008, 02:44 PM
I thought O'Brien was known for overacheiving with less talented teams. I mean, Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker to the Eastern Conference Finals...

Also, I apologize if my expectations of this team are higher than 11 games under .500. I must be drinking too much of that sunshiner kool-aid. I just wonder, because I went back to the preseason prediction threads and saw that everybody predicted 29 or more wins - and the vast majority over 35 wins, why so many people claim to have expected us to be so bad. I mean, I know we lost Dunleavy, but who thinks this team is anything but underacheiving right now?

Teams have won with less talent and teams have lost with more talent.

Justin Tyme
12-31-2008, 02:45 PM
How he convinced Bird otherwise is beyond me.


Had a nice voice on the phone interview.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 02:53 PM
IAlso, I apologize if my expectations of this team are higher than 11 games under .500. I must be drinking too much of that sunshiner kool-aid. I just wonder, because I went back to the preseason prediction threads and saw that everybody predicted 29 or more wins - and the vast majority over 35 wins, why so many people claim to have expected us to be so bad. I mean, I know we lost Dunleavy, but who thinks this team is anything but underacheiving right now?


Where's that thread? Pretty sure the "29" is mine, and it was caveated that as Rush and Hibbert worked through their learning curves, as I said several times this summer that we would win more games in March and April as they developed to get up to 29. Right now we are mathematically on pace to win 26, and need to get more out of those two rookies in February and March than we've gotten in November and December.

I think they are right on pace, but right now a lot of people are playing "Revisionst history" with their preseason predictions. I was generally chastised around here for my "pessimism" over the summer, but now everyone seems to think that their "realism" aligned with my original view.

Justin Tyme
12-31-2008, 03:16 PM
I thought O'Brien was known for overacheiving with less talented teams. I mean, Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker to the Eastern Conference Finals...

Also, I apologize if my expectations of this team are higher than 11 games under .500. I must be drinking too much of that sunshiner kool-aid. I just wonder, because I went back to the preseason prediction threads and saw that everybody predicted 29 or more wins - and the vast majority over 35 wins, why so many people claim to have expected us to be so bad. I mean, I know we lost Dunleavy, but who thinks this team is anything but underacheiving right now?

Teams have won with less talent and teams have lost with more talent.


To listen to some they think this team is overachieving with the players on this roster.

Last year this team won 36 or 37 games with less talent playing. JO was injured numerous games, Tinsley was gone after a certain point in the season, Daniels was playing injured, Diener was the PG, Ike never found his game after he returned from injury, etc. Since last season, the PG spot was addressed with Ford and Jack, Rasho was acquired to allow Foster and Murphy to play their position of PF, and Rush and Hibbert was drafted to fill 2 positions of need, and Daniels is having a great season; and yet this team has only won "11" games with more playing talent.

Why is that? I really don't need an answer b/c I've read all the excuses from the Sally Sunshiners. Expectations are so low from the Sunshiners that if the Pacers never won another game this season it would be excused away as ok. It's not ok, it's not the way it is b/c........ fill in excuse. This team has beaten the Lakers and Boston once and almost beat Boston a 2nd time. There is enough talent on this team to have a record that is better than what it has and better than what it was last year. If not, then Bird has failed in his job... plain and simple.

Hicks
12-31-2008, 03:16 PM
Jay,

The difference is that your view assumed Dunleavy would be playing, hence why it was and continues to be pessimistic. :-p

Anthem
12-31-2008, 03:22 PM
Jay,

The difference is that your view assumed Dunleavy would be playing, hence why it was and continues to be pessimistic. :-p
Actually, I believe Jay and I both predicted that Dun would be playing but would regress, and neither of us expected the contributions Quis has given us. We're getting far more out of our SG spot than I anticipated, regardless of the player.

Anthem
12-31-2008, 03:24 PM
Who's available exactly that everyone's dying to have?

I can't wait to see Eddie Jordan lead this same bunch of players to 50 wins next year. :laugh:
Exactly.

The funny thing is that I wouldn't be surprised if Carlisle got another run once JOB's contract is up.

BillS
12-31-2008, 03:25 PM
Eventually, Jimmy's scheme will prove unnecessary. It's not really a "Playoff" system. No one wins seven game-series (seres? serieses?) shooting 25 threes a night. But during our franchise's (hopeful) transition back into a legitimate NBA franchise with legitimate NBA talent, his gimmicky system is keeping us competitive. Sure the W/L record doesn't support that, but everyone from CP3 to John Hollinger is continually singing the song that we're much better than our record and that "that's a good team." When it comes to our players, I honestly don't think we're any better than 10-21. But I do think Jim O'Brien and his style is better than that. And it will have some effect on the W/L record before these 82 games are over.

I agree with the whole thing but with this part especially.

Hicks
12-31-2008, 03:29 PM
Actually, I believe Jay and I both predicted that Dun would be playing but would regress, and neither of us expected the contributions Quis has given us. We're getting far more out of our SG spot than I anticipated, regardless of the player.

I doubt you predicted he would be giving the Pacers 0 mpg.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 03:30 PM
Jay,

The difference is that your view assumed Dunleavy would be playing, hence why it was and continues to be pessimistic. :-p

Didn't we do that at the end of training camp? He was clearly going to be out "for a while" at that point.

I don't think I'm a pessimist, I just don't like our backcourt, except for Rush, or our frontcourt, except for Granger and Hibbert.

:D

Lastly, while nobody likes to see a player get injured, I think that many of the predictions every year are inflated because they assume no major, unforseen injury. Even if we could not have predicted that Dunleavy would miss every game so far (except for what, 10 minutes of one preseason game and he still wasn't even practicing when that occurred?), there should be some expectation of occasional injuries to rotation players and even a long-term injury to a rotation player. Everybody has to face that issue.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 03:36 PM
Further, while I like Dunleavy, I don't know that his presence contributes to many incremental wins. Marquis Daniels is no Dunleavy, but he's stepped up in a big way to fill most of the gap statistically (as our team PPG and opponent's PPG are both down slightly from last year). How many more games would this team have won with Dunleavy instead of Daniels? A couple? That's still a 29/30 win pace.

JayRedd
12-31-2008, 04:15 PM
Marquis Daniels is no Dunleavy, but he's stepped up in a big way to fill most of the gap statistically

"Statistically" isn't our problem. Anyone can put up numbers in this system. It's a wide-open, freelancing, offensive players wet dream.

It's Dunleavy's presence as a reliable ball-handler and offense initiator that we're missing. I'm not going to put a W/L value on what the absence of his presence has caused because I'd obviously just be making it up...But Daniels is what he is: A finisher. He doesn't make anything happen aside from his own points. I'm not criticizing him for that -- it's a fantastic and much-needed component for this team.

But the "closer" and "finishing out games" problem is not something that is helped greatly by Marquis Daniels. His main role in this offense is to find holes in the defense and exploit them. Whether that is through his own penetration or his uncanny ability to make subtle cuts that make him seemingly appear out of nowhere in open space in the paint, it's not something that is a reliable late-game weapon. His skills in finding space could be more of a weapon if we had more able ball-handlers who could dribble and make things happen on the perimeter and then find people adeptly and instantaneously when they found that space, but we really don't. TJ really isn't that guy and seems to have trouble creating passing angles. Danny's improved in that area, but certainly more accustomed to making offense for himself than others still -- and is really still in a catch-and-shoot mindset much of the time. Jack is not a traditional PG and can seemingly only go "north/south" to the hoop and not do any "east/west" stuff that makes the defense react and create new attack angles (he's head of steam to the basket or swing pass to the wing, basically).

Mike, on the other hand, is that guy.

When he gets the ball on the perimeter, he dribbles side to side. He attacks with two dribbles, then pulls back. He slowly meanders above the top of the key then makes two hard dribbles right and throws a ball reversal back to the top of the key. He dribbles to the elbow, picks up his dribble, pivots twice, then finds a guy cutting baseline.

In short, he does a boat load of stuff with the ball in his hands that allows -- nay, forces -- offensive player movement and defender reactions. He "changes the chess board" of where everyone is standing.

No one we have right now playing does any of those things at anywhere nearly the same level. All our offense is perimeter passing and drives/kick-outs. It's predictable and all our ball-handlers are redundant when they try to make something happen -- (1) drive hard at the hoop and either pull up or try to finish at the rim, or (2) get stopped by a second help defender and kick out to the perimeter. No one does the nuanced, stop-and-go, shifty stuff that MDJ does, all of which is stuff that freezes defenders and allows our guys to exploit the space and stagnation that this creates.

If MDJ was here, our end game lineup would almost certainly be TJ/Dun/Quis/Danny/Murphy (or Foster/Rasho at C). Not only would it force teams to play our little man game late, but it would give us two good ball-handlers in TJ and Dun on the perimeter to make things happen, plus Danny and Quis who could each "make something happen for themselves" when things start breaking down, along with Murph/Granger/Dun always spreading the floor for TJ/Daniels penetration or Daniels to find open space for a nice pass/quick finish from (most likely) Dunleavy.

That's the reality as I see it. We miss a lot of the stuff that Mike Dunleavy did for our team. He was our "point forward" all last season. You can talk all you want about how "we have more talent cause we had Diener at point and now have TJ and Jack," but, in actuality, we had Dunleavy and Diener running the offense last year and now we just have one of either TJ or Jack, neither of whom seems to really "get it" yet (not to mention the fact that our talent deficient perimeter often forces them to play together with Jack as SG.)

I'd love to hear what types of plays people think JO'B should be calling in end-game situations when he has TJ/Jack/Quis/Danny/Murph on the floor. Cause, as much as yall want the unproven legend that is Josh McRoberts out there, that's our best lineup. And it's indeed gross. It's mismatched and none of those guys games really complement one another well.

The way I see it is that this offense is built around Mike Dunleavy being prominent. Him and Daniels are not interchangeable and Daniels inspired play this season does not make what MDJ does expendable. They are two players who do completely different things as basketball players.* (These three sentences are really the only main point of this entire thing. if anyone is still reading.)

And even though Danny has evolved over the past 30 games to a point that he's undeniably "better" than Mike Dunleavy ever has been or could be, it still doesn't make a person magically appear on our roster who can do the things that Mike Dunleavy did last season. Frankly, we just don't have one.

So our end game play is the exact same as our mid-2nd Quarter play. We have no "go to" plays. We just play the same way we've been playing all game and hope it works out -- hope someone "makes a play." Danny has shown some ability to lead a pick-and-roll, but not really enough to make it a last play strategy. We've got nothing to go to -- because the only thing we do consistently well is run this offensive system and hope shots go down and drives to the hoop surface. Sometimes it works (Houston, Lakers, Philly) and often it makes us look helpless (pick one).

But I really think it's the best chance we have to win. Unless you wanna start running TJ/Murphy screen/rolls, go to Rasho in the post or clear out 1-4 low for Danny.

And sorry this got retardly long.





* Much like Danny and Pippen, Naptime.

Anthem
12-31-2008, 04:32 PM
I doubt you predicted he would be giving the Pacers 0 mpg.
I figured Quis would be giving us 0 mpg and Dun would be giving us 30+.

duke dynamite
12-31-2008, 04:34 PM
I figured Quis would be giving us 0 mpg and Dun would be giving us 30+.
Knowin JOB, just wait until Mike is healthy. That will be the story...lol

count55
12-31-2008, 04:57 PM
"Statistically" isn't our problem. Anyone can put up numbers in this system. It's a wide-open, freelancing, offensive players wet dream.

It's Dunleavy's presence as a reliable ball-handler and offense initiator that we're missing. I'm not going to put a W/L value on what the absence of his presence has caused because I'd obviously just be making it up...But Daniels is what he is: A finisher. He doesn't make anything happen aside from his own points. I'm not criticizing him for that -- it's a fantastic and much-needed component for this team.

But the "closer" and "finishing out games" problem is not something that is helped greatly by Marquis Daniels. His main role in this offense is to find holes in the defense and exploit them. Whether that is through his own penetration or his uncanny ability to make subtle cuts that make him seemingly appear out of nowhere in open space in the paint, it's not something that is a reliable late-game weapon. His skills in finding space could be more of a weapon if we had more able ball-handlers who could dribble and make things happen on the perimeter and then find people adeptly and instantaneously when they found that space, but we really don't. TJ really isn't that guy and seems to have trouble creating passing angles. Danny's improved in that area, but certainly more accustomed to making offense for himself than others still -- and is really still in a catch-and-shoot mindset much of the time. Jack is not a traditional PG and can seemingly only go "north/south" to the hoop and not do any "east/west" stuff that makes the defense react and create new attack angles (he's head of steam to the basket or swing pass to the wing, basically).

Mike, on the other hand, is that guy.

When he gets the ball on the perimeter, he dribbles side to side. He attacks with two dribbles, then pulls back. He slowly meanders above the top of the key then makes two hard dribbles right and throws a ball reversal back to the top of the key. He dribbles to the elbow, picks up his dribble, pivots twice, then finds a guy cutting baseline.

In short, he does a boat load of stuff with the ball in his hands that allows -- nay, forces -- offensive player movement and defender reactions. He "changes the chess board" of where everyone is standing.

No one we have right now playing does any of those things at anywhere nearly the same level. All our offense is perimeter passing and drives/kick-outs. It's predictable and all our ball-handlers are redundant when they try to make something happen -- (1) drive hard at the hoop and either pull up or try to finish at the rim, or (2) get stopped by a second help defender and kick out to the perimeter. No one does the nuanced, stop-and-go, shifty stuff that MDJ does, all of which is stuff that freezes defenders and allows our guys to exploit the space and stagnation that this creates.

If MDJ was here, our end game lineup would almost certainly be TJ/Dun/Quis/Danny/Murphy (or Foster/Rasho at C). Not only would it force teams to play our little man game late, but it would give us two good ball-handlers in TJ and Dun on the perimeter to make things happen, plus Danny and Quis who could each "make something happen for themselves" when things start breaking down, along with Murph/Granger/Dun always spreading the floor for TJ/Daniels penetration or Daniels to find open space for a nice pass/quick finish from (most likely) Dunleavy.

That's the reality as I see it. We miss a lot of the stuff that Mike Dunleavy did for our team. He was our "point forward" all last season. You can talk all you want about how "we have more talent cause we had Diener at point and now have TJ and Jack," but, in actuality, we had Dunleavy and Diener running the offense last year and now we just have one of either TJ or Jack, neither of whom seems to really "get it" yet (not to mention the fact that our talent deficient perimeter often forces them to play together with Jack as SG.)

I'd love to hear what types of plays people think JO'B should be calling in end-game situations when he has TJ/Jack/Quis/Danny/Murph on the floor. Cause, as much as yall want the unproven legend that is Josh McRoberts out there, that's our best lineup. And it's indeed gross. It's mismatched and none of those guys games really complement one another well.

The way I see it is that this offense is built around Mike Dunleavy being prominent. Him and Daniels are not interchangeable and Daniels inspired play this season does not make what MDJ does expendable. They are two players who do completely different things as basketball players.* (These three sentences are really the only main point of this entire thing. if anyone is still reading.)

And even though Danny has evolved over the past 30 games to a point that he's undeniably "better" than Mike Dunleavy ever has been or could be, it still doesn't make a person magically appear on our roster who can do the things that Mike Dunleavy did last season. Frankly, we just don't have one.

So our end game play is the exact same as our mid-2nd Quarter play. We have no "go to" plays. We just play the same way we've been playing all game and hope it works out -- hope someone "makes a play." Danny has shown some ability to lead a pick-and-roll, but not really enough to make it a last play strategy. We've got nothing to go to -- because the only thing we do consistently well is run this offensive system and hope shots go down and drives to the hoop surface. Sometimes it works (Houston, Lakers, Philly) and often it makes us look helpless (pick one).

But I really think it's the best chance we have to win. Unless you wanna start running TJ/Murphy screen/rolls, go to Rasho in the post or clear out 1-4 low for Danny.

And sorry this got retardly long.





* Much like Danny and Pippen, Naptime.

Brilliant

Putnam
12-31-2008, 05:19 PM
JayRedd's post is a credit to his insight, and makes me proud to be a Both Teamster. But this sentence makes me wonder:


I'm not going to put a W/L value on what the absence of his presence has caused because I'd obviously just be making it up.

Isn't making up the won / lost values of imaginary scenarios what you do for a living? Either way, Henry James would have approved of that phrasology ("the absence of his presence").

Spirit
12-31-2008, 08:28 PM
travmil if we fire JOB we give up on this season is all. Who takes over?Larry Bird.

Anthem
12-31-2008, 08:55 PM
I just wonder, because I went back to the preseason prediction threads and saw that everybody predicted 29 or more wins - and the vast majority over 35 wins, why so many people claim to have expected us to be so bad.
I can't find that thread, can you bump it? I wanted to see it too.

vnzla81
12-31-2008, 08:55 PM
couldn't agree more.

agreed

vnzla81
12-31-2008, 08:59 PM
He doesn't have talent my butt. Yeah they're not gonna win a title but they have enough talent to be better than they are. I don't even post on this board anymore because of this stupid JOB love affair that some of you have. JOB isn't even average as a coach. Calling JOB average is a complete insult to average coaches everywhere. His mind boggling decisions and late game substitutions are a joke. He doesn't have a go to play that will get you a bucket out of a timeout, and even if he did he'd draw it up for Jarrett Jack. He gives minutes to players that don't deserve them. I've made it clear that in my opinion JOB isn't even fit to coach in a YMCA youth league, and I've seen nothing out of him this season to change my mind.

agreed. he only makes plays for the point guards to go one vs one, do you guys remember tinsley last year at the end of games?

Big Smooth
12-31-2008, 10:13 PM
I don't see the point in firing JOB and I don't see Bird going there anytime soon. Not this season anyways. I agree with those who say he is a placeholder coach and while I probably don't think of him quite as highly as Uncle Buck does, I do think he is a decent NBA coach.

The Pacers are rebuilding and I don't think we will really see the fruits of that rebuilding for another couple years. I do like most of Bird's moves in the past off season and I believe one more solid off season like that will transform the P's back into a legit playoff team in the East. Right now we simply are not a playoff team. We are painfully close though and that is what frustrates the fans here and I do understand that. Being close in the 4th quarter of at least 2/3 of our losses, that just plain sucks. But I really do believe this team is compensating for an overall lack of talent/experience by playing some damn good team basketball and I think you have to give JOB credit for them playing well enough to hang with the likes of Boston, Cleveland and Los Angeles when quite frankly those teams should mop the floor with us.

Now I guess my point of view will be labeled as "making excuses" or being Sally Sunshine but really that isn't the way I think of it. I just feel it is a realistic assessment of the situation. For the first time since the post brawl playoff run in 2005, I feel good about the Pacers. The W/L record isn't there yet but I feel a sense of hope that we are working towards something bigger and better now.........whereas the last 3 years or so, I felt like not even watching a single game because it was the same old crap from the same old cast of bad characters......and I'm talking on the court too, not just off the court stuff.

So there is my nickel, I think I exceeded two cents. ;)

NashvilleKat
12-31-2008, 11:06 PM
In my opinion, JOB is probably not a championship caliber coach...however, I think he is excellent with our young players, teaching them solid fundamentals, getting them into an uptempo game which is the only way they have a chance to win, and it seems every game they play hard and do all they can to win. Sitting on the bench with JOB is Coach Harter, allegedly a defensive specialist...why aren't you calling for his head? JOB is getting everything out of these guys that they have to give....remember, three months ago most of the guys had never played a game together...let alone having to adjust to coachs run and gun style. Finally, look how long it's taken Cleveland, Atlanta, Boston, and Orlando to climb to the top of the Eastern conference...most of their teams were much worse than ours...downright awful...during their rebuilding years. Whether from trades or the draft, we're just one or two strong new players away from getting back to elite status. I think the core of our current team is pretty good and worth keeping.

Unclebuck
01-01-2009, 10:52 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090101/SPORTS04/901010398/1088/SPORTS04&template=printart


Can Pacers improve mental toughness in 2009?

By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com

The Indiana Pacers see themselves as being several late-game miscues and key injuries from hovering around the .500 mark.

Some on the outside see a team with its worst record at the end of December since the 1988-89 season, when they wrapped up the calendar year 5-22.

The Pacers (10-21) take a four-game losing streak into Friday's game at the New York Knicks.

Fingers usually start pointing as the losses mount, often in the direction of the coach, which helps explain why six already have been fired around the NBA this season.

The Pacers say coach Jim O'Brien can't be blamed for their lack of execution and mental toughness in key moments of close games.

"That's not fair because that's rarely the case," forward Danny Granger said. "In the NBA, you have so many coaching changes. It's easier to put it on the coach when a lot of times it's the players. That's how the situation is here. It's the players, not the coach."

O'Brien said earlier that he is not worried about his job status because he wasn't expected to immediately lead the Pacers to 50 victories when he was hired in May 2007. Team president Larry Bird praised O'Brien's preparation and desire to improve the team last weekend.

Support from management, however, hasn't softened what has happened so far.

"Obviously it's tough on all of us, and I think he's done a pretty good job considering the circumstances," forward Jeff Foster said. "(Thirty-one) games where you're coming down to the wire and we're just making mistakes that the coaching staff has coached us not to make. We're having mental breakdowns.

"He's doing as well as can be expected, trying to stay positive and reinforce the things we're messing up on."

O'Brien doesn't easily accept losing, regardless of the opponent or circumstances. His postgame news conferences are engaging and personable when the Pacers win. His responses are usually short and bland when they lose.

O'Brien has remained detailed in his preparation. He often puts players through lengthy film sessions before practicing after losses. He treats game-day shootarounds like regular practices, meaning players tape up and scrimmage.

"Every loss is difficult until you have a chance to break down the video and look at what has happened and then you figure out how you can improve and what your teaching plan is going to be for the next practice," O'Brien said. "You get on with your life and you forget about what happened in the past."

The Pacers' effort, a key element that kept many fans away from Conseco Fieldhouse the past couple of years, can't be questioned.

They have beaten Houston, Boston and the Los Angeles Lakers. Only six of their 21 losses have been by more than 10 points. Their past four losses have been by a total of 12 points.

It's how they lose -- a league-high nine double-digit blown leads -- and who beat them that cause concern.

"I think this is a great opportunity to help a franchise turn things around," O'Brien said. "I think we're headed in the right direction and I believe there will be dramatic improvements throughout 2009. I think my whole focus on an hourly basis is to make sure that happens."

Saturday's game at 6 p.m.

The Pacers moved up their game Saturday against Sacramento to 6 p.m. so fans wouldn't miss the Indianapolis Colts' playoff game that starts at 8 p.m.

Brad8888
01-01-2009, 12:13 PM
In light of the results so far, the team is being prepared correctly for most games. We play well enough to win nearly every game. Good job by O'Brien and his staff on that front.

What is not being done is a rotation of players with a higher level of recognition by the coaches of which players are actually playing well at a given point in the game, and not just substituting according to a set formula. This is often difficult to balance with the need for going deeper into the bench on a consistent basis.

Also, during games there needs to be a better sense on the part of the coaching staff of when things are getting out of control and why, with better timing of timeouts and any associated substitutions. As our players get gassed, they tend to make more mental errors and play with more of a sense of desperation. The players are also becoming less confident and more tentative at times as our streak has continued, and understandably so.

In a nutshell, we have a good coaching staff for game preparation. What we need for getting over the hump is a coaching staff that can manage substitutions and call timeouts for the purposes of controlling our players better and changing game momentum.

We have been spoiled over the years with Larry Brown, Larry Bird / (Rick Carlisle), and Rick Carlisle himself who were good both at game preparation and game management. Control freaks? Yes. Was it the time for each to go when they did? Yes. Do we need someone like them to rebuild more effectively than we currently seem to be? I believe so. Who would that be? That would be a tough one to answer. Best candidate as a former Pacer? If he would come out of broadcasting (which I doubt), Clark Kellogg has a thorough understanding of the game, which is what leads to his effectiveness as a broadcaster. I believe that our exposure to Clark over the years has enhanced the understanding of basketball both in our state and across the nation from both his Pacers and his NCAA broadcasts. Would he want to become a coach? Unlikely at this point, and if he did he might choose THE Ohio State University, his alma mater.

Will O'Brien last here? Likely. Will we continue our Groundhog Day performances? Hopefully not. Can we win more games than we have? Without a doubt! Go Pacers!!!!!!!!

Bball
01-01-2009, 12:41 PM
I've always been of the belief if you have a 'talent deficit' speeding up the game is the last thing you want to do. I'm seeing comments like the above where people are saying that an uptempo game is their only chance to win. So which is it?

That said, I don't care how much of the shot clock you use as long as you get a good shot AND that you play the situation (IOW sometimes I DO care how much of the shot clock you use). If you have a lead that is starting to dwindle, you don't want to allow an opposing team to totally grab the momentum by wasting a possession and taking a quick shot... It also doesn't hurt just to burn some clock in that situation. You don't want steamrolled. Value each possession and understand the game situation. I don't think we always do a good job of that.

...and play defense....

Jonathan
01-01-2009, 01:35 PM
Larry Bird.

That would make sense but is Bird capable to handle both positions right now this early in career as a GM? I say NO!

Justin Tyme
01-01-2009, 02:09 PM
Larry Bird.


I'd love to see Bird have to coach the team he has assembled... just like Zeke had to with the Knicks! We all know how that turned out.


For those that have forgotten or don't know, Bird basically let Carlisle coach the offense and Dick Harter coach the defense. Bird said numerous times over the years they did the coaching. He was successful as a coach because of it.

Bird will never coach again, and my guess is after his GM days with the Pacers are done he'll never be a GM again either.

Unclebuck
01-02-2009, 09:48 AM
I am considering a in depth post about why I think JOB is a good coach - and I still might get around to it. Really though I think this is all I need to say. O'Brien is the one who basically cut and got rid of Glenn Robinson while in Philly - he pretty much ended his career. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

Really though the fact that JOB is the primary reason JT isn't playing this season - that is all the evidence I need that O'Brien is an excellent coach. Coach will always have a special place in my heart for ushering Jamaal out the door.

Brad8888
01-02-2009, 11:34 AM
UB,

I generally agree with you on most things Pacers (no proof here yet due to my short tenure as a posting member) based on my longtime reading of your postings when I came here as a lurker for years. Respectfully, I would submit the following for consideration:

What about the legions of season ticketholders who demanded of the Pacers that both JO and JT had to go no matter what during focus groups, complaints to ticket reps, and negotiating ticket deals for this season that went on prior to the end of last season? Do you really believe that OB is the primary reason that JT is not playing? There is a remarkable similarity (on the court) between the late game offensive play of Jarrett Jack and what we saw from Jamaal not long before he was benched. At times, it works for Jarrett, just like at times it worked for Jamaal. I believe that OB was forced to stop playing JT due to pressure from TPTB, not of his own volition, and that the player who most embodies the same offensive tendencies that Jamaal had is Jack, which is why he is used as our game finishing point guard despite his penchant for making mental mistakes, especially in pressure situations.

Unclebuck
01-02-2009, 11:47 AM
UB,

What about the legions of season ticketholders who demanded of the Pacers that both JO and JT had to go no matter what during focus groups, complaints to ticket reps, and negotiating ticket deals for this season that went on prior to the end of last season?
Do you really believe that OB is the primary reason that JT is not playing?

There is a remarkable similarity (on the court) between the late game offensive play of Jarrett Jack and what we saw from Jamaal not long before he was benched. At times, it works for Jarrett, just like at times it worked for Jamaal. I believe that OB was forced to stop playing JT due to pressure from TPTB, not of his own volition, and that the player who most embodies the same offensive tendencies that Jamaal had is Jack, which is why he is used as our game finishing point guard despite his penchant for making mental mistakes, especially in pressure situations.


Let me address each of your points -I think O'Brien is the primary reason but certainly not the only rason JT isn't playing. The other reasons being what you site and Bird

I can see where you are coming from comparing Jack and Tinsley - however, they are vastly different players. Tinsley has point guard skills, Jack does not. Jack plays defense Jamaal does not. Jack plays hard all the time Jamaal does not. Jack plays hurt, JT does not. They are vastly different players. Also Jack is a backup. - Overall I don't see any simarities between the two

Justin Tyme
01-02-2009, 11:56 AM
I am considering a in depth post about why I think JOB is a good coach - and I still might get around to it. Really though I think this is all I need to say. O'Brien is the one who basically cut and got rid of Glenn Robinson while in Philly - he pretty much ended his career. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

Really though the fact that JOB is the primary reason JT isn't playing this season - that is all the evidence I need that O'Brien is an excellent coach. Coach will always have a special place in my heart for ushering Jamaal out the door.



I would truly hope the criteria of being a good coach is more than how JO'B has dealt with Robinson and Tinsley. That's like saying Zeke was a good coach b/c how he handled players by buying them out.

The Big Dawg probably thanks O'Brien for his leaving Philly where he went on to be able to be on a championship Spurs team and wears a championship ring.

Since86
01-02-2009, 12:13 PM
JOb being the main reason why JT isn't playing? Come on, you really can't believe that.

After watching the single worst performance of a player during the PHO game, and then Jamaal starting and playing large mins the two games after, then getting a non-supension suspsion, only to start and play 35mins the next night tells me all I need to know about JOb and his discipline with JT.

With Bird cleaning house in regards to other players with discipline problems, or just needing to get out of Indy in general, how you think he didn't pull the plug confuses me.

For all the feel good quotes Jim had when he was hired on about earning playing time, and how he wasn't gonna deal with bad behavior on/off the court, he sure hasn't lived up to it. With him playing JT after PHO, with no recourse other than a non-suspension suspension, and finding out JO wasn't practicing, while starting and playing shows he's all talk.

If we set up a list for coaches and ranked them, he's definately at the lower end of spectrum.

ChicagoJ
01-02-2009, 11:01 PM
Good grief.

I can't wait for the Pacers to hire a coach that UB doesn't agree with 100% of the time. ( :D )

Just to throw a tangent, here's my ranking of all-time Pacers coaches.

1. Slick
2. Brownie (not that I liked him, but you can't argue with his success)
3. Dr. Jack
4. McKinney
5. Bo Hill
6. Harter/Carlisle (we all know Bird didn't really coach them.)
7. O'Brien
8. Staverman
9. Carlisle, solo
10. Versace
11. Zeke
12. Irvine

Come on, this is the organization where Versace is not in the "bottom two". It is easy to throw O'Brien in the middle of the pack when you look at the bottom four or five coaches in team history.

O'Brien is neither the problem nor the solution. Which is actually true for a large number of NBA coaches. But some of those guys never get a decent roster (Wittman, Randy) and others are overrated because they've generally had good rosters (Johnson, Avery).

count55
01-02-2009, 11:08 PM
Good grief.

I can't wait for the Pacers to hire a coach that UB doesn't agree with 100% of the time. ( :D )

Just to throw a tangent, here's my ranking of all-time Pacers coaches.

1. Slick
2. Brownie (not that I liked him, but you can't argue with his success)
3. Dr. Jack
4. McKinney
5. Bo Hill
6. Harter/Carlisle (we all know Bird didn't really coach them.)
7. O'Brien
8. Staverman
9. Carlisle, solo
10. Versace
11. Zeke
12. Irvine

Come on, this is the organization where Versace is not in the "bottom two". It is easy to throw O'Brien in the middle of the pack when you look at the bottom four or five coaches in team history.

O'Brien is neither the problem nor the solution. Which is actually true for a large number of NBA coaches. But some of those guys never get a decent roster (Wittman, Randy) and others are overrated because they've generally had good rosters (Johnson, Avery).

1. Brown
2. Slick
3. Bird
4(tie) Carlisle/Ramsay/Obie
7. McKinney
8. Bo Hill
9. Staverman
10. Versace
11. Irvine
12. Thomas

(Irvine never had any talent, but was horrible. Zeke actually destroyed talent.)

pianoman
01-02-2009, 11:11 PM
I had to get it off my chest. I like JOb and everything, and think he's a decent coach, but i don't know how much more i can take of him being our head coach. I really don't like the idea of firing a coach during the season, but i think that if this team keeps losing games that are so close, then a change is needed on the bench.

I really liked Avery Johnson in Dallas. Ever since he was fired, I wanted him to come to indiana. I think his style of play is exciting to watch, and defensive minded. I'm not freaking out here calling for obrien's head, what i'm saying is I think AJ would be a much better fit for this team. Anybody agree?

tora tora
01-02-2009, 11:13 PM
There's no point, this team is far from being a "contender" regardless of who's coaching. Let Jim finish his job.

MillerTime
01-02-2009, 11:33 PM
I agree, im not happy with JOB at all, but we have to think about how long his contract is remaining and how much money he is due? Does anyone know?

I also like Avery, im totally for getting him. But I think it all depends on JOB's contract, the Pacers organization isnt going to through money around for coaches. Avery's style would be would be totally different from JOB's. Avery is a defensive minded coach, and JOB is just all over the place

travmil
01-02-2009, 11:34 PM
He doesn't have talent my butt. Yeah they're not gonna win a title but they have enough talent to be better than they are. I don't even post on this board anymore because of this stupid JOB love affair that some of you have. JOB isn't even average as a coach. Calling JOB average is a complete insult to average coaches everywhere. His mind boggling decisions and late game substitutions are a joke. He doesn't have a go to play that will get you a bucket out of a timeout, and even if he did he'd draw it up for Jarrett Jack. He gives minutes to players that don't deserve them. I've made it clear that in my opinion JOB isn't even fit to coach in a YMCA youth league, and I've seen nothing out of him this season to change my mind.

Tonights finish sort of makes this look like **** doesn't it? Oh well Im willing to man up and admit that they didn't completely suck in the 4th and that JOB was at least part of the reason for that. It is only one game though...

pianoman
01-02-2009, 11:36 PM
I'm all for JOB finishing out his contract and everything, but i'd love for Avery to succeed him.

idioteque
01-02-2009, 11:40 PM
Why would Avery come to Indiana?

The Suns will likely be in the market for a coach soon. I think there is a good chance Detroit will be, too. Popovich and Sloan aren't getting any younger and the same goes for Phil Jackson. Hell, I could even see someone spurning us for the Golden State job.

Coop
01-02-2009, 11:41 PM
So much whining about the coaching. It's really growing tiresome. John Wooden could coach this team and we still wouldn't be .500. Everyone needs to calm down and just let the rebuilding take its course.

ChicagoJ
01-02-2009, 11:42 PM
1. Brown
2. Slick
3. Bird
4(tie) Carlisle/Ramsay/Obie
7. McKinney
8. Bo Hill
9. Staverman
10. Versace
11. Irvine
12. Thomas

(Irvine never had any talent, but was horrible. Zeke actually destroyed talent.)

Look, I'm no fan of Thomas, and I'll give credit to Reggie and Jalen for this, but he made the playoffs all three years and the first couple of years they probably should not have. And I think he did develop talent - JO and Tinsley, Harringon, even Artest made much more progress under him than under any other coach before or after that. Still his game-time coaching would put him near the bottom of any respectable list, but there were some positives from his era. With Irvine, there were none.

Justin Tyme
01-02-2009, 11:43 PM
JO'B's contract runs through the 09-10 season. Same as Bird's contract. IIRC, JO'B's contract was for 3 mil a year. I could be wrong, and if I am please correct me.

travmil
01-02-2009, 11:45 PM
There's no point, this team is far from being a "contender" regardless of who's coaching. Let Jim finish his job.

Definitely not a contender for a title, but I think they are actually pretty close to being a midlevel eastern conference team, 4 to 6 seed range. I think that's also a big part of why people are a bit upset. They see all of these close losses and see that the P's really aren't all that bad they just need one or two more plays per game to go their way and wonder why it never happens.

MillerTime
01-02-2009, 11:48 PM
JO'B's contract runs through the 09-10 season. Same as Bird's contract. IIRC, JO'B's contract was for 3 mil a year. I could be wrong, and if I am please correct me.

$3 mill a season??????????????????? WOW! Did Walsh give him that contract?

count55
01-02-2009, 11:51 PM
Look, I'm no fan of Thomas, and I'll give credit to Reggie and Jalen for this, but he made the playoffs all three years and the first couple of years they probably should not have. And I think he did develop talent - JO and Tinsley, Harringon, even Artest made much more progress under him than under any other coach before or after that. Still his game-time coaching would put him near the bottom of any respectable list, but there were some positives from his era. With Irvine, there were none.

"Destroyed" may have been the wrong word. He severely impaired talent with his in-game coaching. I thought all three of his teams underachieved.

BlueNGold
01-02-2009, 11:58 PM
I remember all the whining about Rick Carlisle. Personally, I never really understood that. I do understand the displeasure with watching this joke of a system.

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 12:02 AM
I remember all the whining about Rick Carlisle. Personally, I never really understood that. I do understand the displeasure with watching this joke of a system.

If you look at our offense we have abolutely no one in the middle. Theres 5 players on the perimeter. If we're lucky, we'll have Foster or Hibbert near the free throw line, otherwise we're a straight jump shooting team. Our one dimensional offense is a joke

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 12:10 AM
Tonights finish sort of makes this look like **** doesn't it? Oh well Im willing to man up and admit that they didn't completely suck in the 4th and that JOB was at least part of the reason for that. It is only one game though...

We did completely suck in the 4th and a lot of it was Obies fault. What game were you watching? Tonight was one of Obie's worst games as a coach, I have a feeling that if he lost tonight he woulda been done at the end of the season. I'm afraid as of now Bird likes Obie too much to fire him.

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 12:12 AM
If you look at our offense we have abolutely no one in the middle. Theres 5 players on the perimeter. If we're lucky, we'll have Foster or Hibbert near the free throw line, otherwise we're a straight jump shooting team. Our one dimensional offense is a joke

Our "system" on offense does tend to put up some points, so it's not all bad. It's really the inability, at times, to convert tough shots in the fourth quarter using the "system" and the inability, almost all the time, to stop anybody in the fourth quarter.

count55
01-03-2009, 12:14 AM
We did completely suck in the 4th and a lot of it was Obies fault. What game were you watching? Tonight was one of Obie's worst games as a coach, I have a feeling that if he lost tonight he woulda been done at the end of the season. I'm afraid as of now Bird likes Obie too much to fire him.

Describe, exactly, how it was mostly his fault.

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 12:17 AM
Our "system" on offense does tend to put up some points, so it's not all bad. It's really the inability, at times, to convert tough shots in the fourth quarter using the "system" and the inability, almost all the time, to stop anybody in the fourth quarter.

I dont have faith in it no more. Its good through out 3 quarters but after that we're just stagnant, the defense figures us our pretty easy. We have our Cs standing at the free throw line where other teams are just giving them 3-5 feet to do nothing

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 12:20 AM
Describe, exactly, how it was mostly his fault.

well heres a though. NY cut our 10 point lead down in the 4th, went on a 7-0 run and no timeout was called. A coach has to call a timeout to calm the crowd down and try to cool the other team down

How about taking Hibbert off in the first quarter when he was 4-4 in 8 mins then give him a little mins in the 3rd then pull him out for the rest of the game. How does that make sense? Hibbert earned his mins today, and JOB didnt award him

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 12:23 AM
Describe, exactly, how it was mostly his fault.

He had **** poor subsitutions. Whenever the Knicks would go on a run, he wouldn't call a timeout, he'd let the crowd get into the game and the Knicks keep the momentum till a timeout off a turnover.

He kept both Daniels and Ford in the game even when they'd miss shot, after shot, after shot. the best coaching decision he has made all season is to not call a timeout for our final shot, soley because his input surely woulda screwed us over.

We had what, an 11 point lead going into the 4th, and managed to blow it to one of the least talented teams in the NBA. Our advantage of the game was height, I think Al Harrington might be the Knicks tallest active player, yet Hibbert who dominated when on the court, got subbed out for Foster who really didn't play all that well defensively, and Rasho, who could post up every player on the Knicks roster didn't play at all.

Then, in the 4th, because Obie went small ball, Granger was forced to guard Harrington in the post. Harrington scored about 10, probably more, of his points in the 4th because Obie wouldn't put in a big to defend him. Possession after possession, he would just post up all the smaller guys who stood no chance, and Obie did nothing about it. If it wasn't for Jack, we would have gotten destroyed tonight.

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 12:24 AM
I dont have faith in it no more. Its good through out 3 quarters but after that we're just stagnant, the defense figures us our pretty easy. We have our Cs standing at the free throw line where other teams are just giving them 3-5 feet to do nothing

How many games does it take for everyone to realize that his system does not wear well in the 4th quarter? Why anyone is wondering anymore is a mystery to me.

We are 5th in the league in turnovers for a reason. That is a big reason why we are not playing well. Why do we have so many turnovers? Because the system is a mess OR the players simply are not good enough to execute it. We are NOT that young of a team, folks.

Anyone remember how Rick Carlisle used to harp on turnovers? Well, Rick has more talent than Obie for sure, but has his team above .600 with an aging Jason Kidd. For some reason, I seriously doubt this team would be worse off with Rick Carlisle. JMHOAA.

count55
01-03-2009, 12:55 AM
He had **** poor subsitutions. Whenever the Knicks would go on a run, he wouldn't call a timeout, he'd let the crowd get into the game and the Knicks keep the momentum till a timeout off a turnover.

He kept both Daniels and Ford in the game even when they'd miss shot, after shot, after shot. the best coaching decision he has made all season is to not call a timeout for our final shot, soley because his input surely woulda screwed us over.

We had what, an 11 point lead going into the 4th, and managed to blow it to one of the least talented teams in the NBA. Our advantage of the game was height, I think Al Harrington might be the Knicks tallest active player, yet Hibbert who dominated when on the court, got subbed out for Foster who really didn't play all that well defensively, and Rasho, who could post up every player on the Knicks roster didn't play at all.

Then, in the 4th, because Obie went small ball, Granger was forced to guard Harrington in the post. Harrington scored about 10, probably more, of his points in the 4th because Obie wouldn't put in a big to defend him. Possession after possession, he would just post up all the smaller guys who stood no chance, and Obie did nothing about it. If it wasn't for Jack, we would have gotten destroyed tonight.

First, I do think Hibbert should've gotten more minutes, but don't necessarily think it was going to have a huge impact on the game. He was considerably less effective in the second half than he was in the first.

Of course, he kept Daniels in the game. Who's he going to play? I'm no fan of Marquis, but he went 1 of 6 on good shots in the fourth quarter. He missed three 13 footers, a 19 footer, and a 5 footer. This is a guy who has shot over 50% on 2 point attempts this year.

This win tonight over one of the "least talented teams in the league" cut their lead over us to 1 1/2 games. We are what our record says we are right now. There are no gimme victories, particularly on the road.

So, if the 6'8" 225lb Danny Granger is too small to guard the 6'9" 230lb Al Harrington, please tell me what "big" we were going to use to guard him. Are you suggesting Hibbert or Rasho or Murphy or Foster? With the possible exception of Foster, that just looks like a parade to the foul line to me.

As to the time outs, that's always a judgment call. The Pacers responded to the first 7-0 run by pushing the lead back to seven without calling a timeout. An automatic time out is not always the answer. The only real answer to a run is a bucket and a stop.

EDIT: I am not saying that O'Brien is perfect, and I don't agree with everything that he does. I simply don't buy that everything is his fault. The players on the floor have to execute and hit shots. The team as a whole isn't very good, and there are very few, if any, coaches who would post a much better record than they have now. If O'Brien were fired today, I have a high degree of confidence that it would be fewer than 30 games into the next permanent coach's tenure that this incessant *****ing started all over again.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-03-2009, 01:04 AM
I don't like the hate for JOB.

How about the thought that Hibbert was winded in such a fast paced game like this? We know when big men get winded they start to reach, and that leads to fouls, putting our team in the penalty. Add the fact we have the second of a back to back tomorrow vs the Kings, where Roy might be more effective.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a timeout right before the Knicks had the ball? Maybe JOB told them ahead of time, this is what we do on defense and this is what we do when we get the ball back. Don't call a timeout and let them set up, give it to Jack because he's feeling it, and clear it out. If he makes it we win, if he misses it's a good shot because he's carrying us all quarter. Jack has to love the trust JOB put in him.

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 01:12 AM
First, I do think Hibbert should've gotten more minutes, but don't necessarily think it was going to have a huge impact on the game. He was considerably less effective in the second half than he was in the first.

Of course, he kept Daniels in the game. Who's he going to play? I'm no fan of Marquis, but he went 1 of 6 on good shots in the fourth quarter. He missed three 13 footers, a 19 footer, and a 5 footer. This is a guy who has shot over 50% on 2 point attempts this year.

This win tonight over one of the "least talented teams in the league" cut their lead over us to 1 1/2 games. We are what our record says we are right now. There are no gimme victories, particularly on the road.

So, if the 6'8" 225lb Danny Granger is too small to guard the 6'9" 230lb Al Harrington, please tell me what "big" we were going to use to guard him. Are you suggesting Hibbert or Rasho or Murphy or Foster? With the possible exception of Foster, that just looks like a parade to the foul line to me.

As to the time outs, that's always a judgment call. The Pacers responded to the first 7-0 run by pushing the lead back to seven without calling a timeout. An automatic time out is not always the answer. The only real answer to a run is a bucket and a stop.

EDIT: I am not saying that O'Brien is perfect, and I don't agree with everything that he does. I simply don't buy that everything is his fault. The players on the floor have to execute and hit shots. The team as a whole isn't very good, and there are very few, if any, coaches who would post a much better record than they have now. If O'Brien were fired today, I have a high degree of confidence that it would be fewer than 30 games into the next permanent coach's tenure that this incessant *****ing started all over again.

Hibbert may not have been cold in the second half if he played more than 7 minutes in the 1st. Harrington looked a lot bigger than Granger on the court, I think he is closer to 6'10 though, and he seems longer - either way, Granger can't guard him in the post. I would have been fine with subbing Ford out, who was 1 of 9 shooting, with more TO's than assists, and putting McRoberts in to guard Harrington.

I don't think everything is the coaches fault either, but when you blow 4th quarter leads every game, and every game he makes very questionable subsitutions to the point that other teams announcers are calling him out on it, then something is wrong. I for one, believe this team is more talented than a lot of people on this site think. I don't think we are great by any means, but we would be a lot better if Obie didn't sub out players when they are hot, never call timeouts when other teams are making huge runs, and actually drew up plays that work. Have you noticed that about 75% of the time, when he draws up a play, right out of the timeout, we turn it over or get a terrible shot. His plays have never worked, pay attention next time and you'll see.

This Pacers team has proven to have the talent, by being in games in the 4th. Its the coaches job to draw up good players to finish them out. The other day, we were in a game, I forget who we were playing, but early in the 3rd or 4th the other team got into foul trouble. I mean like 4 minutes into the quarter we were in the bonus. For 5 straight minutes we took nothing but jumpers. Obie needs to yell at the guys to drive to the hoop and get to the line, we had a huge advantage and he didn't get our players into the game. Frankly, they should have known to do that also, but its the coaches job to make sure they do, when they don't. He didn't do that.

I have never thought a basketball coach lost games until Obie. I have never criticized a basketball coach until Obie. He is the only basketball coach that I have ever seen, that makes decisions like that and keeps his job. Jim O'Brien is the perfect hire for teams looking to lose. I promise you that if we had Avery Johnson as our coach we would be a much better team.

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 01:23 AM
Hibbert was taken out when he had it going...and then he went cold after being benched. I suppose when they play Harrington and Lee it's a bad matchup for us, but Granger (and even worse, Brandon Rush) should never have guarded the 245lb Al Harrington. That should have been Foster's job. David Lee is not tiny, but he's also not as physical on the block. Granger should have been on Lee and Foster on Harrington. McBob did not play well for the few minutes he was in, but 4 minutes is not enough time to even warm up. In a game against a team playing David Lee and Harrington, McBob should have been given more minutes.

As for the Knicks record, it's better than ours because of our schedule in November and most of December. We beat them because we are better even without Dunleavy.

As for the time-out, that would require an in-game adjustment. I do believe most coaches would have called a time-out, but the fact it was not called kind of fits JOb's style. It is what it is.<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

Dr. Goldfoot
01-03-2009, 01:38 AM
Just because your favorite player isn't getting 48 MPG doesn't make the coach bad. JOB has some weird rotations and it does seem that 50% (?) of the last second shots to end any of the four corners are taken by the same guy who dribbles the ball down the court.

JOB called the play "2-2-6" whatever that may be from the sidelines after the Pacers secured the rebound for the last play. He even had to yell it a few times to somebody. I was in the basement of my house in Indy and knew the play. It's safe to assume the 5 guys on the court did as well. No need for a timeout..... they had a play.


With all of that said I also hate JOB as the coach but some of you's need to calmicus downicus.

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 01:38 AM
Ok, here we have a contrast in styles, to put it lightly.

Which system/style do you prefer? Neither? Certainly not both.

Have at it.


Edit: Ricky supposedly is running more now. If anyone knows to what extent, please inform...

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 01:47 AM
Just because your favorite player isn't getting 48 MPG doesn't make the coach bad. JOB has some weird rotations and it does seem that 50% (?) of the last second shots to end any of the four corners are taken by the same guy who dribbles the ball down the court.

JOB called the play "2-2-6" whatever that may be from the sidelines after the Pacers secured the rebound for the last play. He even had to yell it a few times to somebody. I was in the basement of my house in Indy and knew the play. It's safe to assume the 5 guys on the court did as well. No need for a timeout..... they had a play.


With all of that said I also hate JOB as the coach but some of you's need to calmicus downicus.

I have taken a chill pill.

So, he barked a play out while people were racing around the court, totally out of position? I wondered why it was so difficult for this team to execute in the 4th quarter.

Raoul Duke
01-03-2009, 01:55 AM
****, I meant to vote for O'Brien. I like Carlisle I was just getting tired of the "I'm gonna open things up and let the players play talk" then he'd continue to call every single play. Don't really have strong opinions on either. Now both Larrys were great coaches.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-03-2009, 02:14 AM
I think a couple of things are being overlooked.

There are 14 real Pacers this year. 9 of them have never been on a winning NBA team. Danny played more minutes in his second season than 6 of them have in their entire careers (includes the rooks).

Only three players on this team have ever been past the first round of the playoffs (all were reserve/role players) and only two others (one was Danny's rookie season) have ever even been there. This is not a team of proven winners at this level.

Don't like JOB but let's be realistic.

Naptown_Seth
01-03-2009, 04:36 AM
I like winning. Rick has only 1 losing season. He's got 2 ECFs, 2 second rounds and other first round season, and now he's clearly headed for yet another winning season and possibly some advancement into the playoffs. And he has Dallas back to playing defense.

But on my list of Pacers coaches JOB is closer to the top than the bottom. Guys below him - Isiah, Hill, Versace all spring to mind. Rick, Bird and Brown are the main guys ahead of him. And Slick of course.

maragin
01-03-2009, 04:52 AM
Rick. Not even close.

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 05:13 AM
Rickkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

xtacy
01-03-2009, 06:47 AM
this comparison is an insult to carlisle.

D-BONE
01-03-2009, 08:22 AM
Voting RC b/c I prefer his overall approach. However, I honestly don't think he'd be doing anymore than JOB with what's in the cupboard here.

In fact, he might actually do less with our guys. The one area I was never impressed with about RC was his sideline demeanor and ability to relate to players.

True he had some real zingers to relate to (and I couldn't see behind the scenes), but I think JOB is probably better in tis area with a younger bunch. RC definitely rolls better with a more veteran squad.

count55
01-03-2009, 09:00 AM
Ok, here we have a contrast in styles, to put it lightly.

Which system/style do you prefer? Neither? Certainly not both.

Have at it.


Edit: Ricky supposedly is running more now. If anyone knows to what extent, please inform...

Dallas' "Pace Factor" (estimate of possessions per 48 minutes) is 91.6, which is slightly below the league average of 91.7 and ranks 17th this season.

It is lower than Rick's final year here, when the Pacers had a Pace factor of 92.7, which was 10th in the league and above the 91.9 league average. His earlier seasons with the Pacers (in chronological order) were 87.5 (26th), 87.2 (29th), and 89.7 (20th).

So, he's not slogging it out the way he was the first two years here, but he's not exactly running an up-tempo offense.


I like winning. Rick has only 1 losing season. He's got 2 ECFs, 2 second rounds and other first round season, and now he's clearly headed for yet another winning season and possibly some advancement into the playoffs. And he has Dallas back to playing defense.

But on my list of Pacers coaches JOB is closer to the top than the bottom. Guys below him - Isiah, Hill, Versace all spring to mind. Rick, Bird and Brown are the main guys ahead of him. And Slick of course.

And if Rick were still here, he'd likely be working on his third losing season. O'Brien has one ECF appearance, and currently only one full losing season. Using winning as a barometer assumes the same talent levels, which is certainly not accurate.

I basically consider Rick and Obie about equal in terms of quality. Both have good traits, and both have flaws. Rick is a little too set-piece for me, and O'Brien is a little too loose, offensively, for my taste. Neither is going to overcome a talent deficit, neither will greatly hamper good talent.

And, one more thing:


And he has Dallas back to playing defense.

Your information is about five years out of date. The 96.7 points they're giving up this season is the highest since the 2005 season, when Nellie coached for half the year before Avery took over. The .437 FG% is the best in that time frame, but the previous four years were (chronologically) .438, .443, .447, and .443.

Using Defensive Rating (points per 100 possessions), this season's 104.6 is the second best in the last five years, with 2007 being 103.2. They are currently 9th in this category, which is where they were last year. Dallas was 5th in 2007, 11th in 2006, and 9th in 2005.

Rick did not take over Nellie's Mavs, and his defense is basically on a par with where Avery Johnson had it for the last four years.

count55
01-03-2009, 09:02 AM
Voting RC b/c I prefer his overall approach. However, I honestly don't think he'd be doing anymore than JOB with what's in the cupboard here.

In fact, he might actually do less with our guys. The one area I was never impressed with about RC was his sideline demeanor and ability to relate to players.

True he had some real zingers to relate to (and I couldn't see behind the scenes), but I think JOB is probably better in tis area with a younger bunch. RC definitely rolls better with a more veteran squad.

More to the point, I don't relish trying to run a set-piece, heavily play-calling, half-court offense with this personnel.

We may or may not be a better defensive team with Rick as coach, but I am sure we would be a worse offensive team. (And I don't think we're particularly good offensively right now.)

Doug
01-03-2009, 10:20 AM
I see a Pacers team that comes out and plays hard (pretty much) every game.

A team where the players actually seem to care about winning games, even if they lose.

I hear about a team that practices hard, and actually works on basketball fundementals - picks, footwork, "jump stops".

I see a team that actually does play as a team, as so much you can in the NBA.

I see players that seems to care about each other, and are happy when they do well.

I see a team that I actually care about, and like to watch. As opposed to last year.

No doubt our personnel changes have had something to do with that, but you have to give JOB some of the credit as well.

Most of the coach's work is done in practice and preparation, not in games. Think of the 'tip of the iceberg' cliche. You only see what's above water.

And IMO, JOB is an excellent practice coach. He is a solid, no-nonsense professional coach. And that is exactly what this team needed at this stage of their development.

count55
01-03-2009, 10:38 AM
I see a Pacers team that comes out and plays hard (pretty much) every game.

A team where the players actually seem to care about winning games, even if they lose.

I hear about a team that practices hard, and actually works on basketball fundementals - picks, footwork, "jump stops".

I see a team that actually does play as a team, as so much you can in the NBA.

I see players that seems to care about each other, and are happy when they do well.

I see a team that I actually care about, and like to watch. As opposed to last year.

No doubt our personnel changes have had something to do with that, but you have to give JOB some of the credit as well.

Most of the coach's work is done in practice and preparation, not in games. Think of the 'tip of the iceberg' cliche. You only see what's above water.

And IMO, JOB is an excellent practice coach. He is a solid, no-nonsense professional coach. And that is exactly what this team needed at this stage of their development.

Seconded.

Unclebuck
01-03-2009, 11:14 AM
I see a Pacers team that comes out and plays hard (pretty much) every game.

A team where the players actually seem to care about winning games, even if they lose.

I hear about a team that practices hard, and actually works on basketball fundementals - picks, footwork, "jump stops".

I see a team that actually does play as a team, as so much you can in the NBA.

I see players that seems to care about each other, and are happy when they do well.

I see a team that I actually care about, and like to watch. As opposed to last year.

No doubt our personnel changes have had something to do with that, but you have to give JOB some of the credit as well.

Most of the coach's work is done in practice and preparation, not in games. Think of the 'tip of the iceberg' cliche. You only see what's above water.

And IMO, JOB is an excellent practice coach. He is a solid, no-nonsense professional coach. And that is exactly what this team needed at this stage of their development.


Thank you for a well thought out, but also a post with a great deal of perspective great to read

Unclebuck
01-03-2009, 11:17 AM
I like them both a lot.

I do laugh now that so many think Rick is a great coach, where were many of you two and thre years ago

rexnom
01-03-2009, 11:17 AM
I see a Pacers team that comes out and plays hard (pretty much) every game.

A team where the players actually seem to care about winning games, even if they lose.

I hear about a team that practices hard, and actually works on basketball fundementals - picks, footwork, "jump stops".

I see a team that actually does play as a team, as so much you can in the NBA.

I see players that seems to care about each other, and are happy when they do well.

I see a team that I actually care about, and like to watch. As opposed to last year.

No doubt our personnel changes have had something to do with that, but you have to give JOB some of the credit as well.

Most of the coach's work is done in practice and preparation, not in games. Think of the 'tip of the iceberg' cliche. You only see what's above water.

And IMO, JOB is an excellent practice coach. He is a solid, no-nonsense professional coach. And that is exactly what this team needed at this stage of their development.
I just want to echo this. I really, really like Obie for this team.

Brad8888
01-03-2009, 11:53 AM
Carlsle for head coach with OB as assistant coach / offensive coordinator and Harter as defensive coordinator would be fine by me. Yes, Carlisle didn't have the people skills to relate to the players. If O'Brien does better in that regard then we would have the best of both worlds. However, both coaches have stubborn streaks and would not likely be able to coexist on the same sideline.

From a tactical standpoint Carlisle is better as a structured system coach, everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that our near championship caliber athletic team with all of our former troublemakers much preferred to be allowed to freelance and follow their own agendas. Perhaps O'Brien would have been the more appropriate coach for that group when compared to Carlisle. Maybe he would have coddled the players in a different fashion than Carlisle by allowing them to determine their own touches by simply staying out of their way. Maybe O'Brien would have stopped us from hearing the complaints out of the players that we were too predictable which made us easier to defend than we should have been. What better way to coach a group of guys who Reggie immediately labeled upon his departure as the deepest team in the league by far, but that also had too many guys with their own agendas to make it all the way?

The last thing that O'Brien would do would be to stop players from freelancing. He encourages it, in fact, which leads to our inconsistency. When we are hot, it is very difficult to contain us offensively. However, we tend to implode at inopportune times due to fatigue and carelessness borne of a feeling of desperation that as an individual the player with the ball feels like he must make something happen before it is too late. This is a contributing factor in the lack of effective ball movement in late game situations, leading to our guards taking (and more often than not MISSING, despite last nights win) last possession shots that are not often quality looks.

Coaches like Sloan, Poppovich, Stan Van Gundy, Carlisle, Brown, etc. always can be counted on to gather their players and set up situations in the huddle down the stretch that creates a sense of structure, forcing their players to concentrate more on the task at hand than the score, and calling plays that either lead to high quality looks with proper execution or, if the opponents stop the primary play, leads to a viable secondary scoring option to kick to. Freelancing does not provide any of this. Disciplined leadership does.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-03-2009, 12:01 PM
Just because your favorite player isn't getting 48 MPG doesn't make the coach bad. JOB has some weird rotations and it does seem that 50% (?) of the last second shots to end any of the four corners are taken by the same guy who dribbles the ball down the court.

JOB called the play "2-2-6" whatever that may be from the sidelines after the Pacers secured the rebound for the last play. He even had to yell it a few times to somebody. I was in the basement of my house in Indy and knew the play. It's safe to assume the 5 guys on the court did as well. No need for a timeout..... they had a play.


With all of that said I also hate JOB as the coach but some of you's need to calmicus downicus.


Don't you hate when your stupidity is forever etched in the internet!

DocHolliday
01-03-2009, 12:12 PM
I don't think there's been a good fit as coach since Bird. I'm not some blind Bird fan, but IT was clueless, Carlisle was a square peg in a round hole, and JOB's best coaching effort wouldn't yield 45 wins as long as he's here. Square peg/round hole vs. recycled coach--I'll pass on both.

Putnam
01-03-2009, 12:51 PM
You're in four bands. You need never be ashamed.

duke dynamite
01-03-2009, 01:08 PM
Enough talk about the coach! Geeze.

MiaDragon
01-03-2009, 01:15 PM
Id like someone in the middle of the two, not a control freak but not someone that lets the cannons fire at will.

MiaDragon
01-03-2009, 01:16 PM
Enough talk about the coach! Geeze.

Yes everything is "sunshiny":laugh:

MyFavMartin
01-03-2009, 01:23 PM
If you can't love the one you want, love the one you're with.


Actually prefer a less micromanaged team, so I went with JOB, who I think is doing well considering the injuries and lack of a strong offensive post threat. (And, no, I don't want JO back, so don't post that poll. ;))

Roaming Gnome
01-03-2009, 01:23 PM
Doug, your post is everything I wanted to say when battling everyone that just wants to look at the "tip of the iceberg". Obie is doing a fine job for this rebuilding project.

Hicks
01-03-2009, 01:33 PM
I'll throw more support to Doug's post.

idioteque
01-03-2009, 01:49 PM
Id like someone in the middle of the two, not a control freak but not someone that lets the cannons fire at will.

Yep. Someone in between would be quite nice, but knowing this board it wouldn't take them long to find something to pick at.

vnzla81
01-03-2009, 02:03 PM
[QUOTE=Unclebuck;827629]I like them both a lot.

I do laugh now that so many think Rick is a great coach, where were many of you two and thre years ago[/QUOTE


Who you don't like? :rolleyes:

idioteque
01-03-2009, 02:12 PM
Who you don't like? :rolleyes:

If you're going to make legitimate arguments about why you don't like O'Brien that's fine. But throwing silly one-liners at admins isn't going to win you any fans on this forum. That might work on some of those silly forums full of 14 year olds, but it doesn't work here.

I've seen you complain and complain and complain about O'Brien on this forum in the last few days but you've never really explained why. So yeah, I'm calling you out, give me a detailed explanation of what you don't like about JOB. Basketball is the man's profession and I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone throwing one liners to me about my job unless they had some sort of legitimate substance to back it up.

Infinite MAN_force
01-03-2009, 02:26 PM
Dallas' "Pace Factor" (estimate of possessions per 48 minutes) is 91.6, which is slightly below the league average of 91.7 and ranks 17th this season.

It is lower than Rick's final year here, when the Pacers had a Pace factor of 92.7, which was 10th in the league and above the 91.9 league average. His earlier seasons with the Pacers (in chronological order) were 87.5 (26th), 87.2 (29th), and 89.7 (20th).

So, he's not slogging it out the way he was the first two years here, but he's not exactly running an up-tempo offense.



And if Rick were still here, he'd likely be working on his third losing season. O'Brien has one ECF appearance, and currently only one full losing season. Using winning as a barometer assumes the same talent levels, which is certainly not accurate.

I basically consider Rick and Obie about equal in terms of quality. Both have good traits, and both have flaws. Rick is a little too set-piece for me, and O'Brien is a little too loose, offensively, for my taste. Neither is going to overcome a talent deficit, neither will greatly hamper good talent.

And, one more thing:



Your information is about five years out of date. The 96.7 points they're giving up this season is the highest since the 2005 season, when Nellie coached for half the year before Avery took over. The .437 FG% is the best in that time frame, but the previous four years were (chronologically) .438, .443, .447, and .443.

Using Defensive Rating (points per 100 possessions), this season's 104.6 is the second best in the last five years, with 2007 being 103.2. They are currently 9th in this category, which is where they were last year. Dallas was 5th in 2007, 11th in 2006, and 9th in 2005.

Rick did not take over Nellie's Mavs, and his defense is basically on a par with where Avery Johnson had it for the last four years.

Reason prevails again. :buddies:

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 02:30 PM
If you're going to make legitimate arguments about why you don't like O'Brien that's fine. But throwing silly one-liners at admins isn't going to win you any fans on this forum. That might work on some of those silly forums full of 14 year olds, but it doesn't work here.

I've seen you complain and complain and complain about O'Brien on this forum in the last few days but you've never really explained why. So yeah, I'm calling you out, give me a detailed explanation of what you don't like about JOB. Basketball is the man's profession and I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone throwing one liners to me about my job unless they had some sort of legitimate substance to back it up.

Hey, he might be 14. Is PD an over-21 site or something...;)

I think the question has some legitimacy when you consider the contrast in the style between the coaches. IMO, their styles are polar opposites...and usually people tend to favor one of the two. But of course it is always more complicated.

Maybe the personnel, their level of development, the circumstances of the franchise, etc. dictates that we have a certain type of coach. But some of that goes beyond what is happening on the basketball court and even in practice. I think JOb's greatest value is what he brings as a manager in terms of how he manages PR and the discipline and respect he demands. At this stage, that might be best for the team even if watching games requires a little maalox for some of us.

vnzla81
01-03-2009, 02:40 PM
If you're going to make legitimate arguments about why you don't like O'Brien that's fine. But throwing silly one-liners at admins isn't going to win you any fans on this forum. That might work on some of those silly forums full of 14 year olds, but it doesn't work here.

I've seen you complain and complain and complain about O'Brien on this forum in the last few days but you've never really explained why. So yeah, I'm calling you out, give me a detailed explanation of what you don't like about JOB. Basketball is the man's profession and I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone throwing one liners to me about my job unless they had some sort of legitimate substance to back it up.

Are you trying to tell me that just because I disagree with Administration I'm not going to win many friends in this forum? are you kidding me? this is an open forum for a reason, this is a place to communicate even if you agree or disagree.
Regarding JOB I already said that he is not a good coach, but at this time I know the pacers are not going to the playoffs and I know he is giving the pacers the best chance to get a good lottery pick. People complain about Rick play call(I don't like Rick) but JOB calls every single play too, he is not the coach of the future, but he is the coach for the now(lottery).

NOTE: call down dcpacersfan, this is just a forum :box: I am also older than you.

Hicks
01-03-2009, 02:43 PM
He's talking about HOW you're speaking to him.

Hicks
01-03-2009, 02:44 PM
Wait, did you say Jim calls every play like Rick did?

Jim doesn't call the play often at all. The whole point of his offense is that it's meant to be random. Calling a set play would defeat the point, which is why O'Brien doesn't often do that.

JayRedd
01-03-2009, 02:48 PM
Isn't making up the won / lost values of imaginary scenarios what you do for a living?

Nah. I don't do quantification. That's for you and the actuaries.

vnzla81
01-03-2009, 02:50 PM
Wait, did you say Jim calls every play like Rick did?

Jim doesn't call the play often at all. The whole point of his offense is that it's meant to be random. Calling a set play would defeat the point, which is why O'Brien doesn't often do that.

I been to few games and he calls almost every play, he screams the play as soon as the Pg gets the ball, he still is not as bad as Rick.(play calling)

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 02:51 PM
Frankly I don't think either coach is right for this team. If I had to pick one, I'd pick Carlisle, even when we lost, it was never because he made wrong decisions. As I said though, I don't think he'd be a good coach for this team. Ideally, I think Avery Johnson would be a perfect coach for us, if we wanted to try a rookie coach I'd take Mark Jackson.

vnzla81
01-03-2009, 03:01 PM
Frankly I don't think either coach is right for this team. If I had to pick one, I'd pick Carlisle, even when we lost, it was never because he made wrong decisions. As I said though, I don't think he'd be a good coach for this team. Ideally, I think Avery Johnson would be a perfect coach for us, if we wanted to try a rookie coach I'd take Mark Jackson.

I agreed, at the same time I think that Rick could have a better record with this team, do you guys remember what he did after the brawl? with not players he got them to the playoffs, I don't like Rick but I still think they could have a better record and we could also see a better set play for Roy in the post just like he did when JO was here, JOB just does not care to play rookies and he only makes plays for PG at the end of games remember JT play calls last year?

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 03:07 PM
I agreed, at the same time I think that Rick could have a better record with this team, do you guys remember what he did after the brawl? with not players he got them to the playoffs, I don't like Rick but I still think they could have a better record and we could also see a better set play for Roy in the post just like he did when JO was here, JOB just does not care to play rookies and he only makes plays for PG at the end of games remember JT play calls last year?

I always liked Rick but I agree with the Roy Hibbert part. Carlisle knew you needed a good post game to win and if Roy was dominating, he would take full advantage of it, not sub him out.

I was thinking the other day, I don't believe O'Brien has ever coached a legitiment post threat. I'm wondering if he can make an adjustment to the post game, because the only decent big hes had in his past(that I am aware of) is Antoine Walker, who is more of a Murphy like player.

BlueNGold
01-03-2009, 03:10 PM
I loved most of what Rick did from a coaching standpoint. He worked to limit turnovers. He slowed down the offense and focused on shutting down the other team on D. The only bone was throwing it into JO too much. Rick would be a better coach if he had JOb's personality.

BTW, there's a reason why Rick is coaching the Dallas Mavericks. I don't think a scrub coach would have landed that gig. He has coached some very good franchises in the NBA (Detroit, Indiana, Dallas) and his record speaks for itself.

JMHO.

Putnam
01-03-2009, 03:13 PM
If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

http://image.listen.com/img/356x237/7/2/7/8/658727_356x237.jpg

Good thought.

Justin Tyme
01-03-2009, 03:55 PM
If you're going to make legitimate arguments about why you don't like O'Brien that's fine. But throwing silly one-liners at admins isn't going to win you any fans on this forum. That might work on some of those silly forums full of 14 year olds, but it doesn't work here.

I've seen you complain and complain and complain about O'Brien on this forum in the last few days but you've never really explained why. So yeah, I'm calling you out, give me a detailed explanation of what you don't like about JOB. Basketball is the man's profession and I don't know about you but I wouldn't want someone throwing one liners to me about my job unless they had some sort of legitimate substance to back it up.


Do you realize you are saying you have the right to call out a poster for their reasons, but no one has the right to UB's reasons, due to him being Admin?

vnzla81
01-03-2009, 04:00 PM
Do you realize you are saying you have the right to call out a poster for their reasons, but no one has the right to UB's reasons, due to him being Admin?

I said the same thing

Spirit
01-03-2009, 04:05 PM
Rick. Not even close.This is my answer.

Justin Tyme
01-03-2009, 04:46 PM
I voted for RC, not that I was a big fan of his, but I think he's a better coach. He has been more successful than O'Brien, but I don't feel he interacts/relates with players as well as O'B. I feel O'B is more of a disciplinarian than RC. I feel RC was too much of a vet coach and wouldn't give Rush the PT he has gotten with O'B. I believe O'B would have been a better coach with the 3rd year with the players RC had.

Their coaching styles are so different, and neither style excites me.... micro managing to run n gun. I wasn't unhappy when RC left, and I won't be unhappy when O'B is gone either..

grace
01-03-2009, 05:30 PM
I like them both a lot.

I do laugh now that so many think Rick is a great coach, where were many of you two and thre years ago

Three years ago I was still a fan, IIRC.

As to the poll question I don't like JOB's philosophy so I guess I prefer Rick, but not enough to vote for him.

kbills05
01-03-2009, 05:45 PM
hey just wanted to say that i feel like if Rick Carlisle were coach Diogu probably would have been our starting PF. This guy was supposed to be our future PF but as soon as O'brien gets the job he is traded. THUS, we wouldn't have a hole at that position now. But with O'Brien and the lack there of of an inside presence, i wouldn't be surprised that even if we did get a PF than can post up down low he still wouldn't allow his guards and wing players to jack up 3's early in the shot clock. your thought?

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 05:48 PM
I disagree. I've made it known that I can't stand O'Brien, but I still think Jack and Rush are Carlisle players. I still think Diogu coulda been very good, but I think Jack and Rush woulda been much better under Carlisle.

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 05:54 PM
I disagree. I've made it known that I can't stand O'Brien, but I still think Jack and Rush are Carlisle players. I still think Diogu coulda been very good, but I think Jack and Rush woulda been much better under Carlisle.

you could probably add Rasho, Hibbert and Granger to that list

Major Cold
01-03-2009, 06:01 PM
you could probably add Rasho, Hibbert and Granger to that list
Really why do you think that?

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 06:04 PM
Really why do you think that?

Well to begin with, his defense and shot blocking...

Major Cold
01-03-2009, 06:07 PM
Well to begin with, his defense and shot blocking...
Go look at his shoot blocking stats and then look at any other swingman. Defense, maybe but how can a head coach make shot blocking better.

MillerTime
01-03-2009, 06:10 PM
Go look at his shoot blocking stats and then look at any other swingman. Defense, maybe but how can a head coach make shot blocking better.

A head coach cant make shot blocking better, its either you have it or you dont. And Granger of late, has had that shot blocking presence. Thats why I said Granger would be decent in his system

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 06:13 PM
you could probably add Rasho, Hibbert and Granger to that list

Agreed, all of those are Carlisle players. I'd even add McRoberts to that list and obviously Foster and Daniels.

To be fair, I think all of those players are also good for O'Briens system. I just don't think O'Brien is the right coach for the job.

BRushWithDeath
01-03-2009, 06:19 PM
hey just wanted to say that i feel like if Rick Carlisle were coach Diogu probably would have been our starting PF. This guy was supposed to be our future PF but as soon as O'brien gets the job he is traded. THUS, we wouldn't have a hole at that position now. But with O'Brien and the lack there of of an inside presence, i wouldn't be surprised that even if we did get a PF than can post up down low he still wouldn't allow his guards and wing players to jack up 3's early in the shot clock. your thought?

If Diogu were the starting PF we wouldn't have 7 wins.

Major Cold
01-03-2009, 06:20 PM
A head coach cant make shot blocking better, its either you have it or you dont. And Granger of late, has had that shot blocking presence. Thats why I said Granger would be decent in his system

No you said his defense and shot blocking would be better under Rick. Then I said how can a head coach make shot blocking better. The you said the above.

The fact of the matter is that I cannot see Rick giving Danny a better shot at escalating the way he has. Maybe his defense and rebounding would be better in a more simplified defensive structure. But you cannot deny the fact that Grangers shooting has emerged during JOB's era.

I really do not think that Rick's teams are high FG% teams. In that regard Danny may not have been the offensive threat that he is.

Dr. Awesome
01-03-2009, 06:25 PM
No you said his defense and shot blocking would be better under Rick. Then I said how can a head coach make shot blocking better. The you said the above.

The fact of the matter is that I cannot see Rick giving Danny a better shot at escalating the way he has. Maybe his defense and rebounding would be better in a more simplified defensive structure. But you cannot deny the fact that Grangers shooting has emerged during JOB's era.

I really do not think that Rick's teams are high FG% teams. In that regard Danny may not have been the offensive threat that he is.

I think Danny could have been a Ron Artest type player under Carlisle. Actually I think he woulda been better than Ron Artest with us, I think Carlisle would have made him a defensive force who can have the offense revolve around him.

I'd much rather have a defensive oriented team. Defense wins Championships. The problem with Carlisle is he focused too much on defense. Thats why I keep saying a guy like Avery Johnson who can find a median between the two is the coach we should hire. Carlisle solely focused on defense and O'Brien solely focus' on offense, which is funny that he always criticizes our defense when most of it is on him, in my opinion.

Major Cold
01-03-2009, 06:43 PM
I think Granger being a Artest type player would have never been brought up if in fact Artest never played for this team. This team needs Danny to be more offensively oriented cause they do not have a person who can create their own shot.

Now if we still had Jackson and JO was elite then I would agree. But neither is true.

You people are romanticizing the past.

Major Cold
01-03-2009, 06:45 PM
You people are romanticizing the past.

Anthem
01-03-2009, 07:03 PM
hey just wanted to say that i feel like if Rick Carlisle were coach Diogu probably would have been our starting PF.
If so, we'd be losing a lot more games. Diogu hasn't exactly been tearing it up in Portland, and he didn't tear it up here either.

Hicks
01-03-2009, 07:26 PM
As soon an O'Brien gets the job Diogu gets traded? Ike was here all year last season. And right off the bat Ike got a good deal of minutes from Jim.

Justin Tyme
01-03-2009, 07:40 PM
As soon an O'Brien gets the job Diogu gets traded? Ike was here all year last season. And right off the bat Ike got a good deal of minutes from Jim.

You are correct. Ike was doing well until he got injured. He never got it back after the injury for whatever reason.

idioteque
01-03-2009, 08:14 PM
You are correct. Ike was doing well until he got injured. He never got it back after the injury for whatever reason.

You mean those three first games of last year?

It wasn't the injury that got Ike. He was never that good to begin with.

vnzla81
01-03-2009, 08:15 PM
As soon an O'Brien gets the job Diogu gets traded? Ike was here all year last season. And right off the bat Ike got a good deal of minutes from Jim.

He was the Roy Hibbert of last season, not more than 10min and never play him in the second quarter

Bball
01-03-2009, 08:55 PM
I been to few games and he calls almost every play, he screams the play as soon as the Pg gets the ball, he still is not as bad as Rick.(play calling)

I think a lot of times OBrien is just yelling "Go-Go-Go!" or something similar (wanting the team to push it and get up the court and into the offense (whatever that might be) or try and find a napping defender) and not a particular play... but I could be wrong.

-Bball

duke dynamite
01-04-2009, 02:17 AM
How many different threads about our coach/former coaches are we going to have? LOL

Anyway, I'm not a man of "what ifs". Diogu is on the Trailblazers now, Carlisle is coaching in Dallas. That's all there is to it.

Naptown_Seth
01-04-2009, 03:45 AM
As soon an O'Brien gets the job Diogu gets traded? Ike was here all year last season. And right off the bat Ike got a good deal of minutes from Jim.
Which is why he got traded too. I don't get this thread, and I'm a big Carlisle fan even.

JOB was pushing the minutes earlier this year but he's backed off. He does like the small ball, but Rick was willing to go small ball when the talent balance on the roster dictated it (as in the only good players he had were perimeter guys at times).


Rick would be playing Diener more and Jack less based on the TO issue. And Rick sure as F wouldn't have wanted Bird to keep Ike anymore than JOB/Bird ended up wanting to keep him.

PaceBalls
01-04-2009, 08:53 AM
I think Jack is one of Carlisle's type of back up PGs like say, AJ. Which is the kind that play good D and run the plays the coach calls. I agree with Rick having little patience with the TOs, but would Jack have as many TOs with Rick as coach?

The notion that somehow we would be better off with Ike on our team instead of Jack and McBob is pretty far out. I'd take McBob over Ike alone and is there anyone besides people on this forum who would take Ike over JJack?

Ike has PF skills in a SF size body which = bad. At least thats what I saw. It was like watching Al Harrington without any type of passing skills or mid range/outside/fadeaway shot .

NuffSaid
01-04-2009, 01:04 PM
hey just wanted to say that i feel like if Rick Carlisle were coach Diogu probably would have been our starting PF. This guy was supposed to be our future PF but as soon as O'brien gets the job he is traded. THUS, we wouldn't have a hole at that position now. But with O'Brien and the lack there of of an inside presence, i wouldn't be surprised that even if we did get a PF than can post up down low he still wouldn't allow his guards and wing players to jack up 3's early in the shot clock. your thought?
First off, what makes you think Diogu would be any better under RC than he was under JOB? IMO, Ike showed promise, but he also looked lost under both RC AND JOB! Both coaches would constantly yell out where he should be on the court in specific situations. It's like he never was able to grasp either coach's schemes, particularly on defense.

Now, I agree with you in part that IF the Pacers had a definitive post-presence which I think Hibbert is beginning to round into, the Pacers wouldn't rely so heavily on perimeter shooting. That said, if you've been paying close attention of late you'll notice that the Pacers have tried to establish Hibbert in the post very often AND have had very good success with him on the floor. I firmly believe that once Dunleavy returns AND as long as players 1-11 remain healthy (Granger, Quis, Ford, Murphy, Hibbert, BRush, Jack, Diener, Foster, Rasho and Dunleavy) this team will improve and things will be alright.

With Dunleavy's return comes a more solidified rotation.

With Dunleavy's return comes less pressure on Granger as a primary scoring threat.

With Dunleavy's return comes the opportunity to create more balace not just in the rotation, but also to shore up the 2nd Unit. Quis or Dunleavy will provide leadership and place a consistent scorer among the reserves.

But I digress, I seriously doubt Ike would have been any more successful under RC than he was under JOB. I just don't see it. He has the tools, just not the basketball IQ.

Naptown_Seth
01-04-2009, 03:03 PM
I think Jack is one of Carlisle's type of back up PGs like say, AJ. Which is the kind that play good D and run the plays the coach calls. I agree with Rick having little patience with the TOs, but would Jack have as many TOs with Rick as coach?
I'm of the opinion that Rick wasn't a big fan of AJ actually. Proof? How many times did AJ hit the bench and find himself forced to once again earn PT? A lot.

The fact is that Tins was a wreck, Gill wasn't NBA caliber and Fred Jones was a SG. Rick was forced to use AJ most of the time. And when they signed Saras he was made the #2 PG without playing a single game. It was only when he started to struggle that AJ got slipped back into the rotation.

Rick went to a lot of strategies out of NECESSITY, not choice. His roster had the most Pacers 3PAs ever till JOB took over. That's Carlisle and a team of guards shooting something like 25-30 3PA per game at one stage that season (Reggie's last).


Now your point on Jack is legit, it might well be that were Rick coaching him he would be asked/expected to approach things totally differently and Rick certainly would have liked his physical defense at PG. I'd say he'd be puking on the sidelines watching Jack and TJ jump into a shot only to make a wild pass midway up over and over (ala Fred Jones).

PR07
01-04-2009, 04:05 PM
Diogu can't play defense. Why would he be a Carlisle guy?

count55
01-04-2009, 04:07 PM
I find it hard to believe that Ike will even be in the league next year.

Anthem
01-04-2009, 06:30 PM
The notion that somehow we would be better off with Ike on our team instead of Jack and McBob is pretty far out. I'd take McBob over Ike alone and is there anyone besides people on this forum who would take Ike over JJack?
Good call.

YoSoyIndy
01-04-2009, 08:25 PM
Wait, did you say Jim calls every play like Rick did?

Jim doesn't call the play often at all. The whole point of his offense is that it's meant to be random. Calling a set play would defeat the point, which is why O'Brien doesn't often do that.

This will be nick-picking, but I think "random" is the wrong word to describe the output of JOB's offensive philosophy. He gives the team freedom to move the ball up the court quickly and doesn't want them to stiffle an opportunity because they're looking at the bench for the play. That doesn't mean there isn't any structure to it.

owl
01-04-2009, 09:24 PM
Yep. Someone in between would be quite nice, but knowing this board it wouldn't take them long to find something to pick at.

I believe some people live by the motto, no scab is too small to pick. :-)

BlueNGold
01-04-2009, 10:48 PM
Ike played pretty awful when he wasn't posting up someone or completely open for a midrange shot. Even then, he started to become ineffective at that when teams started defending him better. He really has no game or athleticism. If something doesn't change for him, he is just about done.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2009, 12:28 AM
Who you don't like? :rolleyes:

You know, I said the exact same thing to my good friend UB the other day:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=827404#post827404

Lighten up people, we have enough admins around here to take care of the real problems.

To vnzla81 (and others), a suggestion: you are perceived as being new around here, and a number of have been doing this particular message board for a long time and we have a familiarity with each other that allows us to cut right to the "zinger." Unfortunately, we can also act like a clique at times. The best way to be taken seriously around here elaborate on your posts so that (a) we can get to know you your opinions of the team/ players, and (b) a post doesn't appear to be insulting/ abrasive. It doesn't take lengthy novel, just a complete thought.

= = = = = = = = = = =

I'd hate to think that an "average" poster or a "new" poster is not allowed to question the opinion of an admin or other long-term member of our community. I'd be really bored and disappointed if some of the opinions I took/ take on the Pacers and also the NFL board didn't get a reaction thrown back at me.

grace
01-05-2009, 02:08 AM
I'd be really bored and disappointed if some of the opinions I took/ take on the Pacers and also the NFL board didn't get a reaction thrown back at me.

Not so much now that your avatar isn't a picture of Cowher with the Super Bowl trophy.

OakMoses
01-05-2009, 02:16 PM
This is a hotly discussed topic, so I thought I'd crunch a few numbers and see what popped up.

I defined close games as games won or lost by less than 4 points. This was mainly done for ease as this data is available at Basketball Reference.

Here's how it breaks down (Season, Overall Record, Close Games):

00-01 24-24 6-3
01-02 49-33 8-9
02-03 44-38 6-7
03-04 22-24 8-4
04-05 43-49 10-4
07-08 36-46 4-3

Total Overall Record: 218-204 (0.517)
Total Close Game Record: 42-30 (0.583)

This season:
08-09 12-21(0.364) 4-6(0.400)

Conclusions and interesting tidbits:

O'Brien's coaching, historically, has not led to his team losing close games. His teams actually have a better record in these games.

During his best season in terms of winning close games (Philly '04-'05), he also coached one of the best players in the NBA (Allen Iverson) who was at or near his peak.

This year's Pacers team is actually faring better in close games than they are overall.

The striking thing is the one thing we all know: The Pacers are playing in a ton of close games. In O'Brien's career the highest percentage of close games he's coached was in '03-'04 when he coached 46 games and 12 of them were close (26%). This season the Pacers have played 33 games and 10 of them have been close (30%).

count55
01-05-2009, 02:29 PM
This is a hotly discussed topic, so I thought I'd crunch a few numbers and see what popped up.

I defined close games as games won or lost by less than 4 points. This was mainly done for ease as this data is available at Basketball Reference.

Here's how it breaks down (Season, Overall Record, Close Games):

00-01 24-24 6-3
01-02 49-33 8-9
02-03 44-38 6-7
03-04 22-24 8-4
04-05 43-49 10-4
07-08 36-46 4-3

Total Overall Record: 218-204 (0.517)
Total Close Game Record: 42-30 (0.583)

This season:
08-09 12-21(0.364) 4-6(0.400)

Conclusions and interesting tidbits:

O'Brien's coaching, historically, has not led to his team losing close games. His teams actually have a better record in these games.

During his best season in terms of winning close games (Philly '04-'05), he also coached one of the best players in the NBA (Allen Iverson) who was at or near his peak.

This year's Pacers team is actually faring better in close games than they are overall.

The striking thing is the one thing we all know: The Pacers are playing in a ton of close games. In O'Brien's career the highest percentage of close games he's coached was in '03-'04 when he coached 46 games and 12 of them were close (26%). This season the Pacers have played 33 games and 10 of them have been close (30%).

I did something similar in this thread a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showpost.php?p=822359&postcount=54

The only difference between your methodology and mine was that I used all regulation games decided by 4 pts or less, and all OT games. I assumed that all OT games were "close" games, regardless of the final score. Three of the Pacers' four OT games this season were losses of more than 4 points, but the 48-minute margin had to be zero to get to OT.

OakMoses
01-05-2009, 03:03 PM
I did something similar in this thread a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showpost.php?p=822359&postcount=54

The only difference between your methodology and mine was that I used all regulation games decided by 4 pts or less, and all OT games. I assumed that all OT games were "close" games, regardless of the final score. Three of the Pacers' four OT games this season were losses of more than 4 points, but the 48-minute margin had to be zero to get to OT.

I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. You've got a good point about the OT games. I guess a 2 week time lapse is about what it takes for an inferior mind to catch up with a great one.

count55
01-05-2009, 03:13 PM
Also, using my slightly different definition, the Pacers have had 15 of 33 games (or 45%) that were decided in regulation by 4 points or less or in OT (by any margin). They are 4-11 in those games, including 0-4 in OT.

For the two years under O'Brien, the totals are 10-13 (.435) in close regulation games, and 1-6 (.143) in OT games, for a combined 11-19, or .367.

While that is certainly poor, it actually compares favorably to the two season prior to O'Brien's arrival. In Rick's final two years, the Pacers were 2-3 (.400) in OT games, but an they were only 8-24 (.250) in games decided in regulation by 4 points or less. This combined 10-27 (.270) is significantly lower than the overall .463 winning percentage.

Now, this is far from a perfect and complete analysis. Some "close" games really reflect some garbage time shrinkage, and some wider margins reflect fouls or FT's at the end of the game. While O'Brien's record here in "close" games (my definition) is not fantastic, neither was Rick's in his final two years (where the talent was comparable).

It should be noted that in Rick's first two years, the team was 20-19 in "close regulation games" and 8-5 in OT games. This combined record of 28-24 was .538 and considerably lower than the team's .640 winning percentage (105-59). Over Rick's four years, the Pacers were 28-43 (.394) in regs decided by 4 or less, and 10-8 (.556) in OT games for a combined record of 38-51, or .427. This compares unfavorably to the teams 181-147, or .552, record during those four years.

On the other end of the spectrum, last year there were only 15 "close or OT" games (18%) compared to 24 "Blowout" games (Greater than 12 point spread) (29%). The Pacers were 8-16 (.333) in those games. This season there have only been 10 "blowout" games (30%), and the Pacers are 4-6 (.400) in these.

Under Carlisle, the Pacers had 30% of their games (99) decided by 12 points or more. They were 59-40 (.596) in these games. The breakdown by season was 19-5, 14-7, 16-11, and 10-17, winning over 73% of these games in the first two season, but slightly under water in the final two.

MiaDragon
01-05-2009, 03:14 PM
IMO its really hard to break it down by final score. There have been many times where mid point in the 4th we are up and then we loose by 10+.

count55
01-05-2009, 03:14 PM
I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. You've got a good point about the OT games. I guess a 2 week time lapse is about what it takes for an inferior mind to catch up with a great one.

Nonsense, it was buried, and you did great work. I'm sorry if it came off as "I got there first." I was actually just trying to agree with you, and show a slightly different spin.

Sorry about that.

count55
01-05-2009, 03:18 PM
IMO its really hard to break it down by final score. There have been many times where mid point in the 4th we are up and then we loose by 10+.

Agreed (to some degree), but this is not without value.

I have the capability to slog through the analysis for this season, but I don't have the data for prior seasons. Also, I could not find "clutch" statistics for teams on 82games.com.

EDIT: Also, you're being pretty loose with "many". We've lost 7 games by 10 or more points: Suns, Bulls, Magic, Celtics, Cavs, Raps, and Bucks. I think the only games that we were "up" in the fourth quarter on were the Suns and the Bucks.

OakMoses
01-05-2009, 03:50 PM
Nonsense, it was buried, and you did great work. I'm sorry if it came off as "I got there first." I was actually just trying to agree with you, and show a slightly different spin.

Sorry about that.

No offense taken. I just like to have a little fun at my own expense whenever possible.

Anthem
01-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Seems like we've had lots of games where we were close until the last minute, where the game really hinged on one or two possessions. Not all of those games were decided by 4 or less.

But that's way too much work for me to even think about tracking it down.

Oneal07
01-05-2009, 04:37 PM
I'd rather have O'brien as the coach. He shows emotion on the floor. Rick is a Robot

Since86
01-05-2009, 04:39 PM
Well if we're going to grade coaches on their emotional behaviors, then Bird was horrible, and a monkey from the Indy Zoo would have been a better candidate.

Unclebuck
01-05-2009, 05:09 PM
After almost a season and a half, I think JOB is pretty good in close games. He isn't Larry Brown - but he's better than a lot of current coaches.

Although I must admit, I don't put a ton of importance on late game coaching

count55
01-05-2009, 05:09 PM
Seems like we've had lots of games where we were close until the last minute, where the game really hinged on one or two possessions. Not all of those games were decided by 4 or less.

But that's way too much work for me to even think about tracking it down.

I've got the info, but it will take some time to break down...probably with the Danny stuff.

Even so, the data seems to indicate that the "close game" problem pre-dates O'Brien.

OakMoses
01-05-2009, 05:54 PM
Although I must admit, I don't put a ton of importance on late game coaching

I have to agree with you here for the most part. It's different in college and high school, but in the NBA end-game situations are very iso dominated. The recent Atlanta game is a good example. During the last 3 minutes or so of the game, the Hawks did the exact same thing on nearly every possession: isolate Joe Johnson. It worked.

The best player(s) on the floor win and lose close games. There are very few games where Granger is the best player on the floor (this is not his fault, it's just reality). The other option to having the best player is to have multiple players who can create shots so that you can exploit mismatches. Right now, we've only got 3 options in end-game situations: Granger, Ford, and Jack. Jack and Ford are better than Granger at getting their own shots, but they have their own flaws. Ultimately, I think this is a talent issue rather than a coaching issue. Also, I think our talent improves dramatically if Dunleavy returns healthy.

MiaDragon
01-05-2009, 06:13 PM
Seems like we've had lots of games where we were close until the last minute, where the game really hinged on one or two possessions. Not all of those games were decided by 4 or less.

But that's way too much work for me to even think about tracking it down.

Thats what I was trying to get at.

Anthem
01-05-2009, 06:18 PM
I'd hate to think that an "average" poster or a "new" poster is not allowed to question the opinion of an admin or other long-term member of our community. I'd be really bored and disappointed if some of the opinions I took/ take on the Pacers and also the NFL board didn't get a reaction thrown back at me.
I'd disagree, if you weren't an admin. I don't want to get banned.








:devil:

kbills05
01-06-2009, 10:19 AM
it drives me nuts, that week in and week out we continue to play lackluster defense. On top of that we are playing Rasho, Murphy, and diener on the court at the same time. No wonder the DEFENSE IS HORRIBLE! oH N it will get worse when Dleavy comes back. I just feel this guy is a terrible coach and does not encourage defense. i mean geeeeeeeeze he's playing Rasho over McRoberts....Well maybe you guys enjoy his coaching, i know i am sick of it. your thoughts?

Major Cold
01-06-2009, 10:33 AM
it drives me nuts, that week in and week out we continue to play lackluster defense. On top of that we are playing Rasho, Murphy, and diener on the court at the same time. No wonder the DEFENSE IS HORRIBLE! oH N it will get worse when Dleavy comes back. I just feel this guy is a terrible coach and does not encourage defense. i mean geeeeeeeeze he's playing Rasho over McRoberts....Well maybe you guys enjoy his coaching, i know i am sick of it. your thoughts?
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43582
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43634
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43593
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43511
(this is your thread)

xtacy
01-06-2009, 10:33 AM
unfortunately it won't happen during this season. i hope he sees the basketball JOB is making this team play is useless and fires him at the end of this season.

you know what would kill us entirely: getting a small guy or a basketball IQ'less,athlete,'he runs the floor well for his size' kind of big man from the draft just because he fits JOB's system.

if this happens we are doomed.

count55
01-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Is this gonna be a weekly thing? If so, maybe they can set up a Robokbills05.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43511


just wanted to know when Jim O' brien will be held accountable for all of these losses. i mean sometimes i wonder what on earth he is doing. he doesn't play McRoberts he takes Hibbert out in the 4th quarter when he was doing good in the 3rd quarter and he did the same w/ Rush in the Milwaukee game. This guy is an average coach. Bird needs to bring in a Avery Johnson or someone like that , that has a winning recipe for success. And what's mind boggling is JOB continues to show that his teams do not and will not play defense... your thoughts?

I would direct you to the thread you started last week for four pages of substantive conversation.

I also want to quash the idea that O'Brien does not encourage defense. In his full seasons in Boston, his teams were 5th and 7th in Defensive Rating (Points per 100 possession), and in Philly, his team finished 10th.

This is a bad defensive team, and Jim O'Brien and his staff should be criticized for not getting them to be more consistently effective, or should be criticized for it's flawed design or rotations. However, the implication that this is a Paul-Westhead-Loyola-Marymount-let-'em-score-so-you-can-get-the-ball-back defensive system and coaching style is nothing more than a lie, and should be treated as such.

OakMoses
01-06-2009, 10:43 AM
you know what would kill us entirely: getting a small guy or a basketball IQ'less,athlete,'he runs the floor well for his size' kind of big man from the draft just because he fits JOB's system.


Does this sound at all like what Bird did in the draft last year? Are Brandon Rush and Hibbert either small guys or dumb athletes who run the floor well for their size? I think Bird showed enough during the offseason to at least get the benefit of the doubt that he's trying to build a team that fits his vision, not O'Brien's.

Also, I really think it's unfair to expect a team to win while playing Hibbert for 18 minutes and Graham for 29 minutes like we did last night. Those guys are borderline rotation players and if you're going to have them on the floor for that much of a close game, you're going to lose.

duke dynamite
01-06-2009, 10:48 AM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43582
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43634
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43593
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43511
(this is your thread)
My thoughts exactly.

Speed
01-06-2009, 11:33 AM
I will say this, and I'm an Obie fan. It's time to abandon the half azz trap Defense. I know it's impossible to do this at this point in the season. It troubles me that this has been taught to the young guys now to the point that they'll have to be deprogrammed from the way it is run. It's maddening.

The gimmicky defense only works against teams that are dumb and/or teams that aren't prepared. At this point in the season they won't come against either. The elbow jumper is open everytime, no matter how well they rotate.

I like Obie, I may be the only one left, but he needs to quit trying to gimmick his way around the talent/team make up.

I just wonder if the coaching staff has over thought all of this without the long term in mind.

Brad8888
01-06-2009, 11:36 AM
Karl sees our running team, looks at his roster, decides to run us off the floor from the beginning. We do nothing to control the tempo by making any adjustments in game strategy. We get hot as we always do. We predictably run out of gas. Predictably, Rush and McRoberts, two of our better energy guys who at least try to defend, only get very limited court time for whatever reason that O'Brien has. In a game like this, who cares if they don't understand the "team" defense concepts that O'Brien supposedly is trying to instill in our group of guys. O'Brien's concepts (I choose not to blame Harter, whose hands are tied by the ridiculous pace that the players are expected to maintain due to our run and gun offense) on defense just don't work unless his teams are blessed by hot shooting and superior athleticism, which is nearly impossible to expect with our group of guys. We can get hot shooting, but we are definitely NOT superior athletes. The closest we have in terms of pure athleticism are Ford at pg, Granger, Rush, and Daniels for wings, and McRoberts on the interior. With Daniels and Ford injured and Rush and McRoberts not utilized, the result of last night's game is not surprising in the least.

Our coach chose not to control the tempo, we could not compete. O'Brien caused this game to be a blowout due to not making adjustments to his strategy based on his available personnel and the personnel he chose to play.

The chessmaster needs to learn the way his "pieces" move, and adjust his attack / defense based on the pieces he has left on the board, while taking into account his opponents pieces, the attacks his opponent is likely to make given their available pieces and the tendencies / playing style his opponent likes to utilize. Unfortunately, he fails to do this during our "matches". Frequently, this failure of execution results in "checkmate".

Shade
01-06-2009, 11:44 AM
How many more years does JOB have on his contract? It's just the remainder of this season and next season, right?

If that's the case, I think we'll ride it out. JOB was hired for PR purposes as much as coaching.

count55
01-06-2009, 11:47 AM
Is this gonna be a weekly thing? If so, maybe they can set up a Robokbills05.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43511



I would direct you to the thread you started last week for four pages of substantive conversation.

I also want to quash the idea that O'Brien does not encourage defense. In his full seasons in Boston, his teams were 5th and 7th in Defensive Rating (Points per 100 possession), and in Philly, his team finished 10th.

This is a bad defensive team, and Jim O'Brien and his staff should be criticized for not getting them to be more consistently effective, or should be criticized for it's flawed design or rotations. However, the implication that this is a Paul-Westhead-Loyola-Marymount-let-'em-score-so-you-can-get-the-ball-back defensive system and coaching style is nothing more than a lie, and should be treated as such.

This is rude. Allow me to clarify.

Though I do not agree, I do not wish prevent people from expressing displeasure with O'Brien. I simply do not wish "thread chase" the conversation. This topic bleeds through game and post-game threads, and has had more than one thread started on it. The particulars do not change.

Those who don't like O'Brien (not all, but broadly) don't like his system and place a high emphasis on in-game coaching and play calling.

Those who do like O'Brien (again, not all, but broadly) tend to look at preparation and progress, and really de-emphasize play calling.

There also tend to be differences in both evaluation of the talent on hand and in the philosophical approach regarding the development of the rookies.

Often, those who support O'Brien are not what you'd call huge fans. They simply believe that he's done a reasonable job, and that the chances of going backwards with a coaching change are greater than the chances of advancement.

But, again, the particulars rarely change. What causes frustration is that, for example, my arguments in support of O'Brien have been largely unchanged over the course of the season. However, every game brings fresh opportunity to complain about play calling, substitution patterns, etc. Since every coach makes judgment calls every game, there will always be mistakes made, (or, perhaps more accurately, decisions that don't work out).

I rarely agree with everything that O'Brien does in a game. However, it does not change what I consider to be the underlying truth. This is a team that has limited talent, exascerbated by injuries and illnesses. They are not as good defensively (or at least as mediocre defensively) as they should be, but I think the team has (generally) held together surprisingly well and maintained a decent level of effort. That will not be sufficient in the long run, but for right now, I have a very hard time seeing any coach winning more games given the circumstances of this year. I assume those calling for Obie's firing see a different underlying truth and have the same frustration.

This is tiring for the people on both sides, and it's tiring for the innocent bystanders in the conversation. It is particularly tiring when you consider that there is very little chance, whatsoever, of Bird firing O'Brien during this season. IMO, there is a greater chance of O'Brien getting fed up and resigning then there is of Bird firing him before this summer.

Finally, there is a tendency for frustrated people to engage in heightened hyperbole and bombast, which often creates equal and opposite reactions. It becomes more and more difficult to try to establish (what you consider to be) a balanced position. As the extremes of the argument move farther and farther to the fringes, those towards the middle find themselves dragged inexorably away from the center and towards one side or the other. The conversation no longer becomes about the subject, but about the response. Opinions become facts, those who disagree become the enemy, and the cycle continues downward.

So, I apologize for the curt tone of the initial post (though I stand by the rebuke of the "doesn't encourage defense" comment), and hope that we can find some way to keep this debate, which will last for the foreseeable future, from completely tainting every conversation we have on the board.

count55
01-06-2009, 11:54 AM
Karl sees our running team, looks at his roster, decides to run us off the floor from the beginning. We do nothing to control the tempo by making any adjustments in game strategy. We get hot as we always do. We predictably run out of gas. Predictably, Rush and McRoberts, two of our better energy guys who at least try to defend, only get very limited court time for whatever reason that O'Brien has. In a game like this, who cares if they don't understand the "team" defense concepts that O'Brien supposedly is trying to instill in our group of guys. O'Brien's concepts (I choose not to blame Harter, whose hands are tied by the ridiculous pace that the players are expected to maintain due to our run and gun offense) on defense just don't work unless his teams are blessed by hot shooting and superior athleticism, which is nearly impossible to expect with our group of guys. We can get hot shooting, but we are definitely NOT superior athletes. The closest we have in terms of pure athleticism are Ford at pg, Granger, Rush, and Daniels for wings, and McRoberts on the interior. With Daniels and Ford injured and Rush and McRoberts not utilized, the result of last night's game is not surprising in the least.

Our coach chose not to control the tempo, we could not compete. O'Brien caused this game to be a blowout due to not making adjustments to his strategy based on his available personnel and the personnel he chose to play.

The chessmaster needs to learn the way his "pieces" move, and adjust his attack / defense based on the pieces he has left on the board, while taking into account his opponents pieces, the attacks his opponent is likely to make given their available pieces and the tendencies / playing style his opponent likes to utilize. Unfortunately, he fails to do this during our "matches". Frequently, this failure of execution results in "checkmate".

Basketball is not chess. In fact, I can think of few sports for which the chess analogy is less apt.

Brad8888
01-06-2009, 12:10 PM
I was making refernce to the fact that one of interesting tidbits that was hyped when O'Brien was hired is that he LOVES chess and plays often. If I recall correctly, he achieved some kind of master status at some time in the past before he became a coach. The Pacers I am sure wanted the public to understand that they had hired a coach who would be capable of strategic thought at a high level.

I agree with you, though. Basketball is NOT chess. The fluid athleticism present and the additional variables that happen during the flow of a game make basketball far more complex than chess. Perhaps O'Brien's chess playing has impacted his ability to analyze the intricacies of the game of basketball due to its faster, more dynamic nature?

I don't think O'Brien willfully makes detrimental decisions OR purposely ignores what is going on in front of him. I simply don't think he makes adjustments like other more successful coaches at either the college or professional levels of basketball routinely make.

count55
01-06-2009, 12:11 PM
I will say this, and I'm an Obie fan. It's time to abandon the half azz trap Defense. I know it's impossible to do this at this point in the season. It troubles me that this has been taught to the young guys now to the point that they'll have to be deprogrammed from the way it is run. It's maddening.

The gimmicky defense only works against teams that are dumb and/or teams that aren't prepared. At this point in the season they won't come against either. The elbow jumper is open everytime, no matter how well they rotate.

I like Obie, I may be the only one left, but he needs to quit trying to gimmick his way around the talent/team make up.

I just wonder if the coaching staff has over thought all of this without the long term in mind.

I agree, but I have far from a coach's eye for schemes.

The thing I always liked about Harter's defenses in the past is that, while they had very, very strong team defensive principles, they were predicated on basically playing straight up. Each man needed to guard their man first and foremost, then they needed to understand what the situation was with their teammates and team as a whole.

However, this team is definitely scrambling too much on defense. Take the play against Atlanta where Joe Johnson hit the three to put them up three. Quinn lambasted Marquis for leaving him, but Daniels had gone to guard the wide open (Horford) under the basket. Many, including me, felt he'd made the appropriate decision. The problem is that in watching the replays, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what they were trying to do, and who was really responsible for the breakdown. There were too many of them.

I also think that this team too consistently sags on the weakside, resulting in constantly being torched on ball reversal.

Unclebuck
01-06-2009, 12:14 PM
I've been trying to formulate a response that would be only very slightly sarcastic and yet funny. Haven't come up with anything. I do think the Jim O'Brien topic has been brought up before - although I'm not sure.

I do want to add something of a bit more substance. I don't believe the defense is a gimmick or highly schemed or something out of the ordinary - in fact to me it looks a lot, in fact to me it looks like the exact thing as the Celtics defense - (I'm talking about the system - not the execution)

Hicks
01-06-2009, 12:15 PM
Maybe O'Brien's chess background makes him overthink the game of basketball which results in his highly-schemed defense?

Brad8888
01-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Here is a link about O'Brien and other Pacers related coaches and personnel and their chess playing. They also believe there are a lot of similarities between the two games.

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7853/381/

count55
01-06-2009, 12:26 PM
Here is a link about O'Brien and other Pacers related coaches and personnel and their chess playing. They also believe there are a lot of similarities between the two games.

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7853/381/

That was interesting.

I tend to agree with O'Brien's comments regarding controlling the middle, preparation, and strategy.

I get relatively uncomfortable when coaches talk about chess in relation to basketball, because it brings to mind the move/countermove ideology, and I begin to fear that the coach holds an illusory view over the control and impact he can have in a game. (Which I consider to be relatively limited during a game.)

duke dynamite
01-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Chess was always too hard for me.

Speed
01-06-2009, 12:40 PM
I agree, but I have far from a coach's eye for schemes.

The thing I always liked about Harter's defenses in the past is that, while they had very, very strong team defensive principles, they were predicated on basically playing straight up. Each man needed to guard their man first and foremost, then they needed to understand what the situation was with their teammates and team as a whole.

However, this team is definitely scrambling too much on defense. Take the play against Atlanta where Joe Johnson hit the three to put them up three. Quinn lambasted Marquis for leaving him, but Daniels had gone to guard the wide open (Horford) under the basket. Many, including me, felt he'd made the appropriate decision. The problem is that in watching the replays, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what they were trying to do, and who was really responsible for the breakdown. There were too many of them.

I also think that this team too consistently sags on the weakside, resulting in constantly being torched on ball reversal.

Exactly!

Here is the thing. I you decide to pull a big over to the opposite block, NO MATTER WHAT. You are out of position as a team. It's math, if someone is guarding no one, then someone it open.

Typically, in the recent past we were PUT out of position by very poor one on one defense. However you didn't play a SCHEME that is predicated on being out of position or not guarding someone. So, to me if your going to play this way, your saying "we feel like we can not guard our man one on one, so we are going to concede this and go strong side help, PREEMPTIVELY.

A good point guard or player for that matter TRIES to get two guys to guard him so he can get it to the open guy for an open shot (on the elbow mostly, against this scheme). It seems simple to beat and being a life long point guard, it's the kind of thing you hope for!! Double team me so I can drop the easy dime.

My point is this, in years past you had JO who, if anything we can agree about, is a shot blocker, this allowed for some of the "beat off the dribble mistakes" to be keep to a minimum.

I dread when dunleavy comes back in this scheme because he'll draw charges galore, cuz he's smart and great at it, but it's still saying okay drive the lane. I worry about the tremendous physical pounding Dun will get in this scheme.

Lastly, if Harter could have Mark Jackson and Chris Mullin not getting killed on defense, why in the world can they not do better than this with these guys. It's almost comical, if it wasn't so sad.

At this point, I'd rather go back to individual accountability on Defense with helpside when absolutely needed. I think with this group (TJ and JJ), you can take away one of the historic horrible problems with accountability. What do you have to lose? I'm not saying put guys out on an island, but let's try to do something more traditional, because this SCHEME is getting worse by the moment.

Unclebuck
01-06-2009, 12:49 PM
Sure Harter's defense were about plkaying one on one defense, they rarely if ever doubled the post, but it was a very much a team defense. help and recover was the basis for the system. They played the exact same no matter who the opponent was - they defended the pick and roll the exact same......It was excution over scheming. This defense is similar in that regard - a lot of the principles are the same - but the zone rules allow flooded the strong side more

But when the zone rules were changed 7 years ago or so defenses have changed and now most teams attempt to do what the Pacers current defense does - give up contested long two point shots and make the team pass the ball a few times.

Sorry - I really had to rush through this - wish I could delve into this deeper - I love this stuff. (more fun thatn talking about whether JOB is the worst coach of all time or just bad)

count55
01-06-2009, 12:51 PM
Sure Harter's defense were about plkaying one on one defense, they rarely if ever doubled the post, but it was a very much a team defense. They played the exact same no matter who the opponent was - they defended the pick and roll the exact same......

But when the zone rules were changed 7 years ago or so defenses have changed and now most teams attempt to do what the Pacers current defense does - give up contested long two point shots and make the team pass the ball a few times.

Sorry - I really had to rush through this

No, I agree that it was very much a team defense.

I miss the old illegal defense rules.

Bball
01-06-2009, 01:20 PM
Has it been considered that maybe OBrien is not very good at scaling things to his personnel?

I'm not making that claim, just throwing it out for some discussion....

Hicks
01-06-2009, 01:23 PM
The problem is that teams are hitting said long 2's because they're wide open.

count55
01-06-2009, 01:51 PM
Has it been considered that maybe OBrien is not very good at scaling things to his personnel?

I'm not making that claim, just throwing it out for some discussion....

That's an interesting question, particularly defensively. I do know that our offensive pace factor the last two years (97.7 & 96.2) is higher than Obie's other full years (Bos - 92.5 & 90.9; Philly - 94.9). It should also be noted that his teams' Defensive Ratings were inversely related to their pace factor. That is, the 2003 team in Boston at 90.9 was ranked 5th, the 2002 team at 92.5 was ranked 7th, and the Philly team (94.9) was ranked 10th. Last year's Pacer team (97.7) was ranked 15th, and this year's (96.2) is ranked 18th. It would seem that faster the pace, the less effective his defense.

Of course, there may be a fallacy in that discussion because it's based on three different franchises with three completely different sets of players.

The other interesting thing I found with Obie's teams is that their offenses, for all the points they score, aren't particularly good. Last year's team was team was ranked 19th in Offensive Rating (Points per 100 possessions), and this year's is only 18th. This is not an anomaly, as his highest ranked full season was the 2003 Celtics, who were 17th. His other two full seasons (2002 Boston, 2005 Philly) were both 24th.

I'm not entirely sure how to compare the teams, but if you look at the roster for the 2003 Celtics (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2003.html), his best defensive team, I don't see a ton of individual defensive skills there.

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2009, 02:06 PM
Its gotten to the point that I'm fairly sure Obie and Bird have decided to tank. You simply don't make the decisions he does unless you plan on losing. I'm not saying that as an insult, just a fact. His decisions can only be explained by tanking.

Now, as for whether or not he will be back. I think he will be. I hate him as a coach, but fricken Dunleavy game him a perfect excuse to a bad season. This off season will show me a lot about Bird. I love what Bird has done in the draft, but he is at all the home games, maybe away too I don't know. If he has payed attention to any of these games, I would hope he could look past the injury of Dunleavy and see the decisions Obie has been making. As a coach, Obie doesn't look to patch up the teams weaknesses, he simply tries to make our strong suit, stronger. Sadly, that still leaves us with a gaping hole somewhere else. In this case, our defense.

Obie talks about defense a lot, but he doesn't coach it. I'm sick of hearing people say we don't have the players to be a good defensive team. Jack is a good defender at the PG position, Rush is a good defender, Daniels is a good defender, Granger is a good defender, Hibbert is a decent defender, Foster is a decent defender, McRoberts is a good defender, and so on. Now, I'm not saying we should have the best team defensively in the NBA, but it should be leagues better than what it is. His defensive rotations and sub patterns make no sense at all. He is an awful coach for this team.

OakMoses
01-06-2009, 02:18 PM
Here are some thoughts/questions about the defense. I am willing to assume that the scheme works due to the past sucesses of O'Brien/Harter defenses.

- I think the players are overdoing the force the guy toward the baseline concept. I see this from all of our guards regularly. Instead of playing tough man defense, they slide too far toward the lane to force their man to drive baseline. The result is that they practically invite their man to penetrate which then starts the whole problematic rotation cycle. I'd much rather have them told, "Don't let your man drive, but if he does, push him toward the baseline."

- I think the rotational abilities of this team are severely limited by the lack of frontcourt athleticism. Rasho and Hibbert cannot be asked to rotate and switch, they're way too slow. Troy is better, but still not quick enough to pull it off. Foster, McRoberts, and Baston seem to be the only bigs we have who are quick/athletic enough to excel in this system. If you look at the defensive stats on 82games.com, you'll notice that our defense is markedly better with Foster and/or McRoberts on the floor (99.6 & 99.8 points/poss.) than it is with Murphy, Hibbert, or Nesterovic (who are all over 104 points/poss). In this respect, I do think the defense is very poorly matched with the personnel.

- Someone among our perimeter defenders is making mistakes and leaving guys open. I know it's hard to identify because of the constant rotation, but I know that the system is not designed to leave good shooters wide open. My hunch is that Marquis and Danny leave their men pretty regularly to try and make "plays" on defense (blocks for Danny, deflections and steals for Marquis).

- Ultimately, I don't know how we could tweak the defense to improve it. What worries me is that it seems to be getting worse. I can buy the argument that a team with a complex defensive system and 7 new players has a long way to come and won't be there by game 34, but we're seemingly worse now than we were at the beginning of the year, and that is bothersome to me. My hunch would be to tell our guards to more strongly deny any type of penetration, especially from the top of the key. It's fine to force a guy toward the baseline from the wing where he's going to wind up trapping himself, but from the top of the key or the free throw line extended, allowing penetration should really not be exceptable at all.

I'd love to hear some thoughts from all of you who are smarter than me about this.

Since86
01-06-2009, 02:28 PM
Last night's game is a perfect example of why I think JOb is a horrible coach. I know coaches can't make every decision for their players, and I know they can look at their bench and say there is no one else to put in for them so they have to leave some players on the floor, BUT........

When they battle back from such a big hole, and then you have JJack running down and shooting the ball with no offensive players under the basket with 4 Denver players back. If he was getting to the rim, then that's one thing, but pull up jumpers with 20secs left on the clock, and they aren't even ft range jumpers but just inside the 3pt line. That's horrible decision making, completely horrible.

Do we see JOb call a TO and rip into him? Do we see any type of correcting the behavior? No. They, the team, continually runs up and down the floor chucking the first open shot they see. Watching Jeff Foster shoot from the elbow, or further, makes me want to puke. And the sad thing is JOb encourages it.

It's obviously not as bad, but it gives me flash backs of Tinsley during the PHO game. He just stands there and watches the whole thing unfold, instead of letting them know that is unacceptable decision making.

I see the same mistakes, or horrible coaching philosophy that leads to horrible decisions, made game after game after game. It's god awful to watch and completely frustrating. They busted their asses off last night to get back into the game, then start getting shot happy. Say what you will about Rick's slow tempo offense, but I know if he was coaching and Anthony Carter was guarding Danny, DG would have saw the ball a hell of a lot more on the block to abuse him. Watching Carter slip through screen after screen and staying in Danny's jersey was comical. The term mismatch must completely be foreign to them.

I just don't see improvements, which is a lot like last year.

count55
01-06-2009, 02:42 PM
Here are some thoughts/questions about the defense. I am willing to assume that the scheme works due to the past sucesses of O'Brien/Harter defenses.

- I think the players are overdoing the force the guy toward the baseline concept. I see this from all of our guards regularly. Instead of playing tough man defense, they slide too far toward the lane to force their man to drive baseline. The result is that they practically invite their man to penetrate which then starts the whole problematic rotation cycle. I'd much rather have them told, "Don't let your man drive, but if he does, push him toward the baseline."

I think you're onto something here. It does seem that many times, their positioning seems "exaggerated".


- I think the rotational abilities of this team are severely limited by the lack of frontcourt athleticism. Rasho and Hibbert cannot be asked to rotate and switch, they're way too slow. Troy is better, but still not quick enough to pull it off. Foster, McRoberts, and Baston seem to be the only bigs we have who are quick/athletic enough to excel in this system. If you look at the defensive stats on 82games.com, you'll notice that our defense is markedly better with Foster and/or McRoberts on the floor (99.6 & 99.8 points/poss.) than it is with Murphy, Hibbert, or Nesterovic (who are all over 104 points/poss). In this respect, I do think the defense is very poorly matched with the personnel.

I think it's a combination of lack of athleticism and lack of instinct, or feel. Both Foster and McRoberts have above average quickness for big guys, though I think Foster has better instincts.

As for Hibbert, I think a good deal of his mechanical movements come from overthinking the game. It seems to me that he can move with surprising fluidity at times, leading me to think that when he just relaxes and reacts, he's not too bad of an athlete, but stopping to think accentuates his athletic shortcomings.

I've said this umpteen times, but I haven't seen someone labor as much physically as Rasho does since Rik Smits' final year.

While it's likely a bad match for the personnel, it is also hampered by the fact that, whatever their assignments are, they don't seem to come naturally. The defense becomes a house of cards, and once someone misses an assignment, it's all over.


- Someone among our perimeter defenders is making mistakes and leaving guys open. I know it's hard to identify because of the constant rotation, but I know that the system is not designed to leave good shooters wide open. My hunch is that Marquis and Danny leave their men pretty regularly to try and make "plays" on defense (blocks for Danny, deflections and steals for Marquis).

IMO, we ball-gawk too much. I don't know if this is by design or flaws with the individual players. In either case, the task falls to the coaching staff to fix it. If it's a flaw in the players' execution, they should constantly be harping on keeping track of both the ball and their man. If it's design, then it should be changed. We get burned too often away from the ball.


- Ultimately, I don't know how we could tweak the defense to improve it. What worries me is that it seems to be getting worse. I can buy the argument that a team with a complex defensive system and 7 new players has a long way to come and won't be there by game 34, but we're seemingly worse now than we were at the beginning of the year, and that is bothersome to me. My hunch would be to tell our guards to more strongly deny any type of penetration, especially from the top of the key. It's fine to force a guy toward the baseline from the wing where he's going to wind up trapping himself, but from the top of the key or the free throw line extended, allowing penetration should really not be exceptable at all.

I'd love to hear some thoughts from all of you who are smarter than me about this.

I agree that the regression is a problem, but there are some factors that are contributing to this. With nagging injuries and illnesses, we have shuffled the lineups, with Ford, Murph, Quis, and Danny missing games. Brandon Rush has been erratic, which is to say he's a rookie, and we've used Stephen Graham from time to time, who is problematic defensively. Additionally, we've begun to work Roy into the game, and he is struggling with the defense, while Rasho, who lacks athleticism but is a smart player, appears to have died from the waist down.

Something has to be done, but it's difficult to see what the right thing is. Generally, the thought would be to slow the game down, but I can see good reason for hesitation here. I would hate to have to run a half court, set piece game with this personnel. Slowing the pace down may or may not make us a better defensive team, but I'm almost certain it will make us a worse offensive team.

Prior to last night's debacle, the previous 9 games had been decided by a combined 5 points. While it may not be right, it's not hard to see why somebody inside that situation might feel they're this close to breaking through.

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2009, 03:15 PM
Last night's game is a perfect example of why I think JOb is a horrible coach. I know coaches can't make every decision for their players, and I know they can look at their bench and say there is no one else to put in for them so they have to leave some players on the floor, BUT........

When they battle back from such a big hole, and then you have JJack running down and shooting the ball with no offensive players under the basket with 4 Denver players back. If he was getting to the rim, then that's one thing, but pull up jumpers with 20secs left on the clock, and they aren't even ft range jumpers but just inside the 3pt line. That's horrible decision making, completely horrible.

Do we see JOb call a TO and rip into him? Do we see any type of correcting the behavior? No. They, the team, continually runs up and down the floor chucking the first open shot they see. Watching Jeff Foster shoot from the elbow, or further, makes me want to puke. And the sad thing is JOb encourages it.

It's obviously not as bad, but it gives me flash backs of Tinsley during the PHO game. He just stands there and watches the whole thing unfold, instead of letting them know that is unacceptable decision making.

I see the same mistakes, or horrible coaching philosophy that leads to horrible decisions, made game after game after game. It's god awful to watch and completely frustrating. They busted their asses off last night to get back into the game, then start getting shot happy. Say what you will about Rick's slow tempo offense, but I know if he was coaching and Anthony Carter was guarding Danny, DG would have saw the ball a hell of a lot more on the block to abuse him. Watching Carter slip through screen after screen and staying in Danny's jersey was comical. The term mismatch must completely be foreign to them.

I just don't see improvements, which is a lot like last year.

Agreed. I always liked Carlisle, I do understand why we fired him though. But seriously, he was a good coach, he knew how to coach, he'd exploit every mismatch he could. O'Brien doesn't seem to adjust in games. He has his gameplan, and he sticks to it no matter what. Hibbert scores 12 points on 6-6 shooting with 2 rebounds and a block in 8 minutes, and O'Brien pulls him out. If he'd make the simple adjustment of leaving the hot players in, we'd be looking at more wins. Its gotten to the point that other teams announcers are seeing it. The other night against the Kings I believe it was.

"Man, I can't figure out what O'Brien is doing. Roy Hibbert was dominating us, and he pulled him out of the game. Then Jarrett Jack makes 3 shots in a row, O'Brien pulls him out of the game. Now Marquis Daniels starts lighting us up, and O'Brien can't wait to get him out of the game. I don't understand this at all."

That wasn't the exact words he said, but it was something a lot like that. For another teams announcer to notice this in 1 quarter shows how bad his rotations are. He needs to let players on a roll play, its that simple.

Unclebuck
01-06-2009, 03:29 PM
Its gotten to the point that I'm fairly sure Obie and Bird have decided to tank. You simply don't make the decisions he does unless you plan on losing. I'm not saying that as an insult, just a fact. His decisions can only be explained by tanking.



I disagree - and I can explain everyone of his decisions and was trying to do so up untiul about 10 days ago when I was tired of doing so. But yes every decision he makes is reasonable - reasonab;le people can agree or disagree with. But no, tanking is not what is going on here. I am being very diplomatic in my response here

Brad8888
01-06-2009, 04:18 PM
We should know soon enough if tanking is the intent. If, when Dunleavy returns, he plays less than the maximum number of games that leaves the Pacers able to have his salary for the season covered by insurance (which I am not certain how many games that would be, can someone help me out here?) prior to re-aggravating his knee condition (whatever it actually is with no real details being released about it through the media), it seems plausible that something fishy might be going on. If he surpasses that point in games played, we are nearly certain to be legitimately trying to make the playoffs and simply are failing to get the needed wins to get there for many reasons.

count55
01-06-2009, 04:25 PM
We should know soon enough if tanking is the intent. If, when Dunleavy returns, he plays less than the maximum number of games that leaves the Pacers able to have his salary for the season covered by insurance (which I am not certain how many games that would be, can someone help me out here?) prior to re-aggravating his knee condition (whatever it actually is with no real details being released about it through the media), it seems plausible that something fishy might be going on. If he surpasses that point in games played, we are nearly certain to be legitimately trying to make the playoffs and simply are failing to get the needed wins to get there for many reasons.

I do not have intimate knowledge of their insurance policy, but it is my understanding that insurance will only reimburse a team for salary in lost games if the player is forced to retire from injury.

Anthem
01-06-2009, 04:32 PM
I do not have intimate knowledge of their insurance policy, but it is my understanding that insurance will only reimburse a team for salary in lost games if the player is forced to retire from injury.
Yeah, that sounds right. Assuming no hidden gotchas in the contracts we can't see, of course, but your understanding is the same as mine regarding general NBA policy.

count55
01-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Yeah, that sounds right. Assuming no hidden gotchas in the contracts we can't see, of course, but your understanding is the same as mine regarding general NBA policy.

Plus, there is a very real (and frightening) possibility that the team and Junior may be saying, "Well, it ain't getting any better or worse, let's give a try." If so, there is a very real (and even more frightening) possibility that it won't last long, and the injury could be very long term.

A short return by Dunleavy proves nothing, other than that the knee was not ready.

Hicks
01-06-2009, 05:07 PM
I don't think he'd be returning if it wasn't at least feeling better (meaning little to no pain when he plays hard). Obviously I can't speak to the injury itself, but as I understand it, the gradual increase in his practice time and what he can/cannot do has all be dependent on him feeling (relatively?) pain free after each incident. Therefore, I can only assume that even if the problem is still there, it's to the point where it does not result in Dunleavy being unable to play (relatively?) pain free and to his usual standards.

I guess we'll find out, eh?

Brad8888
01-06-2009, 05:28 PM
Sorry about the conspiracy theorist coming out in me with respect to the Dunleavy topic and how it relates to this thread. It is borne out of frustration with the lack of any kind of specific details about the actual nature of the injury, coupled with an overall lack of confidence in a lot of information that has come out of the front office for several years. I'm sure that this tactic is both rampant (AND necessary to an extent) throughout the NBA (sports in general, actually), but it frustrates me nonetheless.

I believe its likely that you are all correct. Insurance may well only cover injury forced retirement. It would be nearly untenable for the insurance companies to provide coverages at the astronomical salaries currently being paid for injuries that are more commonplace. Perhaps a part of me was hopeful that the franchise could possibly get at least a little financial relief as it continues to suffer from his long term absence.

Midcoasted
01-06-2009, 05:41 PM
We should have played Rush and McRoberts more last night for sure. It was ridiculous. Of course we got ran to the ground in the mile high city. It is harder to get oxygen up there if you're not used to it. I expected Denver would do something similiar to this. The defense was terrible. We'll just have to look at where we are at after this trip. Maybe we can squeeze out a couple wins and I won't consider the season lost yet.

Ford and Dunleavy returning will help but who knows. We had the best defensive fg% allowed at one point. We try to score quick on every play so therefore the other team gets alot of chances to score. We will see home high scorers this year. Hopefully we become the team scoring high and getting the few rotations of defense that help us win.

Kellog said it last night, the team that could play just a little defense last night would win. Denver has talent and we were gassed and shorthanded and Rush and McRoberts didn't see the floor. Coach is just dumb for that. Where is Baston at? He has better D than most of our so called "PFs."

Denver played defense for like an 8 minute span and we were done. How can we start playing an 8 minute defensive span but continue to score? Shouldn't a Baston, McRoberts, Granger, Rush and Jack line up be at least tried at some point?

Shade
01-06-2009, 06:05 PM
Alright, I have tried to merge all of the JOB threads together. If any of you notice any I missed, shoot me a PM.

Let's keep it all organized.

travmil
01-06-2009, 06:09 PM
Well, until tomorrow at least.

MillerTime
01-06-2009, 06:42 PM
If JOB were fired (though he probably wont be), who would you like to see hired? Personally I would like Avery? What about you guys?

CableKC
01-06-2009, 06:54 PM
Alright, I have tried to merge all of the JOB threads together. If any of you notice any I missed, shoot me a PM.

Let's keep it all organized.
Thanks. BTW....who named this merged "All things JO'B" thread and decided to call it "The Offical Fire JO'B Thread"?

I don't mind discussing JO'B and acknowledge his shortcoming, but I don't necessarily think that he should be fired...at least not for this season.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2009, 06:57 PM
As for Hibbert, I think a good deal of his mechanical movements come from overthinking the game. It seems to me that he can move with surprising fluidity at times, leading me to think that when he just relaxes and reacts, he's not too bad of an athlete, but stopping to think accentuates his athletic shortcomings.Totally agree Count. I think that will happen with him, at the very least he'll get to the smoothness of Smits if not a bit better.

CableKC
01-06-2009, 06:58 PM
If JOB were fired (though he probably wont be), who would you like to see hired? Personally I would like Avery? What about you guys?
I doubt that he would do it cuz he's getting too old....but I have always like Hubie Brown as a Coach.

CableKC
01-06-2009, 07:04 PM
Sorry, I was answering your question as to who I would like as a Coach.

I would like Hubie Brown as a Head Coach, but I think that he's getting old....which I think was one of the reasons he left the Grizzlies ( due to his age ).

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2009, 07:13 PM
I disagree - and I can explain everyone of his decisions and was trying to do so up untiul about 10 days ago when I was tired of doing so. But yes every decision he makes is reasonable - reasonab;le people can agree or disagree with. But no, tanking is not what is going on here. I am being very diplomatic in my response here
ie Buck has decided to tank this thread.

Looks like Shade is in on it too with his decision to merge it. Quitters.

Haggard
01-06-2009, 07:33 PM
Plus, there is a very real (and frightening) possibility that the team and Junior may be saying, "Well, it ain't getting any better or worse, let's give a try." If so, there is a very real (and even more frightening) possibility that it won't last long, and the injury could be very long term.

A short return by Dunleavy proves nothing, other than that the knee was not ready.


Sounds exactly like another player we had who was traded away at before this season started.

Anthem
01-06-2009, 08:11 PM
Thanks. BTW....who named this merged "All things JO'B" thread and decided to call it "The Offical Fire JO'B Thread"?
Yeah, could we just call this "The Official Jim O'Brien Thread?

That way I won't get twitchy with this staying at the top of the forum for the rest of the season. I'll just ignore it and move on.

Anthem
01-06-2009, 08:12 PM
Plus, there is a very real (and frightening) possibility that the team and Junior may be saying, "Well, it ain't getting any better or worse, let's give a try." If so, there is a very real (and even more frightening) possibility that it won't last long, and the injury could be very long term.

A short return by Dunleavy proves nothing, other than that the knee was not ready.
Oh man, I don't even want to think about that. I can sure imagine it happening, though. So far, we're not far off of last year's JO trajectory. If Dun goes out after a few games, I'm ready to talk about "career will never be the same."

NashvilleKat
01-06-2009, 08:40 PM
I say it's time to fire Dick Harter. He was brought in to teach the Pacers how to play defense. He's a defensive specialist...but obviously the game has passed him by. Either our players are not good enough to execute his system, or he's so old he's lost his ability to teach it properly and enforce how to do it the right way. Which ever, Harter should take full responsibility for our defensive struggles and be fired immediately! I love Obrien's offense...it's just Harter's defense I can't stand.

vnzla81
01-06-2009, 08:48 PM
the pacers don't have the right players to play D

NashvilleKat
01-06-2009, 09:02 PM
just wanted to know when Jim O' brien will be held accountable for all of these losses. i mean sometimes i wonder what on earth he is doing. he doesn't play McRoberts he takes Hibbert out in the 4th quarter when he was doing good in the 3rd quarter and he did the same w/ Rush in the Milwaukee game. This guy is an average coach. Bird needs to bring in a Avery Johnson or someone like that , that has a winning recipe for success. And what's mind boggling is JOB continues to show that his teams do not and will not play defense... your thoughts?

JOB coaches the offense...Dick Harter coaches the defense. Harter was brought in to make us a tough NBA defensive team...he has failed miserably. Fire coach Harter!!!

Hicks
01-06-2009, 09:31 PM
To those asking about the name, while I didn't chose it, I can understand it because I believe this thread is a merger of various threads all having to do with "When will Bird hold him accountable" and the like. It's not supposed to be the plain, generic "Jim O'Brien thread." It's just to keep all of the calls for his head in one spot.

Unclebuck
01-06-2009, 09:50 PM
I say it's time to fire Dick Harter. He was brought in to teach the Pacers how to play defense. He's a defensive specialist...but obviously the game has passed him by. Either our players are not good enough to execute his system, or he's so old he's lost his ability to teach it properly and enforce how to do it the right way. Which ever, Harter should take full responsibility for our defensive struggles and be fired immediately! I love Obrien's offense...it's just Harter's defense I can't stand.

Harter is almost 80 years old and he's not in charge of the defense, so unless you want to fire him because he's old, there is no reason to

MrSparko
01-06-2009, 10:15 PM
Harter is almost 80 years old and he's not in charge of the defense, so unless you want to fire him because he's old, there is no reason to

It'll be a sad day when he completely retires. I was already depressed when I learned he wasn't doing the defense planning.

Anthem
01-06-2009, 10:50 PM
JOB coaches the offense...Dick Harter coaches the defense. Harter was brought in to make us a tough NBA defensive team...he has failed miserably. Fire coach Harter!!!
So you're saying Dick Harter has gotten soft in his old age?

duke dynamite
01-07-2009, 12:28 AM
Harter is almost 80 years old and he's not in charge of the defense, so unless you want to fire him because he's old, there is no reason to
Plenty of greeters needed at Wal-Mart.

MagicRat
01-07-2009, 08:39 AM
I believe this thread is a merger of various threads all having to do with "When will Bird hold him accountable" and the like.

I assume JOB vs Carlisle is in here, too?

http://chaos.able-towers.com/%7Emagicrat/jobvscarlisle.jpg

Justin Tyme
01-07-2009, 11:31 AM
It'll be a sad day when he completely retires. I was already depressed when I learned he wasn't doing the defense planning.


Who is running the defense?

Unclebuck
01-07-2009, 11:52 AM
Who is running the defense?

I believe I heard O'Brien mention on his radio show that Lester Conner is running the defense - and I think he might have mentioned with some help from Dan Burke

Cherokee
01-07-2009, 12:04 PM
Lester "The Molester" was good at playing defense, but I'm not sold on his coaching it so far.

Bball
01-07-2009, 12:37 PM
I believe I heard O'Brien mention on his radio show that Lester Conner is running the defense - and I think he might have mentioned with some help from Dan Burke

Then what is Dick Harter doing?

-Bball

Hicks
01-07-2009, 12:43 PM
Then what is Dick Harter doing?

-Bball

I'm thinking he's more of a general advisor to O'Brien and probably does various tasks during practice (drills and the like). I'm sure he does enough to carry his weight.

Unclebuck
01-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Yeah, I heard O'Brien describe what Harter does - and I forget exactly -gameplans - practice stuff. - Not sure. JOB trusts him 100%.

Justin Tyme
01-07-2009, 01:58 PM
Whether it's Conner, Burke, or whoever, there is no way around the situation that the Pacers play terrible defense. There is NO reason or excuse that this
team isn't playing better "D" than it does with the players it has. Granted they aren't the best, but they are capable of better than what has been shown the last 20 plus games. They played some decent "D" early in the season with the same players, so it's not like they are incapable of doing it.

If they need better players to play better "D", then it's up to Bird to get them!

BlueNGold
01-07-2009, 07:53 PM
We give up the 3rd highest points per game in the entire league. Only Golden State and the Knicks have us beat. Until this changes dramatically, nothing much will change. OTOH, the Cavs, Celtics, Hornets, Magic, Spurs and Pistons give up the least number of points per game. Funny how a little defense can bring in the W's.

LG33
01-07-2009, 10:00 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=predictions09/nba

"Coaching Hot Seat Cools Off"

Marc Stein, ESPN.com: The first day of 2009 will mark the 17th consecutive day a coach has not been fired.


This season?


That qualifies as hard news.


But after a whopping six coaches were canned in a 24-day span before Christmas -- doubling the previous NBA record of three and after just one in-season coaching change (Chicago firing Scott Skiles) was made in 2007-08 -- our crystal ball says we won't see any more firings until after the regular season.


OK, OK. Maybe there will be one more no one in coaching circles anticipates right now, given how volatile this business is these days. Yet it appears the coaching carousel has really (and mercifully) stopped spinning until the end of the regular season.


Eight teams began this season with new coaches. Six teams just made changes. And when you scan the other half of the league for coaches in trouble, there are good reasons to argue against any of the four coaches with records well under .500 being asked to leave in season.



• Memphis' Marc Iavaroni has the young Grizzlies playing nearly .500 ball at home ... and has received pretty strong public backing from Grizz owner Michael Heisley that his job is safe for the rest of the season. You can dismiss it as the dreaded "vote of confidence," but none of the six coaches fired since Nov. 22 received the level of on-the-record support Iavaroni got when Heisley announced earlier this month that "I'm behind him 100 percent."


• Golden State's Don Nelson just beat Boston without Monta Ellis (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2751), Jamal Crawford (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=165) and Corey Maggette (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=497) and just received a contract extension in October. So even if Nelson were trying to get himself fired, as has been suggested by various media types, given the stunning lack of defense and focus we've seen from the Warriors at times, it's not going to happen, after the Dubs locked themselves into paying Nellie $12 million over the next two seasons.


• In Indiana, Jim O'Brien is Larry Bird's guy, handpicked by Bird in his first coaching selection since succeeding Donnie Walsh as the Pacers' lead decision-maker. The Pacers certainly expected to be better, but they aren't deep enough in this early stage of their rebuilding to cope with a steady stream of injuries, most notably Mike Dunleavy (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=1708)'s season-long absence.


• Dunleavy's father, meanwhile, probably is even safer in Clipperland than Nelson is in Oakland because of his financial insulation. With Mike Dunleavy Sr. now in charge of personnel as well, Clippers owner Donald Sterling would have to pay off Dunleavy's lucrative contract (he's due $10-plus million over two years after this season) and likely find two replacements, one for the bench and one for the front office. Even the idea that Dunleavy would restrict himself to GM duties and replace himself with assistant coach Kim Hughes looks like a long shot, no matter how much happier that would make Baron Davis (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=194).


Don't fret, though. You can be sure the carousel will be spinning again soon enough, in April and May, with the likes of Flip Saunders, Eddie Jordan, Avery Johnson and Sam Mitchell on the market and playoff disappointments leading to another change or three.


I'd say we've seen enough turnover for one season anyway. Haven't we?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first time I've seen something like this published, but I guess it has more to do with our record than anything.

Putnam
01-07-2009, 11:00 PM
So, if I read this right, there's no basis for any allegation that O'Brien's job is imperiled, and plenty of reason to explain the Pacers disappointing performance so far on factors other than O'Brien. Have I got that right?

Roaming Gnome
01-08-2009, 12:30 AM
:flirt:

Pacers#1Fan
01-08-2009, 12:38 AM
To address the title; I agree, FIRE O'BRIEN!!!

Brad8888
01-08-2009, 01:01 PM
As last nights Phoenix game progressed, I could not believe what I was seeing. O'Brien calling timeouts to slow the opponent and manage the tempo of the game. Using substitutions that made sense at the time. By the middle of the 4th, I was convinced that O'Brien was coaching his best game since his arrival here. Without proper coaching from the sidelines from O'Brien, we would have actually lost this game. I really never thought I would ever post an entry like this with respect to O'Brien. Even if we had lost, it still would have qualified, in my opinion, as easily his best performance. Bravo, Jim!

JayRedd
01-08-2009, 01:10 PM
We give up the 3rd highest points per game in the entire league. Only Golden State and the Knicks have us beat. Until this changes dramatically, nothing much will change. OTOH, the Cavs, Celtics, Hornets, Magic, Spurs and Pistons give up the least number of points per game. Funny how a little defense can bring in the W's.

Points per game is meaningless.

Those teams you list all play at much slower paces then us. Fewer possessions mean fewer points per game, regardless of how good your defense is.

Points per possession is the much more relevant statistic if you want to talk about overarching team defensive ability over the course of a season.

When you adjust for pace, we're 18th in the League (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2009.html).

Clearly, most of the best teams in the NBA this season tend to play at a slower pace. And that may be telling. But the debate over pace is an entirely different one from the debate over defensive efficiency, where, again, we rank middle of the pack at 18th.

No, that's not great -- nor even particularly good. But we're certainly not nearly as defensively deficient as the actually abysmal teams like Golden State, Sacramento or Washington. (Nor are even the Knicks actually.)

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 02:48 AM
somebody that loves JOB please tell me why foster and Jack where on the floor at the end of the game? 5 guys guarding 3:confused:

Cherokee
01-10-2009, 02:55 AM
somebody that loves JOB please tell me why foster and Jack where on the floor at the end of the game? 5 guys guarding 3:confused:

I think JOB is coaching-impaired.