PDA

View Full Version : Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand



CableKC
01-10-2009, 01:18 AM
Since no one is doing it.....<< Please merge if needed >>

A few thoughts here:

1 ) Why Jack is out there after scoring only 2 points for the entire game and being useless guarding Kobe is beyond me.
2 ) The Announcers said it......5 fouls with less then a minute left....and Granger is guarding a foul-magnet.....bad idea for Granger to guard Kobe....just a bad idea.
3 ) I don't even know what to say about that last play. If we needed a backdoor pass come from a Big Man...I would much rather have Rasho do it then Foster...he's way better at passing and HE CAN HIT that shot from where Foster was standing. :banghead:

crunk-juice
01-10-2009, 01:19 AM
i just dont get how Foster didnt have the awareness to shoot.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2009, 01:20 AM
Yup, O'Brien is a great coach.

All of his supporters, explain, please.

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:21 AM
It really makes you wonder how someone like JOB is even a coach. If this message board could somehow coach this team by commitee, it would be wayyy better than JOB.

I do like the offense he has our team running, I really do. But his substitutions and decisions are just ridiculous, does this guy even have a high school diploma.

We need to bring ANYBODY who is a point guard up from the D-league to replace jarrett jack, this is just ridiculous.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 01:21 AM
i just dont get how Foster didnt have the awareness to shoot.
I can....he wasn't expecting to shoot....he was expecting to quickly pass the ball to Dunleavy...and when the avenue was closed off by Sasha...he wasn't prepared to shoot.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 01:22 AM
I miss Daniels and Ford. Can we ever get to full health?

Wish Rush could have a little bit more confidence so we could have seen him in the game tonight.

YOU CAN DO IT!

Suaveness
01-10-2009, 01:23 AM
I really don't have a problem with how this game was coached. Is every loss a bad-coached game to you people?

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:24 AM
If i dont post ever again it's because i drowned in my own tears tonight. When Dunleavy hit that three I just got that feeling we had it....it doesn't get more disappointing than this loss.

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:26 AM
I really don't have a problem with how this game was coached. Is every loss a bad-coached game to you people?

Every loss is not a bad coached game. I have NEVER thought a single game this season was a loss due to coaching. But this one is INEXCUSABLE. Jarrett Jack guarding Kobe was a joke. And Jack even playing any minutes in the 4th is a complete joke.

Did anyone see Kobe when he saw Jack at him on the final shot. He looked like he was getting ready to shoot a jumper in an empty gym. He knew he was making that shot.

crunk-juice
01-10-2009, 01:26 AM
I can....he wasn't expecting to shoot....he was expecting to quickly pass the ball to Dunleavy...and when the avenue was closed off by Sasha...he wasn't prepared to shoot.

well when he saw it was closed off he needs to know. he had 3 seconds.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 01:27 AM
We need to bring ANYBODY who is a point guard up from the D-league to replace jarrett jack, this is just ridiculous.
There is "good" Jack, the one we saw light up the Knicks.....then there's the "sucky" Jack...the one we saw tonight. Why no one on the Coaching staff realized that Kobe was abusing Jack everytime he had the mismatch is what's frustrating. It looks like Jack was doing his best to minimize Kobe's drives to the hoop.....but once Kobe sized him up....he just shot over the much shorter Jack.

Honestly....I would much rather have BRush defend Kobe, get some ticky-tacky rookie fouls then have Jack guard him. At least there was a chance that Kobe wouldn't have abused BRush like he did Jack.

If Marquis was healthy...Jack wouldn't have been on the floor.

QuickRelease
01-10-2009, 01:28 AM
The only thing I can do is try to sleep this one off. Later guys!

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:30 AM
There is "good" Jack, the one we saw light up the Knicks.....then there's the "sucky" Jack...the one we saw tonight. Why no one on the Coaching staff realized that Kobe was abusing Jack everytime he had the mismatch is what's frustrating. It looks like Jack was doing his best to minimize Kobe's drives to the hoop.....but once Kobe sized him up....he just shot over the much shorter Jack.

Honestly....I would much rather have BRush defend Kobe, get some ticky-tacky rookie fouls then have Jack guard him. At least there was a chance that Kobe wouldn't have abused BRush like he did Jack.

If Marquis was healthy...Jack wouldn't have been on the floor.

Anyone can look good against the knicks. Come playoff time (which we wont be in) teams like the knicks don't matter. You have to worry about GOOD teams.

I might be hanging myself here, but how many good games has Jack had against better NBA teams. I am honestly asking.

theboyjwo
01-10-2009, 01:31 AM
Seriously? That is how you play out the final 2 possessions? Put a small Fry on the games best player and give him essentially an open jumper? Then pass it to the worst offensive player on the team, and let him try to create a play? JOB YOU ARE WORTHLESS. How do you not draw up a play for dunleavy, murphy, even Jack? What the heck enters his mind to think he can draw up a gimmick play on the final possession against one of the best teams int he league! Just throw the freaking game away! Bizzaro world. How do we have a great final play in Phx, and 2 days later, this crap!

avoidingtheclowns
01-10-2009, 01:31 AM
jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.

danny guarding kobe was a bad idea at that point.

i too would have preferred rasho to pass if we wanted a big to do it but honestly, i think if i would have passed the ball into foster i would have had him fake the pass back to dunleavy then drive to the hoop. with 3 seconds, even though mike is a much better shooter, i'd be afraid of what happened happening. i may be crazy, but i think i would have put graham out there for that play (instead of diener, probably). graham did a pretty good job in phoenix causing the suns to switch and follow him to the hoop - at the very least we could have sent him to the hoop in hopes of getting a quick layup to tie. but i don't really have a problem with the play - or at least to the point of screaming for o'brien's head. he set up a FLAWLESS play to win in phoenix and this one wasn't executed the way it was intended. it happens.

oh well. seriously people - we've played the lakers twice and the games have been decided by a total of THREE points. we got insanely lucky on troy's tap. we got insanely unlucky not even getting a shot off and having granger on the bench. i'm actually pretty encouraged by this -- i know we hate moral victories but honestly i was expecting to be blown out like the second celtics game. we played well without having TJ or Quis. mike had a solid second game (minus that stupid TO when granger got his 5th) danny had a pretty good game, troy had a great game... let's finish out the trip with wins in oakland and salt lake.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 01:32 AM
well when he saw it was closed off he needs to know. he had 3 seconds.
Anthem mentioned it......there isn't enough time for a rebound....so why Foster was out there in the first place is questionable. If we needed a Big Man passer out there, I would much rather have Rasho....at least he can hit that shot.

Either way....this is one of those prime examples of a decent play being written up that was simply disrupted. It looked like if Dunleavy was freed up and got the ball, he would have either shot the ball over Sasha or he would have quickly drove to the hoop since the lane was open.

tfarks
01-10-2009, 01:33 AM
Jack is what he is, a backup point guard. No more, no less. If he was more consistent he would be a starting point guard. O'Brien is not utilizing him correctly, and it showed. However, he's also tied with the fact that Ford is hurt, a team needs at least 2 point guards. Of course him guarding Kobe is inexcusable, I alluded to that fact in my Free Brandon Rush post.

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:34 AM
Seriously? That is how you play out the final 2 possessions? Put a small Fry on the games best player and give him essentially an open jumper? Then pass it to the worst offensive player on the team, and let him try to create a play? JOB YOU ARE WORTHLESS. How do you not draw up a play for dunleavy, murphy, even Jack? What the heck enters his mind to think he can draw up a gimmick play on the final possession against one of the best teams int he league! Just throw the freaking game away! Bizzaro world. How do we have a great final play in Phx, and 2 days later, this crap!

He did draw a play up for Dunleavy, problem was Foster was invovled. There isn't a single poster on this board that would of put rasho or troy in that play instead of foster.

Why doesn't Larry Bird just coach this team?

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:34 AM
Stephen Graham did well on Kobe on a few possessions.

Cherokee
01-10-2009, 01:35 AM
I rarely voice my opinion, but here goes:

1. Having Jarrett Jack guarding Kobe -- or even having Jack on the floor in the last four minutes when his IQ automatically falls 50 points -- is indefensible.
2. Granger committed three of the dumbest fouls I've ever seen him commit -- reaching in on Kobe is like $%#^^ing the queen of England out in the front yard of the palace.
3. Foster has been terrible of late, and hustle doesn't make it OK. He should never have been on the floor when a team needs two points to put it into OT or a 3 to win. You need five shooters out there, and we had three.
4. This one's on JOB.

Thank you. I needed to vent.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 01:38 AM
jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.

I know that BRush is a rookie and is prone to make some mistakes....but Jack on Kobe was a very bad matchup.....nearly every possession at the end of the game for Kobe that Jack was guarding him was an automatic score.

I could see that Jack was doing his best to defend Kobe......but in the end...he was just posting him up and shooting over him.

Don't get me wrong....I'm not saying put BRush on Kobe because I'm some BRush homer....I just don't see how BRush could have done any worse then Jack against Kobe who was having his way with him. At least the size advantage would have been negated.

Cherokee
01-10-2009, 01:38 AM
jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers.
i

I think I would rather have had Graham on him -- he's at least tall enough and jumps enough to get a hand in Bryant's face and make it somewhat difficult for him. I agree no one on the Pacer roster is a guaranteed stop on Bryant.

LoneGranger33
01-10-2009, 01:39 AM
My opinion:
I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.

Still can't get over that final play - but I do have to go to work tomorrow, so goodnight all.

Cherokee
01-10-2009, 01:40 AM
My opinion:
I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.


You're right, Jack isn't the one to blame. But who is responsible for him being out there in that situation? JOB.

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 01:42 AM
I rarely voice my opinion, but here goes:

1. Having Jarrett Jack guarding Kobe -- or even having Jack on the floor in the last four minutes when his IQ automatically falls 50 points -- is indefensible.
2. Granger committed three of the dumbest fouls I've ever seen him commit -- reaching in on Kobe is like $%#^^ing the queen of England out in the front yard of the palace.
3. Foster has been terrible of late, and hustle doesn't make it OK. He should never have been on the floor when a team needs two points to put it into OT or a 3 to win. You need five shooters out there, and we had three.
4. This one's on JOB.

Thank you. I needed to vent.



thank you..................I agreed with this:buddies:

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:42 AM
Ok i think i've vented enough, I just want to say that I would have Dunleavys child in a heartbeat. He is just such a fluid player. His passing is incredible, shooting is great and he just makes great decisions. I am so glad to have him back and I REALLLLY hope we can go on atlease a five game winning streak at some point this season. My psychiatrist says if the pacers win five games in a row he can cut back my medications and I can sleep again.


I mean what uppp

theboyjwo
01-10-2009, 01:42 AM
jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.



Oh I would have totally had Dunleavy on Kobe. Everyone knows in that situation Kobe gets the ball and runs down the shot clock and fires a jumper. Dun is 6'-9". Makes for a way tougher shot.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 01:43 AM
oh well. seriously people - we've played the lakers twice and the games have been decided by a total of THREE points. we got insanely lucky on troy's tap. we got insanely unlucky not even getting a shot off and having granger on the bench. i'm actually pretty encouraged by this -- i know we hate moral victories but honestly i was expecting to be blown out like the second celtics game. we played well without having TJ or Quis. mike had a solid second game (minus that stupid TO when granger got his 5th) danny had a pretty good game, troy had a great game... let's finish out the trip with wins in oakland and salt lake.
:buddies: I know we lost this game, but I will agree with you on this.....we played the Lakers 3 times and we were able to stay in the game until the end. That's the only silver lining.....we've given the Lakers a run for their money 3 times this season.

avoidingtheclowns
01-10-2009, 01:47 AM
Anthem mentioned it......there isn't enough time for a rebound....so why Foster was out there in the first place is questionable. If we needed a Big Man passer out there, I would much rather have Rasho....at least he can hit that shot.

yeah but there would have been time for a tip and feisty gets off the ground much better than rasho piedlourde. also, it isn't like jeff is a terrible passer so i understand having him out there. i'll say rasho is a better one but i don't think i would have drawn up a pass play like that anyway.


Either way....this is one of those prime examples of a decent play being written up that was simply disrupted. It looked like if Dunleavy was freed up and got the ball, he would have either shot the ball over Sasha or he would have quickly drove to the hoop since the lane was open.

basically


I think I would rather have had Graham on him -- he's at least tall enough and jumps enough to get a hand in Bryant's face and make it somewhat difficult for him. I agree no one on the Pacer roster is a guaranteed stop on Bryant.

graham hadn't done a bad job but this is the end of the game, the last thing we needed was an inexperienced BRush or Graham giving bryant an open lane by gambling. did about as well as could be expected - or at least as well as you could have expected BRush or Graham to do.


My opinion:
I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.

Still can't get over that final play - but I do have to go to work tomorrow, so goodnight all.

i thought jack had a fairly poor game offensively but the last play was fine. it was the best we could do and we still had a shot to win or tie the game.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 01:47 AM
I can....he wasn't expecting to shoot....he was expecting to quickly pass the ball to Dunleavy...and when the avenue was closed off by Sasha...he wasn't prepared to shoot.

And a professional basketball player needs to be prepared to shoot in that situation. Always.


jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.

This is what I would have posted if I didn't use capital letters. Jack played him fine. Kobe's just taller, stronger and can make that 15-foot fadeaway in his sleep. But he would have gotten by any of Rush, Graham or Dunleavy and either gotten all the way to the hoop or pulled up once he got them off-balance and made just as much space for him to get off a clean look as he did by simply overpowering and outjumping Jack.

theboyjwo
01-10-2009, 01:48 AM
He did draw a play up for Dunleavy, problem was Foster was invovled. There isn't a single poster on this board that would of put rasho or troy in that play instead of foster.

Why doesn't Larry Bird just coach this team?

A play with no screen, no pick, nothing.

"Dun just run to the corner after you inbound and we'll pass it to you!"

Come on this is the NBA, with the final shot to win the game you set screens get your best player open and you say go win the freaking game. Its that freaking simple. Thats how they do it for Lebron, wade, kobe, carmelo, arenas, Dirk, any #1 option.

Shade
01-10-2009, 01:48 AM
:buddies: I know we lost this game, but I will agree with you on this.....we played the Lakers 3 times and we were able to stay in the game until the end. That's the only silver lining.....we've given the Lakers a run for their money 3 times this season.

:huh:

avoidingtheclowns
01-10-2009, 01:49 AM
Oh I would have totally had Dunleavy on Kobe. Everyone knows in that situation Kobe gets the ball and runs down the shot clock and fires a jumper. Dun is 6'-9". Makes for a way tougher shot.

because with two good knees dun is a stellar 1-on-1 defender...

Shade
01-10-2009, 01:50 AM
I would have undoubtedly put Graham on him over Jack. Kobe molested Jack all night. Graham at least forced him into some tough shots and managed to stay in front of him.

Not Rush, though. As a rookie, he would have gotten a foul for looking at Kobe.

Cherokee
01-10-2009, 01:50 AM
Can anybody tell me why Hibbert and McBob didn't get more time? Hibbert was holding his own against their big guy, and McBob looked great when he was in there and really got the comeback going strong. He took McBob and someone out to put Foster and Jack into the game. Criminy.

count55
01-10-2009, 01:52 AM
jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.

I agree with this. I was actually fine with the way Jack guarded Kobe down the stretch. He kept him out of the lane, didn't foul him, and made him shoot over him. Graham was spotty, and both Danny and Brandon were disasters trying to guard him.

Jack had a horrible offense


danny guarding kobe was a bad idea at that point.

I agree with this completely. I don't care who else does it, but Danny with 5 fouls is the last guy I have guarding Kobe.


i too would have preferred rasho to pass if we wanted a big to do it but honestly, and even i think i'm crazy for this, i think i would have put graham out there too (for diener, probably). graham did a pretty good job in phoenix causing the suns to switch and follow him to the hoop - at the very least we could have sent him to the hoop in hopes of getting a quick layup to tie. as for foster, i think if i would have passed the ball into foster i would have had him fake the pass back to dunleavy then drive to the hoop. with 3 seconds, even though mike is a much better shooter, i'd be afraid of what happened happening. but i don't especially have a problem with it. or at least to the point of screaming for o'brien's head. he set up a FLAWLESS play to win in phoenix and this one wasn't executed the way it was intended. it happens.

oh well. seriously people - we've played the lakers twice and the games have been decided by a total of THREE points. we got insanely lucky on troy's tap. we got insanely unlucky not even getting a shot off and having granger on the bench. i'm actually pretty encouraged by this -- i know we hate moral victories but honestly i was expecting to be blown out like the second celtics game. we played well without having TJ or Quis. mike had a solid second game (minus that stupid TO when granger got his 5th) danny had a pretty good game, troy had a great game... let's finish out the trip with wins in oakland and salt lake.

I find the claims that "we had this game" to be ridiculous, considering the fact that we didn't lead once in the fourth quarter, and were only tied for a grand total of 23 seconds in the quarter. Danny made a dumb foul (that I've seen called a thousand times), and we missed a couple of free throws late that hurt.

I don't have any problem with the play that was called at the end of the game, but I do think O'Brien was wrong to have Foster on the floor. I probably would've gone with Rasho or gone small with Graham, and maybe have used McBob before putting Jeff in there. The guy receiving the inbound needed to be a threat.

On the positive side, Dunleavy looks rusty, but very good. If his shot comes back as it appears it's on the way, he has a very positive impact on this team down the stretch.

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:54 AM
Yes Dunleavy more talk about Dunleavy please...it makes me feel good inside my bones

avoidingtheclowns
01-10-2009, 01:55 AM
I would have undoubtedly put Graham on him over Jack. Kobe molested Jack all night. Graham at least forced him into some tough shots and managed to stay in front of him.

Not Rush, though. As a rookie, he would have gotten a foul for looking at Kobe.

dude, don't get so defensive just because you didn't get the shot off before the buzzer. it's okay, you don't have to project onto anyone. man up jeff.


Can anybody tell me why Hibbert and McBob didn't get more time? Hibbert was holding his own against their big guy, and McBob looked great when he was in there and really got the comeback going strong. He took McBob and someone out to put Foster and Jack into the game. Criminy.

i thought roy played a pretty good game despite some pretty tough rookie calls. i was impressed. but he wouldn't have made a difference. we climbed back into the game with the lineup we had on the floor. we were down by 12 at the quarter people and we were neck and neck with them by the end.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 01:55 AM
A play with no screen, no pick, nothing.

My guesstimation is that the play was supposed to be an entry pass and then immediate hand-off back to Mike, who could have theoretically used Foster to rub off his defender, take the hand-off and either raise up for a J or dribble attack.

I'm not sure how, but if that was the plan, it clearly got disrupted (maybe Foster came out too far or they just guarded it well?)

Either way, Mike couldn't make the space to get the ball back cleanly. And option B where he faded to create space for a pass clearly took a ride on the fail-boat as well.

But if it was intended to be a dribble hand-off, it sort of makes sense for it to be Jeff getting the ball. He's big, so he naturally keeps a guy on his back far away from the front where he's making the catch/trying to hand-off. He's quick, so he can flash out rapidly from the middle of the paint and create some separation from his defender before receiving the entry. And he's supposedly a "pro" who would be able to execute. Rasho would be too slow. I guess Murph could be equally as capable at catching and handing off, but Foster is the much better screener, which maybe O'Brien thought would allow Dunleavy more room to work after he re-received the ball back.

I dunno. Whatever the plan was, it was clearly broken.

And then Foster pooped his pants.

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:56 AM
Has anyone ever noticed how bad everyone on our team is at passing. I mean sure Ford and Jack find open guys and get assists, but do you notice how whenever Dunleavy passes whoever catches it is immediately in perfect rhythm.

Dun made one pass to foster tonight that led to a foster layup that was just beautiful. That seems to be a very underrated, or at least under appreciated aspect of his game. Maybe it isn't, but I haven't got to watch him play much (didnt have LP last year) and I am just amazed at that part of his game.

AesopRockOn
01-10-2009, 01:57 AM
I really can't complain about JOB in this game. We could have had Murphy in the game at the end because of the offense (spot up three shooting) he could have provided. But I have no problems with smart rebounds and/or tipouts by Foster. From what I saw, Rasho deserved no minutes tonight. He missed both open shots and defensive assignments. Hibbert outplayed him.

Danny's Eddie-House-type three point shooting isn't particularly good to look at. However, we need Danny like any team needs its most important player. If Danny gets to the line and another player shoots well in the second half, the game changes. Face it. Nobody can STOP Kobe. Kobe misses because he overchallenges himself or tries to overdo it. He is completely in control of his game. We did do alright in terms of closing out and/or doubling players like Sasha or Gasol in the second half. Powell did a number on us; what can you do about that? Dunleavy was a good as you can expect though his shooting form looks like Nancy Kerrigan falling down.

In final, I would say that the second half foul calls on Danny were unfortunate. There were mostly warranted but certainly turned the tide for a team with little other opportunities to achieve a win. Jack looked bad on scoring and missed a crucial free throw. As did others.

We almost beat or sent to overtime the Lakers at the Staple Center. And, somehow, we feel that more should have happened. I really do not object to hammering Gasol on every play and doing everything possible to keep Kobe from driving. With Lamar out, that is the only way to stop the Lakers. We were simply missing one more part of the equation tonight.

Note: Anyone wishing to keep Rasho on the team would make a strong judgment to deliver this game from memory. Brandon Rush is also totally lost and looks like an orphan out there. Help the guy, please!

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 01:59 AM
Yeah Rasho was pathetic tonight.

LoneGranger33
01-10-2009, 02:00 AM
Interesting / Encouraging Stat of the Night: I believe I heard that the Pacers are sixth in the league in free throws per game. You don't get free throws hoisting up the long ones (unless you are Granger, and those long ones are actually real long twos).

LoneGranger33
01-10-2009, 02:01 AM
Yeah Rasho was pathetic tonight.

He's had a bad couple months.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 02:01 AM
Has anyone ever noticed how bad everyone on our team is at passing.

Yes. Every possession.

Shade
01-10-2009, 02:02 AM
My guesstimation is that the play was supposed to be an entry pass and then immediate hand-off back to Mike, who could have theoretically used Foster to rub off his defender, take the hand-off and either raise up for a J or dribble attack.

I'm not sure how, but if that was the plan, it clearly got disrupted (maybe Foster came out too far or they just guarded it well?)

Either way, Mike couldn't make the space to get the ball back cleanly. And option B where he faded to create space for a pass clearly took a ride on the fail-boat as well.

But if it was intended to be a dribble hand-off, it sort of makes sense for it to be Jeff getting the ball. He's big, so he naturally keeps a guy on his back far away from the front where he's making the catch/trying to hand-off. He's quick, so he can flash out rapidly from the middle of the paint and create some separation from his defender before receiving the entry. And he's supposedly a "pro" who would be able to execute. Rasho would be too slow. I guess Murph could be equally as capable at catching and handing off, but Foster is the much better screener, which maybe O'Brien thought would allow Dunleavy more room to work after he re-received the ball back.

I dunno. Whatever the plan was, it was clearly broken.

And then Foster pooped his pants.

That was Plan A, and it was obviously disrupted. My question is, what was Plan B? It looked to me like there was no plan B, so Foster just had a brain freeze instead.

LoneGranger33
01-10-2009, 02:04 AM
Has anyone ever noticed how bad everyone on our team is at passing. I mean sure Ford and Jack find open guys and get assists, but do you notice how whenever Dunleavy passes whoever catches it is immediately in perfect rhythm.

Diener is a good passer. He just can't do much else.

OakMoses
01-10-2009, 02:05 AM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

Thanks to Count, JayRedd, and Aesop for trying to bring some semblance of reason to the discussion.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 02:06 AM
My opinion:
I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.

Still can't get over that final play - but I do have to go to work tomorrow, so goodnight all.
Regarding defending Kobe.....I'm not blaming him for doing a bad job on Kobe....I really think he did his best to defend him.....I'm just saying that he shouldn't have been on the floor in the first place to defend him simply for the fact that Jack doesn't have the size and length to properly defend a top-notch jumpshooter like Kobe.

If there is any blame in this, I guess I would leave it on JO'B for letting him stay on the floor. Just like everyone always harps on Foster or Murphy for being on the floor if they can't score or rebound the ball, if a Player isn't scoring very well ( he went 0-6 from the field while scoring 3 points on FTA ) and is being abused on the other end of the court by the top player in the league that is simply shooting over him.....then I just don't see the need for him to be on the floor.....especially if he is TO prone in the 4th QTR.

Another thing that was pointed out by someone else.......the rest of the team should have collapsed on Kobe at that point.....there was no way that Kobe wasn't going to take that shot and it was obvious that Jack wasn't able to defend him sufficiently to force a missed shot. In the end, we should have defended him better.....but we shouldn't have been put in a disadvantage in the first place by having a smaller defender on Kobe.

avoidingtheclowns
01-10-2009, 02:07 AM
Has anyone ever noticed how bad everyone on our team is at passing. I mean sure Ford and Jack find open guys and get assists, but do you notice how whenever Dunleavy passes whoever catches it is immediately in perfect rhythm.

Dun made one pass to foster tonight that led to a foster layup that was just beautiful. That seems to be a very underrated, or at least under appreciated aspect of his game. Maybe it isn't, but I haven't got to watch him play much (didnt have LP last year) and I am just amazed at that part of his game.

dunleavy and diener excel at this and we've missed it quite a bit during the first 30+ games of the season. there is a reason the offense runs much smoother with travis than with jarrett running the show and it comes down to passing. the problem is travis is a matador defender at best and he doesn't have size or length to make up for it. the play at the end of the suns win is a perfect example of dunleavy's passing ability.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 02:08 AM
I don't care who else does it, but Danny with 5 fouls is the last guy I have guarding Kobe.

The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.

If I'm a coach and my only two options (in my own mind, since I'm not putting rookie Rush, erratic Graham or hobbled MDJ on him) are a solid, yet undersized and clearly physically outmatched Jarrett Jack or a $10 million-making All Star who is physically bigger than Kobe, has the quickness to not get blown by and for the past two seasons has been almost without fail been guided by mature, savvy and intelligent basketball decisions...I probably go with option #2.

Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 02:09 AM
I would have undoubtedly put Graham on him over Jack. Kobe molested Jack all night. Graham at least forced him into some tough shots and managed to stay in front of him.

Not Rush, though. As a rookie, he would have gotten a foul for looking at Kobe.
Okay...fine...no BRush.....Graham is fine.....the whole point ( as you say ) is that Jack was doing a horrible job on Kobe. The fact that no one on the Coaching Staff didn't recognize this is disappointing.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 02:11 AM
Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.
Yeah....that's what I'm thinking.....we will be much better once we have more heatlhy Guard options and JO'b isn't forced into a position where he has to play a player ( even if he isn't doing so great out there ) simply cuz we have no other options.

Shade
01-10-2009, 02:11 AM
Okay...fine...no BRush.....Graham is fine.....the whole point ( as you say ) is that Jack was doing a horrible job on Kobe. The fact that no one on the Coaching Staff didn't recognize this is disappointing.

I completely agree with you there.

Coop
01-10-2009, 02:11 AM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

Thanks to Count and JayRedd for trying to bring some semblance of reason to the discussion.

While that's great and all, I don't think the disappointment shown on the board has anything to do with who we played tonight. The problem is, we blew a game tonight that we had every opportunity to win at the end of the game. Sure, it feels good to compete with the best. But at some point, if you're right there at the end, it doesn't matter who you're playing. You have to start holding people accountable for their poor decisions.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 02:13 AM
:huh:
I meant that we are 1-2 against one of the best teams in the league where we lost 2 very close games against them.

Shade
01-10-2009, 02:16 AM
I meant that we are 1-2 against one of the best teams in the league where we lost 2 very close games against them.

We've only played the Lakers twice. We only play each Western Conference team twice.

OakMoses
01-10-2009, 02:16 AM
The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.

If I'm a coach and my only two options (in my own mind, since I'm not putting rookie Rush, erratic Graham or hobbled MDJ on him) are a solid, yet undersized and clearly physically outmatched Jarrett Jack or a $10 million-making All Star who is physically bigger than Kobe, has the quickness to not get blown by and for the past two seasons has been almost without fail been guided by mature, savvy and intelligent basketball decisions...I probably go with option #2.

Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. My first thought when Danny fouled out was that it was a stupid play on his part to reach in and try to knock the ball away. Danny needs to know how to play good defense without fouling. If it'd been a questionable superstar call shooting foul, it'd be a different story, but Kobe was dribbling when Danny fouled him. He wasn't even attacking the basket.

I can understand some criticism of O'Brien for this decision, but to not place most of the blame on Granger is silly.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 02:17 AM
That was Plan A, and it was obviously disrupted. My question is, what was Plan B? It looked to me like there was no plan B, so Foster just had a brain freeze instead.

No idea. I'm speculating on Plan A even.

I would imagine there was a screen or a cut that would theoretically free a guy at the top of the key or middle of the court somewhere for a quick ball reversal. After a pivot and two-three ball fakes towards an unopen Dun, Foster turned to look for someone else. Not sure what he was looking for, but whoever it was, the guy clearly wasn't open.

Again, none of us were in the huddle so we don't know what the play was and certainly don't know what the contingency was.

But for anyone to assume that a professional NBA coach drew up a play that didn't have an option B is assuming a level of negligence that in no possible conceivable way happened. Dislike JO'B and criticize him all he wants, but lets not act like he spent that whole timeout sniffing his dry erase marker and scratching his balls. He called a play. And it had a Plan B. Neither worked due to one of (a) the nature of the play, (b) the execution of the play, or (c) great defense. No idea which.

But there was certainly a contingency. And it certainly didn't work.

Now, if you can find me a coach who can create a play with a third contingency in under three seconds, (other than presuming a professional basketball player will not just fail to understand the concept of time) then I would also like to buy a bridge from you.

Shade
01-10-2009, 02:19 AM
I hope you're right. Because to me, it looked like there was no contingency plan.

Midcoasted
01-10-2009, 02:19 AM
Yup, O'Brien is a great coach.

All of his supporters, explain, please.

You do realize that his coaching is why we are giving the Celtics and the Lakers a run for the money. Now I give him a hard time for personnel decisions and so do alot of us but he is in the heat of the moment. He is still learning his players. He just got back an All Star caliber player in Dunleavy and Roy is progressing very nicely. Rush is as well and i hope when we start winning he can build his confidence even higher.

Granger is a passionate player. The Lakers were taking low shots at us out there and that's what they wanted to do. I'm sure they said some pretty disgusting things in the scuffle and to Granger to set him off. I know with Granger you don't want to make him mad. He is a freak of nature face it. He is gradually turning into a superstar SG/SF who is 6'8 and built like a PF.

Granger had 28 and the only thing that kept him from getting 31 on the game winner was some ticky tacky superstar fouls they gave Kobe. I call it the superstar treatment. In Phoenix Amare was running us over, literally, when we were set. The Lakers and Kobe ran us over while we were set and they got the calls. There should be no excuse for these type of calls. If it means going to the replay 2-3 times more a game then do it. There should be lots of guys in a booth analyzing every little replay available calling down to get the damn call right. It is 2009. get with the program. Technology makes it possible. I'm sick of a game going one way or another because of a clear blown call. If it is so clear they need to have a booth reversal. Or at least each team getting two challenges a game.

We got a few calls our way but our doom was spelled out by playing LA in LA. We didn't finish, had a bad last play because Granger was out. We should have let Rush take it. At least we would have got him some experience at hitting a shot to win a game. Anything better than Foster running out of time with the worst air ball in 10 years. I think he may have kinda given up because he knew he was out of time.

I'm sick of bad foul calls ruining games. I guess when it works in your favor you cheer it. It's kind of like the Reggie years turning back against us. I believe the games are pretty fairly officiated most nights. Noone is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Refs make bad calls all the time. 90 percent or more of the time they get the call right. There needs to be some entity their to check their authority when they clearly blow a call in an important game situation.

The 6th foul on Granger was fair. There were a couple of ones that were blown against him that cost him the chance to shoot the game winner. He shouldn't have been gaurding Kobe at that point with 5 fouls. I guess that is what it boils down to. You can't expect the refs to get every call right and a guy to not get in foul trouble time to time.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 02:22 AM
I hope you're right. Because to me, it looked like there was no contingency plan.

There were three other players on the court. They were told to do something.

By saying you think O'Brien called a play with only one possible outcome is essentially saying you don't believe he's qualified to be an assistant coach at a Division III school in Alaska.

Again, dislike him all you want (I'm honestly not a huge fan of his philosophies). But don't erroneously make statements that imply he's an invalid.

OakMoses
01-10-2009, 02:23 AM
While that's great and all, I don't think the disappointment shown on the board has anything to do with who we played tonight. The problem is, we blew a game tonight that we had every opportunity to win at the end of the game. Sure, it feels good to compete with the best. But at some point, if you're right there at the end, it doesn't matter who you're playing. You have to start holding people accountable for their poor decisions.

Yes, but people are acting like 2 minutes of questionable (yet easily justifiable decisions) completely negate the gameplanning, practice, and first 46 minutes of gametime that brought us to that point.

Also, we didn't have every opportunity to win that game at the end. We scratched and clawed our way back from a 12 point deficit to tie the game with 30 seconds left. At that point the Lakers had the ball and it didn't really matter who the Lakers were playing, who the opposing coach was, or who was guarding Kobe. That's a situation that equals a Laker win most of the time. We had a chance to steal this game, but we were never in the driver's seat at any point.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 02:24 AM
Yes, but people are acting like 2 minutes of questionable (yet easily justifiable decisions) completely negate the gameplanning, practice, and first 46 minutes of gametime that brought us to that point.


I'm with ya. We played 47:15 of really good basketball. The last 45 seconds are all I'm disappointed with.

OakMoses
01-10-2009, 02:25 AM
The 6th foul on Granger was fair. There were a couple of ones that were blown against him that cost him the chance to shoot the game winner. He shouldn't have been gaurding Kobe at that point with 5 fouls. I guess that is what it boils down to. You can't expect the refs to get every call right and a guy to not get in foul trouble time to time.

I thought that the one he got called for when Kobe was shooting the 3 in the corner was particularly bad. Also the one where he apparently fouled him with his leg.

PostArtestEra
01-10-2009, 02:27 AM
It is beyond unfathomable that, with three pages of post game comments, no one has mentioned the fact that we gave up 121 points. The Lakers shot 63 percent inside the arc!! That is absolutely absurd. Never before have I seen a team willing to give up wide open jump shots from 12 feet all game long. Bynum and Gasol (and pretty much everyone else) were able to score at will. Our defensive philosophy will never allow us to be even a mediocore team. You can't constantly help off of everyone and leave good players wide open. Personally, I think the last offensive play for the Lakers was one of our best defended plays of the game. The shot was somewhat contested, and yes, there is a chance that Kobe misses that shot. JMO

CableKC
01-10-2009, 02:35 AM
And then Foster pooped his pants.
When he realized that he couldn't make the pass and there was no time left and he had to take that shot.......I'm guessing that is what exactly happened.

CableKC
01-10-2009, 02:37 AM
We've only played the Lakers twice. We only play each Western Conference team twice.
Really? Damn....I thought we played them 3 times :confused:

Okay...whatever....we did a lot better then I thought we would have played against a clearly better team.

Kemo
01-10-2009, 02:42 AM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

Thanks to Count, JayRedd, and Aesop for trying to bring some semblance of reason to the discussion.


For a Pacers team with no real "talent" , we sure did push the Lakers to the limit tonight.. :rolleyes:

Dunleavy said it best.. (and I am paraphrasing) We are a good 45 minute team , Once we learn to be an good 48 minute team, we will get alot of these close wins.

I am still proud of our guys ..
Let's hope for some wins Sunday against the Warriors, and later this coming week...

:happydanc


GO PACERS !!!

imawhat
01-10-2009, 02:43 AM
There were three other players on the court. They were told to do something.

By saying you think O'Brien called a play with only one possible outcome is essentially saying you don't believe he's qualified to be an assistant coach at a Division III school in Alaska.

Again, dislike him all you want (I'm honestly not a huge fan of his philosophies). But don't erroneously make statements that imply he's an invalid.


Plan A was supposed to be a Dunleavy curl into the lane for a shot. Foster's man read it, disrupted the play, and nobody else got free because it looked like either Murphy, Diener, or Jack didn't execute the play correctly. It was a trainwreck, but from where I was sitting, Foster had a clear path to the basket. I'm still shaking my head.

I just got back from the game. It was a really good game to watch.

Pacers totally had them in the 4th quarter. The Lakers were spent, and it was obvious when they started throwing up bricks and short shots. I thought we'd pull it out when Dunleavy tied it, but Kobe made a great play (and Jack guarded him better than he guarded Devin Harris a couple weeks back).

Kobe owned tonight. He had a very impressive game.

The interesting thing, in my mind, is that I felt we'd pull it out. That's the first time I've had that feeling all season. We're really competing in these games while being shorthanded. Who knows what'll happen, but I think we have a shot at the playoffs.

One final thing before I upload some video from the game. I am SICK of seeing McRoberts have a positive impact on the game, only to be pulled. He's the only player providing any hint of defense in the post. Foster looks to be affected by being slower and is turning into players in the post. Rasho is too slow and Murphy is too weak.

McBob needs to play more. At the very least, let him play himself out of the rotation.

count55
01-10-2009, 02:44 AM
My guesstimation is that the play was supposed to be an entry pass and then immediate hand-off back to Mike, who could have theoretically used Foster to rub off his defender, take the hand-off and either raise up for a J or dribble attack.

I'm not sure how, but if that was the plan, it clearly got disrupted (maybe Foster came out too far or they just guarded it well?)

Either way, Mike couldn't make the space to get the ball back cleanly. And option B where he faded to create space for a pass clearly took a ride on the fail-boat as well.

But if it was intended to be a dribble hand-off, it sort of makes sense for it to be Jeff getting the ball. He's big, so he naturally keeps a guy on his back far away from the front where he's making the catch/trying to hand-off. He's quick, so he can flash out rapidly from the middle of the paint and create some separation from his defender before receiving the entry. And he's supposedly a "pro" who would be able to execute. Rasho would be too slow. I guess Murph could be equally as capable at catching and handing off, but Foster is the much better screener, which maybe O'Brien thought would allow Dunleavy more room to work after he re-received the ball back.

I dunno. Whatever the plan was, it was clearly broken.

And then Foster pooped his pants.

Vujacic (or Radmanovic, don't recall which) was clearly instructed not to let Junior get the ball back. He ignored the inbound pass itself and immediately shadowed Dunleavy. I didn't think Junior did a spectacular job of trying to free himself, but there was only three seconds left, as everyone, except for Jeff, knew.


Interesting / Encouraging Stat of the Night: I believe I heard that the Pacers are sixth in the league in free throws per game. You don't get free throws hoisting up the long ones (unless you are Granger, and those long ones are actually real long twos).

Nope...the Pacers are 6th in Free ThrowShooting, meaning percentage. We're somewhere in the low to mid-20's on free throws made/attempted per game.


The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.

If I'm a coach and my only two options (in my own mind, since I'm not putting rookie Rush, erratic Graham or hobbled MDJ on him) are a solid, yet undersized and clearly physically outmatched Jarrett Jack or a $10 million-making All Star who is physically bigger than Kobe, has the quickness to not get blown by and for the past two seasons has been almost without fail been guided by mature, savvy and intelligent basketball decisions...I probably go with option #2.

Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.

However, I don't think Danny is a superstar at this point, and Danny, for all the good he does, has some flaws in his defense. He doesn't position well, and he's impatient. He goes for blocks and steals at ill-advised times, and tonight it burned us.

Now, when that play was live, I got a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that Danny was guarding Kobe. It got worse when I saw him do that little flick of his hand the first time, then, when he reached in the cookie jar a second time, I knew it was over.

For all of the crap that Jack is taking tonight, (and he did have an awful offensive game, IMO) I think he played solid defense on Kobe. He was patient, physical enough to keep from getting backed down to the block, and sound enough to keep him out of the lane. He didn't foul him, and he made Kobe shoot relatively difficult shots over him. Let's face facts...95% of the defenders in the NBA when facing Kobe are just hoping that they can stay in front of him without fouling, and if they do, then they're still generally hoping that he misses the shot.

Now, I like Danny, but I would not trust him to play that type of positional defense at this point. If I did, then I would agree that I'd love to have his size and athletic ability challenging that shot instead of Jack. However, what I was fearful of was what did happen. He committed a silly foul, and, in addition to giving up FT's, we lost him on the offensive end of the floor.

I ardently hope that we can soon leave Danny in that situation, and he'll come through without fouling the way the guys you're thinking of did in the past. However, I don't think that's now.

count55
01-10-2009, 02:54 AM
No idea. I'm speculating on Plan A even.

I would imagine there was a screen or a cut that would theoretically free a guy at the top of the key or middle of the court somewhere for a quick ball reversal. After a pivot and two-three ball fakes towards an unopen Dun, Foster turned to look for someone else. Not sure what he was looking for, but whoever it was, the guy clearly wasn't open.

Again, none of us were in the huddle so we don't know what the play was and certainly don't know what the contingency was.

But for anyone to assume that a professional NBA coach drew up a play that didn't have an option B is assuming a level of negligence that in no possible conceivable way happened. Dislike JO'B and criticize him all he wants, but lets not act like he spent that whole timeout sniffing his dry erase marker and scratching his balls. He called a play. And it had a Plan B. Neither worked due to one of (a) the nature of the play, (b) the execution of the play, or (c) great defense. No idea which.

But there was certainly a contingency. And it certainly didn't work.

Now, if you can find me a coach who can create a play with a third contingency in under three seconds, (other than presuming a professional basketball player will not just fail to understand the concept of time) then I would also like to buy a bridge from you.

I would also like to take this time to point out how Phil Jackson handled the game after Dunleavy tied it. No timeout was called, and the cleverly designed go-to play was "Give the ball to Kobe and get the **** out of the way."

If you look at most successful end game plays in the NBA, they are either a high screen or an iso with a stud player like Kobe.



One final thing before I upload some video from the game. I am SICK of seeing McRoberts have a positive impact on the game, only to be pulled. He's the only player providing any hint of defense in the post. Foster looks to be affected by being slower and is turning into players in the post. Rasho is too slow and Murphy is too weak.

McBob needs to play more. At the very least, let him play himself out of the rotation.

I am still fine with the overall job that Obie is doing, but I must agree here. I believe that McBob should get regular minutes every night.

Doug
01-10-2009, 03:03 AM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

Amen!

imawhat
01-10-2009, 03:08 AM
I am still fine with the overall job that Obie is doing, but I must agree here. I believe that McBob should get regular minutes every night.

Jim is doing a pretty dang good job. It looks like the Pacers are finally well-conditioned, and other teams are fading in the 4th quarter, which is allowing us chances to win without showing any signs of playing defense.

We're competing *shorthanded* basically every night in games we have no business winning.

But there are a few things I'd change, and one is giving McBob more minutes. It could be looked at as nitpicking, but I'm guessing that the consensus IS to see more of McBob.

Btw, Jack couldn't've guarded that last play much better. Not sure why some are knocking on Jarrett for that. There are 43434355 other things in his game to criticize.

Trader Joe
01-10-2009, 03:17 AM
Guys we lost by two to the best team in the NBA right now on the road. Chill.

This team has a lot of things to fix (defense, late game play calling, decision making on court), but they are competitive, and I don't think they are gonna quit. It will be interesting to see what happens in Golden State.

Trader Joe
01-10-2009, 03:18 AM
The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.

If I'm a coach and my only two options (in my own mind, since I'm not putting rookie Rush, erratic Graham or hobbled MDJ on him) are a solid, yet undersized and clearly physically outmatched Jarrett Jack or a $10 million-making All Star who is physically bigger than Kobe, has the quickness to not get blown by and for the past two seasons has been almost without fail been guided by mature, savvy and intelligent basketball decisions...I probably go with option #2.

Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.

Completely agree here. You have to put Danny on Kobe and hope he makes the right decision. That is what Danny gets paid for. Maybe that will change if we get a true defensive stopper, but for right now Danny must accept this as a reality and learn to grow and handle it.

Look Kobe is gonna score late in games, against Jack or Dun or Graham or Rush he is going to score even more frequently. Danny made a dumb mistake which in and of itself sucks, but it doesn't become a real issue unless he doesn't learn from it.

Kemo
01-10-2009, 03:19 AM
My only real complaint in this game , besides what has been re-hashed over and over by everyone including myself , is the fact of some of our guy's playtime..


I mean COME ON....

Hibbert played a total of 15 minutes and 3 seconds (is he on a strict 10-15 mpg regimen?)

Roy was 3-6, scored 11 Points , was 5-6 from the freethrow line , only had 1 rebound, 3 assists , 1 steal , 1 Blocked Shot , 0 Turnovers, and only 3 Personal Fouls ..

Besides 1 assist , 1 steal and 3 rebounds more combined , He played better in 15.03 minutes than BOTH Foster AND Rasho together with their combined 36.8 minutes.. Oh and together , Rasho and Foster only scored 1 point more than Hibbert...


What in the HELL is wrong with this picture???

Then you got McRoberts... Why in the heck he didn't play any more than 2.29 garbage minutes is totally beyond me ..

Trader Joe
01-10-2009, 03:26 AM
Like I said Golden State will tell us a lot about this team. Pacer teams of the past couple years have been known to play great games like this against really good teams and then totally crap the bed against horrible competition. If we come out and handle the Warriors like we should I will be very, very encouraged.

imawhat
01-10-2009, 03:50 AM
Here's a little video from the game. A couple of plays, some shootaround (including TJ Ford, who didn't look too hurt until right before the game), etc. Not very clear, but you can see how the last play was a disaster.

DELETED

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 05:36 AM
One final thing before I upload some video from the game. I am SICK of seeing McRoberts have a positive impact on the game, only to be pulled. He's the only player providing any hint of defense in the post. Foster looks to be affected by being slower and is turning into players in the post. Rasho is too slow and Murphy is too weak.

McBob needs to play more. At the very least, let him play himself out of the rotation.


I'm beginning to feel that giving Foster an extension was a mistake. One that just may end up biting the Pacers in the rear.

xtacy
01-10-2009, 05:49 AM
man i watched the game and it was painful.

I HATE JACK!

i've been watching basketball for 10-12 years now and i have not seen a guy that makes worse choices than jack! not even one!

I HATE THE RUN N GUN BASKETBALL!

lakers defense was worse than terrible last night. whenever we went to the basket we caused them trouble. but no! all we did in the third quarter is run and shoot the ball whenever they see the rim. it was so annoying!

AND LAST BUT THE MOST OF ALL I HATE JOB!

man where do i start! granger guarding kobe when he had 5 fouls!

jack guarding kobe! i mean come on man! are you high? wtf have you smoked? he took those shots like they were ft's.

why is hibbert on the court for only that little time? what does he see in rasho and foster that we don't see?

and that last play. i have never ever seen something funnier in basketball. that was pathetic! it took him a full timeout to come up with something like that. a 5 year-old child would have done better.

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF JOB LOVERS HERE AND THEY WILL MAKE EXCUSES TO DEFEND JOB EVEN FOR THIS ONE BUT AT LEAST ADMIT THIS LOSS WAS HIS FAULT. PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME THAT 'OK WE LOST BUT WE WERE IN THE GAME,THIS TEAM IS FUN TO WATCH,WE ARE JUST REBUILDING' CRAP BECAUSE I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT. THAT GAME WAS NOWHERE NEAR FUN TO WATCH.

I HAVE TO ADMIT I WAS DEFINATELY WRONG ABOUT JOB. I THOUGHT HE WAS A BAD COACH UNTILL LAST NIGHT. HE IS NOT A BAD COACH HE IS AN IDIOT.

Bball
01-10-2009, 07:31 AM
I haven't read this whole thread but IMHO the problem with passing to Foster on the last play was a couple of things. For one thing, it doesn't appear he was properly prepared for what to do if his options were covered. But worse than that, passing to Foster almost GUARANTEED his options would be covered because he didn't need to be guarded. It made the defense so much easier for LA at that point because it only needed to account for 4 of the 5 players on the court. So I'm not sure Foster should've even been on the court. You can argue he was there for the tip of a miss, but then making him the passer negated any opportunity he'd have for a tip due to his position on the court.

Also, OBrien was big on Dunleavy inbounding the ball and then the getting the ball back last year in these situations that putting him as the inbounder pretty much signaled that's was option 1 this time too.

5 fouls and Danny guarding Kobe was questionable at best but being a learning year that might've been for lesson purposes for Danny's career, not last night's game. ...That's about the only excuse I can make for that one.

I know at one point both teams were shooting 70% (or better) from the floor. No D-Fence there. Sometimes a team just gets hot and hits everything they toss up in the face of good defense. That wasn't the case last night.

Dunleavy gives the Pacers a smoother look on offense.

The Pacers still play hard for OBrien. Whether it's because he gives everyone an opportunity to score, is genuinely likable, or something else... I don't know. Maybe we just have a good group of players. I still think the offense is being played and coached to the detriment of the defense. It's not just that there are a lot of possessions and opportunities for scoring due to the pace, it's that we can't get a stop when we need it or cool a hot hand. Defense is not the priority and it shows.

Cory
01-10-2009, 07:32 AM
I meant that we are 1-2 against one of the best teams in the league where we lost 2 very close games against them.

Just FYI, Pacers will play all western conference teams twice a year, once at home and once on the road.

deekay85
01-10-2009, 07:56 AM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.



Me, too.

we had a nice game. Of course, the last play wasn't good at all.
Danny made some really bad mistakes. But its okay. He'll learn from it. Kobe is for sure the best SG on this planet and he delivered it, again.
I'm glad to see Dun back in uniform. We needed him so much, his offense, his passing etc.

come on guys, we almost beet nr1 team in the NBA!
lets concentrate on the warriors. must win for us!!!!

owl
01-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Some things I heard and saw during this game.

The Pacers have NEVER won at Staples arena.


Trevor Ariza is an +@&*#$. Can the Pacers sign him up next year?
Did you see him calling Granger a "kittycat" while he was standing over Granger and Danny was lying on the floor?
Pau Gasol called Granger something after he fouled out and Granger wanted to run back
on to the court.

Putnam
01-10-2009, 08:42 AM
man i watched the game and it was painful.

I HATE JACK!

i've been watching basketball for 10-12 years now and i have not seen a guy that makes worse choices than jack! not even one!

I HATE THE RUN N GUN BASKETBALL!

lakers defense was worse than terrible last night. whenever we went to the basket we caused them trouble. but no! all we did in the third quarter is run and shoot the ball whenever they see the rim. it was so annoying!

AND LAST BUT THE MOST OF ALL I HATE JOB!

man where do i start! granger guarding kobe when he had 5 fouls!

jack guarding kobe! i mean come on man! are you high? wtf have you smoked? he took those shots like they were ft's.

why is hibbert on the court for only that little time? what does he see in rasho and foster that we don't see?

and that last play. i have never ever seen something funnier in basketball. that was pathetic! it took him a full timeout to come up with something like that. a 5 year-old child would have done better.

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF JOB LOVERS HERE AND THEY WILL MAKE EXCUSES TO DEFEND JOB EVEN FOR THIS ONE BUT AT LEAST ADMIT THIS LOSS WAS HIS FAULT. PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME THAT 'OK WE LOST BUT WE WERE IN THE GAME,THIS TEAM IS FUN TO WATCH,WE ARE JUST REBUILDING' CRAP BECAUSE I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT. THAT GAME WAS NOWHERE NEAR FUN TO WATCH.

I HAVE TO ADMIT I WAS DEFINATELY WRONG ABOUT JOB. I THOUGHT HE WAS A BAD COACH UNTILL LAST NIGHT. HE IS NOT A BAD COACH HE IS AN IDIOT.




Maybe you should find a different team and a different forum?


.

xtacy
01-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Maybe you should find a different team and a different forum?


.

why? is me wanting this team to get better and win games a bad thing? i thought it's being a fan is all about. am i wrong?

what i said there were my ideas. if you have any objections to my statements please share them. you can say jack is a good player,hibbert shouldn't be on the court,we should shoot more 3's or the last play was the work of a genius. i'm cool with it. all in all those are your ideas and i respect them.

but if all you can do is to suggest me to find another team or forum don't try to say anything because trust me i just laughed to what you said.

NuffSaid
01-10-2009, 09:00 AM
Since no one is doing it.....<< Please merge if needed >>

A few thoughts here:

1 ) Why Jack is out there after scoring only 2 points for the entire game and being useless guarding Kobe is beyond me.
2 ) The Announcers said it......5 fouls with less then a minute left....and Granger is guarding a foul-magnet.....bad idea for Granger to guard Kobe....just a bad idea.
3 ) I don't even know what to say about that last play. If we needed a backdoor pass come from a Big Man...I would much rather have Rasho do it then Foster...he's way better at passing and HE CAN HIT that shot from where Foster was standing. :banghead:
You're 100% on the mark on all points! All were very poor decisions by JOB. But my boyz still hung tough and could have won this one had they made 1 or 2 FGs or 2-3 FTs.

Great game...instant classic!

Major Cold
01-10-2009, 09:19 AM
This game proves that the NBA has some major blemishes. When Jack was shooting the technical foul from Ariza's taunting, there were three Lakers (Sasha, Fisher, and Kobe) huddled around two separate officials. I have no idea what they were complaining about. But it was during the entire dead ball sequence. I don't know how many times they moaned about calls. It was the worst I had seen this season by far.


We missed Marquis tonight. For those of you wanting to trade him away for chump change need to understand that Danny will have more games where he has to guard the top star, every time he is on the court.

I would have put Graham on Kobe at the end instead of Jack.

The last play of the game was a shift of pressure that probably come from Phil. The entire game we just needed spacing to get the ball in. The pressure of Sasha was immense compared to the rest of the game.

And that is where we are at. The Pacers are too young and too unskilled to to turn up the intensity to match what teams throw are them.

I really feel that we are one trade away from making the playoffs. The longer we hold onto this current rotation the less likely we will make the playoffs.

One front court player and one defending swingman.

Putnam
01-10-2009, 09:28 AM
why? is me wanting this team to get better and win games a bad thing? i thought it's being a fan is all about. am i wrong?

what i said there were my ideas. if you have any objections to my statements please share them. you can say jack is a good player,hibbert shouldn't be on the court,we should shoot more 3's or the last play was the work of a genius. i'm cool with it. all in all those are your ideas and i respect them.

but if all you can do is to suggest me to find another team or forum don't try to say anything because trust me i just laughed to what you said.


Your previous post was filled with upper-case shouting and repetition of the word "hate." There were no "ideas" in that post, just visceral hatred and contempt. Your post was the work of a troll -- not a fan.

By your own admission, you "hate" the coach, some of the players and the style of basketball the team plays. These are the players we've got, and this is the coach we've got. Are you prepared to go on SHOUTING the word hate for the rest of the season? Will you enjoy that?

Unclebuck
01-10-2009, 09:28 AM
Seriously? That is how you play out the final 2 possessions? Put a small Fry on the games best player and give him essentially an open jumper? Then pass it to the worst offensive player on the team, and let him try to create a play? JOB YOU ARE WORTHLESS. How do you not draw up a play for dunleavy, murphy, even Jack? What the heck enters his mind to think he can draw up a gimmick play on the final possession against one of the best teams int he league! Just throw the freaking game away! Bizzaro world. How do we have a great final play in Phx, and 2 days later, this crap!

I apologize, I'm sure someone else has already addressed this, but I'm just reading this thead now from the beginning.

So, let me get this straight, you think the last play was designed for Foster to shoot the ball and you don't think it was drawn up for Dun first, Diener second, Murphy or Jack. No the play was to get the ball to Jeff, and have hi pass to Dunleavy coming in from outof bounds - typically that is a very effective play - the lakers did a great job, and the Pacers didn't run the play well excet they did a great job to get jeff open. Jeff should have done a better job in having a clock in his head and knowing after two seconds he had to shoot.
.
I am shocked by how many of you don't realize what the last play was. Criticize the execution of the play (look offf the ball - horrible job by all) criticize running that play with Foster if you want - but to suggest JOB is an idiot for running that play is nonsensical

NuffSaid
01-10-2009, 09:28 AM
I can....he wasn't expecting to shoot....he was expecting to quickly pass the ball to Dunleavy...and when the avenue was closed off by Sasha...he wasn't prepared to shoot.
But that's the problem with Foster accepting the inbound pass...he's never really ready to shoot. He's always looking to pass, though. So, in one respect I can see why JOB drew up the play for him to find the open man along the perimeter. But again, had he recognized the opening during that possession, he could have stepped up and might have gotten a foul call for the And1 and possibly the win at the line.

Unclebuck
01-10-2009, 09:41 AM
For the record, I love Jack, glad he's on te Pacers. I just wish every player on the team played with his effort, toughness both physically and mentally.
I had no problem with him guarding Kobe - no one can guard him one on one, I was yelling for a double tame, make someone else hit a shot, is what I wish would have happened.

Pacers played very well overall, I liked the toughness and fight they showed - if they can build on this type of play, we might really have something here. Overall, I'm encouraged with their recent play except for the horrible Denver game

xtacy
01-10-2009, 09:57 AM
Your previous post was filled with upper-case shouting and repetition of the word "hate." There were no "ideas" in that post, just visceral hatred and contempt. Your post was the work of a troll -- not a fan.

By your own admission, you "hate" the coach, some of the players and the style of basketball the team plays. These are the players we've got, and this is the coach we've got. Are you prepared to go on SHOUTING the word hate for the rest of the season? Will you enjoy that?

yes because that is the way i feel about them.

will i enjoy that? hell no but that's the situation we are in right now. i wish we had a great team that does all the things right so everything would be all good but we don't and if we don't figure something out to change things we will be losing a lot of games. that will definately be the situation i wll be enjoying less.

speaking of your 'that wasn't the work of a fan' thing trust me it was. that's how i feel. i guess it's just the difference between you guys and us. we are a little more passionate about our teams and live our emotions a little more strongly.

Major Cold
01-10-2009, 09:59 AM
yes because that is the way i feel about them.

will i enjoy that? hell no but that's the situation we are in right now. i wish we had a great team that does all the things right so everything would be all good but we don't and if we don't figure something out to change things we will be losing a lot of games. that will definately be the situation i wll be enjoying less.

speaking of your 'that wasn't the work of a fan' thing trust me it was. that's how i feel. i guess it's just the difference between you guys and us. we are a little more passionate about our teams and live our emotions a little more strongly.
There is a difference between passionate and irrationally obsessive. Or would it be obsessively irrational.

Phildog
01-10-2009, 10:36 AM
1. Kobe's hitting that shot more often than he misses---regardless of who guards him.

2. Bad execution on the final play--not bad play.

3. Jack was off tonight from the get-go, wouldn't be suprised to hear he may have been sick or under the weather, he just didn't play like he had been recently.

4. It was a great effort, and on the road with the best team in the league with a chance to win at the end----NO TEAM OR COACH would not be happy with that opportunity.

5. The P's have really improved in late game situations since blowing so many leads earlier on. This is a growth opportunity for our guys, and will serve to create that winning culture when the talent comes around.

Quis
01-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Dunleavy's looking good.

plutarch
01-10-2009, 11:00 AM
did anyone hear the "pacers suck" chant from the laker fans, i thought that was hilarity
one thing i also saw in this and other games is that the opposition, especially if they are considered good teams get frustrated with the pacers cuz they dont back down and let them win, i think that is a great thing that i didnt see last year.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 11:29 AM
did anyone hear the "pacers suck" chant from the laker fans, i thought that was hilarity
one thing i also saw in this and other games is that the opposition, especially if they are considered good teams get frustrated with the pacers cuz they dont back down and let them win, i think that is a great thing that i didnt see last year.

So I guess us beating them earlier in the season indicates ???


1. There was about 6-7 possessions that ended in missed jumpshots in the 4th quarter that allowed the Lakers to extend a 6-8 point lead. I wish we had attacked the basket more. (We miss you TJ and Marquis!)

2. Kobe did a good job of denying Granger the ball. I wish we had worked to get Danny the ball more, especially in the 4th. I wish Danny worked harder for it, instead of being happy to hang-out on the weakside to draw Kobe away from the action. Got to make the superstar work on the defensive end of the court.

3. This team needs a shot blocker. (Don't they have one in Roy?)

4. Kobe's still Kobe. (But for all you Laker fans, he's no Jordan.) It's stupid when Trevor and Pau want to talk smack to Danny, but their team is good because of Kobe. It's like when the little dog with the big dog friend wants to pick a fight with you because he thinks he's tough.

5. I think TJ Ford would have blown past Fisher a lot.

6. Ariza got a lot of quick fouls, which he deserved. Roy got some quick ones, but did not. Roy is impressing me of late. Pacers are still giving up dribble penetration, which means someone comes down the lane, throws themself into Roy, and he picks up the foul.

7. Dun's wild sequence with a short pass to Danny led to Granger's 5th foul. Dun should have shot some kind of lay-up. When will guys learn not to jump unless they know what they're doing?

8. Travis's shot is back.

9. It was exciting to watch a game where both teams were shooting >60-70% up to the middle of the 3rd. Think our legs got tired? I think that's why Murph was pulled in the 4th.... though I'm not sure.

10. McBob did have a good short time on the court. I was impressed by his intensity, athleticism, and defense.

Excellent game and a nervous Staples Center at the end of the game.

The Pacers are playing very well right now and Dunny is helping the offensive flow.

Would love to see what a fully healthy Pacer squad could do in the next 2 months.

Skaut_Ech
01-10-2009, 11:59 AM
1. Kobe's hitting that shot more often than he misses---regardless of who guards him.

2. Bad execution on the final play--not bad play.

3. Jack was off tonight from the get-go, wouldn't be suprised to hear he may have been sick or under the weather, he just didn't play like he had been recently.

4. It was a great effort, and on the road with the best team in the league with a chance to win at the end----NO TEAM OR COACH would not be happy with that opportunity.

5. The P's have really improved in late game situations since blowing so many leads earlier on. This is a growth opportunity for our guys, and will serve to create that winning culture when the talent comes around.

I've been wading through this thread this morning and I think PhilDog really summed things up extremely well. Especially points 1 and 2. Far as I'm concerned, every post from here on should be filtered through those two points. UB, well said concerning point two.

Bear in mind a couple of things, folks. We run a high post for Jeff a TON of times during the game. It's not like this was a new experience for him. Jeff routinely is given the ball in a give and go, of sorts during our half court offense. Plain an simple, he froze up and the rest of the team executed poorly. That's it. Plain and simple. It happens. We don't have to like it, but all this finger pointing is a little silly, imho.

(One other thing that HAS been bugging me. Let's start attacking the basket more. WAY too many jump shots.)

I also really like what intricold had to say:'


This game proves that the NBA has some major blemishes. When Jack was shooting the technical foul from Ariza's taunting, there were three Lakers (Sasha, Fisher, and Kobe) huddled around two separate officials. I have no idea what they were complaining about. But it was during the entire dead ball sequence. I don't know how many times they moaned about calls. It was the worst I had seen this season by far.


We missed Marquis tonight. For those of you wanting to trade him away for chump change need to understand that Danny will have more games where he has to guard the top star, every time he is on the court.

I would have put Graham on Kobe at the end instead of Jack.

The last play of the game was a shift of pressure that probably come from Phil. The entire game we just needed spacing to get the ball in. The pressure of Sasha was immense compared to the rest of the game.

And that is where we are at. The Pacers are too young and too unskilled to to turn up the intensity to match what teams throw are them.

I really feel that we are one trade away from making the playoffs. The longer we hold onto this current rotation the less likely we will make the playoffs.

One front court player and one defending swingman. I think this team is approaching a crossroads and I hope management truly realizes what may happen. Right now I think we have a close knit, young bunch that is thriving on moral victories. At some point, if things don't turn around, it's going to foster a culture of defeatism.

I know we aren't big on mid-season trades, but man, I just can't see us hanging like this the rest of the season. And before we hang al our hopes on bringing in that magic player, if I had to point a finger, I'd point it at our assistant coaches. Remember the impact Mike Brown had on our defense as an assistant? And now, we have, who? Lester Conner? Dick Harter has run our D for a few years now and I think the guy is great, but something just ain't right, as we all can see. What is going on with our coaching staff. I know JOB set the tone, but what is it. Can you assistants not figure out how to adapt our D to JOB's offensive caching style? I dunno. Someone have some thoughts?

I see this as a team that needs tweaking. I kinda filter out the "JOB needs to be fired" stuff, or the "Marquis has to go." Right now we are building culture, just as the Spurs have and the Cavs are doing. I'm not sweating the losses right now, but think we're rapidly approaching an important juncture. Do we bring in that Shane Battier/Bruce Bowen type and bring a new defenseive focus, or do we just sit pat, let the guys get seasoning/maturing and hope for a fruitfull off-season? I sure hope/thin/pray, it's the former, more than the latter.

count55
01-10-2009, 12:10 PM
AND LAST BUT THE MOST OF ALL I HATE JOB!

man where do i start! granger guarding kobe when he had 5 fouls!

I knew Danny was going to commit that foul, but guys like JayRedd have a good point when they say O'Brien needs to be able to trust Danny to be smart in that situation, as many successful coaches have historically with their go-to guys. Let's be clear...Kobe didn't break Danny down and put him in a position that made Danny either commit the foul or let him score. Nope. Danny was impatient, reached, and got himself out of position...Kobe made him pay.

I did not want Danny guard Kobe, because Danny has not evolved to the point that I trust him to be prudent in that regard. However, you won't like what my preference would've been...


jack guarding kobe! i mean come on man! are you high? wtf have you smoked?

Yes, I would've preferred that we see Kobe put up another challenged 15- to 20-footer over Jack, even if he made it, than to have Danny foul out. Now...

[quote=xtacy]he took those shots like they were ft's.

...this is an extreme exaggeration. In last 1:15 Kobe scored two baskets over Jack. The first was a 20-foot step back, the second was a turnaround, fade away from 17. On both, Jack was in contact and challenging. For the vast majority of the players in the league, those were both difficult, low percentage shots.

However, this is Kobe we're talking about. I can't stand the guy, but he's a Hall of Fame talent, and this is what he does. Maybe we should've run another guy at him and force the ball away from him. However, we've been burned before on scrambling.

With Marquis out and Danny fouled out, we're forced to choose between Junior, Graham, Brandon, and Jack. I love Junior, and what he brings to the team, but I don't want him guarding Kobe in that situation. Graham has size, but isn't particularly sound, and I wouldn't trust him to keep Kobe in front of him. Brandon may or may not be that guy somewhere down the road, but he sure ain't today.

It's a beggar's choice. As I said in an earlier posts, 95% (or more) of the defenders in the league are reduced to simply hoping Kobe misses.


why is hibbert on the court for only that little time? what does he see in rasho and foster that we don't see?

Hibbert is getting steady minutes, somewhat dictated by matchups. He's played relatively well for a #17, but I don't particularly think he deserves, or is ready for, a lot more minutes. He had his 15 through the third, and what little minutes it may have been right for him to play were taken by McBob. Playing McBob in that stretch was the right thing, because we needed somebody more athletic and active than Roy is.


and that last play. i have never ever seen something funnier in basketball. that was pathetic! it took him a full timeout to come up with something like that. a 5 year-old child would have done better.

The design was fine, the execution was horrible. I'm noted several times in this thread that I did not think Foster should be on the floor, and he was the guy who blew up the play. This is the problem with trying to run a set play with 3 seconds left. The Lakers either knew or guessed what was coming, and took away option number. It's difficult to say what option 2 was, because Jeff completely froze.

Also, I contrast it with the Laker's final play, with was basically, give the ball to Kobe and get out of the way.

Now, this:


I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF JOB LOVERS HERE AND THEY WILL MAKE EXCUSES TO DEFEND JOB EVEN FOR THIS ONE BUT AT LEAST ADMIT THIS LOSS WAS HIS FAULT. PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME THAT 'OK WE LOST BUT WE WERE IN THE GAME,THIS TEAM IS FUN TO WATCH,WE ARE JUST REBUILDING' CRAP BECAUSE I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT. THAT GAME WAS NOWHERE NEAR FUN TO WATCH.

I HAVE TO ADMIT I WAS DEFINATELY WRONG ABOUT JOB. I THOUGHT HE WAS A BAD COACH UNTILL LAST NIGHT. HE IS NOT A BAD COACH HE IS AN IDIOT.

and this:


you can say jack is a good player,hibbert shouldn't be on the court,we should shoot more 3's or the last play was the work of a genius. i'm cool with it. all in all those are your ideas and i respect them.


... are contradictory.

You're tirade in the first post indicates that you don't respect the opposing point of view, or the people who hold it. Putty was wrong, IMO, to tell you to find another team and another forum. However, I'll let him speak for himself.


Your previous post was filled with upper-case shouting and repetition of the word "hate." There were no "ideas" in that post, just visceral hatred and contempt. Your post was the work of a troll -- not a fan.

By your own admission, you "hate" the coach, some of the players and the style of basketball the team plays. These are the players we've got, and this is the coach we've got. Are you prepared to go on SHOUTING the word hate for the rest of the season? Will you enjoy that?

Again, I don't think it was appropriate to tell you to go elsewhere, but I do agree that if all you have is hate and tirades, then I, and many others, won't pay a lot of attention to the content of what you have to say. Not that that I particularly expect that to mean anything to you, but it is what it is.

As to the "JOB Lovers" and "excuses" comments, I will simply direct you to this post in the "Fire Jim O'Brien" thread:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showpost.php?p=829442&postcount=187

Again, the particulars have not changed. I would not have had Granger guarding Kobe, and I would not have had Foster on the floor for the last play. That being said, to claim that this loss was O'Brien's fault would be to pretend as if the game was only 60 seconds long, and the first 47 minutes meant nothing. It is to ignore the quality of the opponent, and the quality of a player like Kobe.

Also, if you read that thread, you will find posts from me and others who support O'Brien (or, more accurately, don't think he should be fired) discussing where we thing the coaching staff is failing. I will say this for the 80 gazillionth time: O'Brien is nothing particularly special as a coach. However, he is better than many alternatives, even ones that are currently having more success. While impossible to prove, I am convinced that if Obie had coached the Celtics last year, they still would be defending champs, while I seriously doubt that Doc Rivers would be able to match (or perhaps even approach) the overall effort and admittedly paltry win totals that Obie has posted with this team.

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 12:12 PM
man i watched the game and it was painful.

I HATE JACK!

i've been watching basketball for 10-12 years now and i have not seen a guy that makes worse choices than jack! not even one!

I HATE THE RUN N GUN BASKETBALL!

lakers defense was worse than terrible last night. whenever we went to the basket we caused them trouble. but no! all we did in the third quarter is run and shoot the ball whenever they see the rim. it was so annoying!

AND LAST BUT THE MOST OF ALL I HATE JOB!

man where do i start! granger guarding kobe when he had 5 fouls!

jack guarding kobe! i mean come on man! are you high? wtf have you smoked? he took those shots like they were ft's.

why is hibbert on the court for only that little time? what does he see in rasho and foster that we don't see?

and that last play. i have never ever seen something funnier in basketball. that was pathetic! it took him a full timeout to come up with something like that. a 5 year-old child would have done better.

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF JOB LOVERS HERE AND THEY WILL MAKE EXCUSES TO DEFEND JOB EVEN FOR THIS ONE BUT AT LEAST ADMIT THIS LOSS WAS HIS FAULT. PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME THAT 'OK WE LOST BUT WE WERE IN THE GAME,THIS TEAM IS FUN TO WATCH,WE ARE JUST REBUILDING' CRAP BECAUSE I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT. THAT GAME WAS NOWHERE NEAR FUN TO WATCH.

I HAVE TO ADMIT I WAS DEFINATELY WRONG ABOUT JOB. I THOUGHT HE WAS A BAD COACH UNTILL LAST NIGHT. HE IS NOT A BAD COACH HE IS AN IDIOT.


I agreed with some of the stuff you are saying, come on people you can't be always happy of losing, stop making excuses for JOB, but like I said before he is the coach right know and he is giving the pacers a better option at the lottery, as long as JOB is the coach they are going to continue losing, is good because I want them to draft somebody in the top 10 and keep rebuilding, they are not going anywhere the way they are build right now.

BlueNGold
01-10-2009, 12:19 PM
I'm seeing lots of good out of that game. Granger again scored a lot of points. Dunleavy put up 22 points and 5 assists after being off half the year. We competed once again with one of the best teams in the NBA while most of their players including Kobe were playing well.

I really don't expect more from this group.

Yes, Jarrett Jack is like a roll of the dice. Sometimes he does some spectacular things out there. Other times he passes the ball to the other team for a layup. Yes, we still need a better PG to become a title contender...but I have nothing to complain because we are movin' in the right direction.

Edit: If you take defense out of your thought processes, everything becomes far more pleasing. I would suggest everyone do that until we get a different coach.

jhondog28
01-10-2009, 12:23 PM
I agreed with some of the stuff you are saying, come on people you can't be always happy of losing, stop making excuses for JOB, but like I said before he is the coach right know and he is giving the pacers a better option at the lottery, as long as JOB is the coach they are going to continue losing, is good because I want them to draft somebody in the top 10 and keep rebuilding, they are not going anywhere the way they are build right now.

Hey listen I hate losing as much as the next person, but who is a good option to bring in? Avery Johnson? You want to talk about a boring brand of basketball. There are better coaches that probably could get us more wins, but the players love to play for him, they have had crazy injuries all year. He does not make the best play calls 100% of the time, but the players were back door cutting, making the extra pass and doing things a lot of other teams do not do. I honestly think the team has respect for the coach and right now it is a matter of talent than bad coaching. Granger is a top 25 talent but not top 10, Dunleavy is their second option (and as much as i love Dunleavy) he should be a glue guy that makes the offense function but never a second scoring option. The whole post game thread has been a I HATE JOB thread and as much as I respect your opinion there just is not a better option right now.

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 12:34 PM
Hey listen I hate losing as much as the next person, but who is a good option to bring in? Avery Johnson? You want to talk about a boring brand of basketball. There are better coaches that probably could get us more wins, but the players love to play for him, they have had crazy injuries all year. He does not make the best play calls 100% of the time, but the players were back door cutting, making the extra pass and doing things a lot of other teams do not do. I honestly think the team has respect for the coach and right now it is a matter of talent than bad coaching. Granger is a top 25 talent but not top 10, Dunleavy is their second option (and as much as i love Dunleavy) he should be a glue guy that makes the offense function but never a second scoring option. The whole post game thread has been a I HATE JOB thread and as much as I respect your opinion there just is not a better option right now.

I agree that the players play hard for him and they like him, my problem with JOB is been always the way he makes substitutions, Roy is having the game of his career(another game) and he send him to the bench,foster and jack are sucking(this game) and he leave them on the court. Just remember last night play,he only had 3 shooters to go against 5 defenders, a high school coach could have done a better job. Then I go back to my other point, the pacers are in rebuilding mode and they need a good draft pick, at least that is the only thing I am making to believe myself to have some hope for next year.

Suaveness
01-10-2009, 01:00 PM
For the record, I love Jack, glad he's on te Pacers. I just wish every player on the team played with his effort, toughness both physically and mentally.
I had no problem with him guarding Kobe - no one can guard him one on one, I was yelling for a double tame, make someone else hit a shot, is what I wish would have happened.

Pacers played very well overall, I liked the toughness and fight they showed - if they can build on this type of play, we might really have something here. Overall, I'm encouraged with their recent play except for the horrible Denver game

You are a shining light in this dismal thread.

pristinecollector
01-10-2009, 01:14 PM
This outcome of the final play had nothing to do with JOB and everything to do with Foster. You've got to be kidding me, Foster's an NBA professional? He's got to be thinking 2-3 steps ahead of the play. There is no reason at all that Foster could not have realized the breakdown of the play, turn and make a 15 foot jump shot in 3 seconds. Pitiful.

Major Cold
01-10-2009, 01:18 PM
I know that JOB will not be the coach of this team in the next 4 years. This team needs a system to but into. A system that will enable them to learn how to play together for when they are ready. This team has potential and I believe JOB is processing the players. JOB may not be the coach when and if it comes to fruition. But he is at least establishing a cohesive unit.

I understand that some of you are passionate. But what you need to understand is that it takes more than a half-season to develop rookies and newly acquired teammates into a system.

For those who think systems are overrated...The Lakers emergence is farce. It has taken players like Sasha, Bynum, Ariza, and Farmar more than a half-season to get their system.

Anthem
01-10-2009, 01:27 PM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.
This. That was a great game, even though we lost. And even though I stayed up way too late to watch it.

Anthem
01-10-2009, 01:28 PM
The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.
Last night I couldn't believe Danny was on Kobe.

This morning, I thought "You know what? I'm glad. It lost us the game, but Granger needs to be able to guard the other team's best guy." Like you said, it was a stupid foul. I guarantee he doesn't make that mistake again.

I really wanted this game, but as losses go this one won't hurt us too bad. If we put the hurt on GS then this trip goes into the books as a success.

QuickRelease
01-10-2009, 01:34 PM
This outcome of the final play had nothing to do with JOB and everything to do with Foster. You've got to be kidding me, Foster's an NBA professional? He's got to be thinking 2-3 steps ahead of the play. There is no reason at all that Foster could not have realized the breakdown of the play, turn and make a 15 foot jump shot in 3 seconds. Pitiful.

The 15 foot jumpshot is not Jeff's strength (although Jeff acted like there were 10 seconds left instead of 3). I'd have much rather had Rasho in on that play. He brings the added feature of perimeter shooting ability.

pristinecollector
01-10-2009, 01:44 PM
The 15 foot jumpshot is not Jeff's strength (although Jeff acted like there were 10 seconds left instead of 3). I'd have much rather had Rasho in on that play. He brings the added feature of perimeter shooting ability.

Good point. Let me rephrase my statement and say he should have at least shot the ball within three seconds. He didn't even shoot it until the game clock sounded.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-10-2009, 01:48 PM
That last play reminds me of the last play that we ran against the Lakers when we beat them earlier in the season. The difference being that it was Rasho instead of Foster. That is a huge difference, because Rasho is not only a better passer than Foster but a better shooter. We had our big in the high post, Marquis/Dunleavy was inbounding, the play was to cut backdoor and give it back to him. Marquis was able to cut, Dunleavy wasn't. Rasho was able to make the pass, Foster wasn't. Rasho could have made the shot if they gave him space. They disregarded Foster and left him open because they would rather have him shoot it than anybody else on the floor. That's the difference to me.

So don't blame O'Brien and say he doesn't know how to draw up plays. He drew up a perfect play vs Phoenix to get Danny open. This same play that he tried to run on the Lakers worked last time. It just backfired terribly this time out. Sometimes that happens, but it's more a problem of the personnel on the court not knowing the clock and at least getting a shot up.

Great game nonetheless. Can you imagine the buzz we could have gotten beating Phoenix/LA both on the road? Looking forward to this game vs Golden State. Is Jack playing? I'd love to see him and Danny go at it.

colts19
01-10-2009, 02:04 PM
I think that jack should have been guarding kobe on that play but he should have had help to get the ball out of kobe's hands. Also i am a big jeff foster fan but, please do not have him in the game and being part of the play with 3 seconds left. If you have him in it should be to set a screen, no way do you want him having the ball in his hands 18feet from the basket. I still like what i see but that last play had the wrong people executing it.

Shade
01-10-2009, 02:17 PM
After sleeping on it, I still feel pretty much the same about last night's game.

We still should have had Graham on Kobe rather than Jack.

That 6th foul on Granger was still :bs:.

Kobe still has way too much influence over the refs.

I'm going to assume JayRedd was right about JOB having a contingency play that was well covered as well, and put blame on the final possession on Foster for having a brain fart.

And, overall, I'm still pretty happy with the game, despite the outcome. We've proven we can play with most of the league's elite (except Cleveland, who may be the best team in the NBA). We just need to start consistently taking care of the other bottom-feeders. If we can do that, the playoffs are well within reach.

And the Lakers still suck. :-p

NuffSaid
01-10-2009, 02:34 PM
yes because that is the way i feel about them.

will i enjoy that? hell no but that's the situation we are in right now. i wish we had a great team that does all the things right so everything would be all good but we don't and if we don't figure something out to change things we will be losing a lot of games. that will definately be the situation i wll be enjoying less.

speaking of your 'that wasn't the work of a fan' thing trust me it was. that's how i feel. i guess it's just the difference between you guys and us. we are a little more passionate about our teams and live our emotions a little more strongly.
Perhaps your problem is you're expectations are still too high. You're wanting a Cavs, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, Pistons or even a Hawks-like team. Well, you have to remember this team is still a team in transition. They're learning each other and are learning their roles and trying to figure out what to do in certain situations. Once they firgure it all out - and from the looks of it they are getting a better handle on things - they'll be right their with the best of them. They've already shown they won't back down from anyone and have had more games lost by under 6 pts than I care to count (11 so far).

With Dunleavy and Diener back and assuming we get Quis and Ford back soon and players can stay healthy, this team will be tough to handle.

Hibbert's coming around, Graham is now in for BRush which I'm happy to see. Nobody else has missed a step. So, once things start clicking you'll see a very different team. And that started w/the Suns game. So, if you liked anything about these last 2 games, I think you're gonna love what follows. Just lower your expectations just a little and remember this team still needs atleast a season to really gel. Next year WILL be so very different. For this year, just enjoy what is and hope it continues to improve.

count55
01-10-2009, 02:42 PM
Last night I couldn't believe Danny was on Kobe.

This morning, I thought "You know what? I'm glad. It lost us the game, but Granger needs to be able to guard the other team's best guy." Like you said, it was a stupid foul. I guarantee he doesn't make that mistake again.

I really wanted this game, but as losses go this one won't hurt us too bad. If we put the hurt on GS then this trip goes into the books as a success.

I probably still wouldn't have had Danny guarding him, but I'm less mystified than I was last night after the discussing surrounding it.

Well, this looks like one more to-do for Danny to check off his list.

(Fortunately for us, he seems to be pretty good at checking off that list.)

Peck
01-10-2009, 02:46 PM
I'll say this here in hopes that this thread is so long that no one will bother reading it anymore.

I am ready to be rid of Jeff Foster.

Sorry that's just how I feel. Several of you will be on here telling me about his intangibles and how he plays the right way and what a lock down defender he is and a hundred other things.

Sorry, I don't care. He just bores the ***** out of me and every min. he is on the floor is a min. I think should go to McBob.

No, this isn't because of that last second play. Jeff should have done something with it, but he should not have been in that position to begin with because did you see how the Lakers played tight on him giving him no options and no shot? Ok, that was a joke because as you can see the Lakers doubled off of him, again, and he had all the room in the world to shoot it.

But again this isn't about that game last night, it is what I am very much afraid of what is coming. Now that Dunleavy is back O'Brien will go to his fantasy of playing smalls and one forward (I refuse to use the word power to describe either Murphy or Foster) and I know it will end up being Foster.

Look I am not saying Jeff isn't good, he is, it's just that for whatever reason I am just sick of seeing him play.

I know he hasn't gotten more min. lately but for some reason I feel like he is on the floor more often.

Do I want Roy on the floor more? Yes, frankly I do but I understand there is a plan in place there so I am ok with it to a point. But I want McRoberts, Rasho and Murphy in there before I want Foster.

Sorry but for some reason I have been ranting in my house about Foster for two weeks now, I have no idea why.

I don't think signing him to an extension was a bad thing as I understand I am probably the only person who feels this way. But I really want to see him used either differantly or less.

I think that may be my problem right there, there have been more times that he is on the floor as the only big and that just for whatever reason offends me.

I don't mind him in there with Murphy or with Hibbert or Rasho.

Ok, irrational soapbox mode off now.

count55
01-10-2009, 02:59 PM
I'll say this here in hopes that this thread is so long that no one will bother reading it anymore.

I am ready to be rid of Jeff Foster.

Sorry that's just how I feel. Several of you will be on here telling me about his intangibles and how he plays the right way and what a lock down defender he is and a hundred other things.

Sorry, I don't care. He just bores the ***** out of me and every min. he is on the floor is a min. I think should go to McBob.

No, this isn't because of that last second play. Jeff should have done something with it, but he should not have been in that position to begin with because did you see how the Lakers played tight on him giving him no options and no shot? Ok, that was a joke because as you can see the Lakers doubled off of him, again, and he had all the room in the world to shoot it.

But again this isn't about that game last night, it is what I am very much afraid of what is coming. Now that Dunleavy is back O'Brien will go to his fantasy of playing smalls and one forward (I refuse to use the word power to describe either Murphy or Foster) and I know it will end up being Foster.

Look I am not saying Jeff isn't good, he is, it's just that for whatever reason I am just sick of seeing him play.

I know he hasn't gotten more min. lately but for some reason I feel like he is on the floor more often.

Do I want Roy on the floor more? Yes, frankly I do but I understand there is a plan in place there so I am ok with it to a point. But I want McRoberts, Rasho and Murphy in there before I want Foster.

Sorry but for some reason I have been ranting in my house about Foster for two weeks now, I have no idea why.

I don't think signing him to an extension was a bad thing as I understand I am probably the only person who feels this way. But I really want to see him used either differantly or less.

I think that may be my problem right there, there have been more times that he is on the floor as the only big and that just for whatever reason offends me.

I don't mind him in there with Murphy or with Hibbert or Rasho.

Ok, irrational soapbox mode off now.

I don't agree with everything that's said in this post, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see Jeff dealt (for value).

I like him overall, but I'm somewhat ambivalent about his future with the Pacers. I don't want to see McBob get every minute Foster gets, but I do want to see McBob get limited, but steady minutes. I'm fine if Jeff's here next year, I'm fine if he's not.

Shade
01-10-2009, 03:00 PM
The problem is that we're relying on Foster to do too much, as we have for a good chunk of his career here. If we can get a good post player to put alongside him, I think your issues with Foster will ease up a bit.

Jon Theodore
01-10-2009, 03:05 PM
I was reading the Lakers forum and they all thought Dunleavy was going to hit a dagger and beat them. They also were talking about how Danny Granger was acting like a player who is used to winning, I thought that was interesting.

They all seemed to really respect Dunleavy as a player, I had always thought he didn't really have much respect around the league and was somewhat underrated.

I think people realize we are a dangerous team, now for the love of god pacers GO ON A WINNING STREAK!

count55
01-10-2009, 03:06 PM
The problem is that we're relying on Foster to do too much, as we have for a good chunk of his career here. If we can get a good post player to put alongside him, I think your issues with Foster will ease up a bit.

I think this is true with almost all of the players. Because of injuries or holes in the roster, we have to ask more of guys like Jeff, Rasho, JJ, Brandon, Roy, Stephen, and even a Danny than you'd really prefer.

This is why I'm anxious to see this team with Quis, TJ, and Junior healthy.

dryley
01-10-2009, 03:08 PM
For the record, I love Jack, glad he's on te Pacers. I just wish every player on the team played with his effort, toughness both physically and mentally.
I had no problem with him guarding Kobe - no one can guard him one on one, I was yelling for a double tame, make someone else hit a shot, is what I wish would have happened.

Pacers played very well overall, I liked the toughness and fight they showed - if they can build on this type of play, we might really have something here. Overall, I'm encouraged with their recent play except for the horrible Denver game

Me too!
I am, however, a little worried about how long it will take for Foster to live this one down. They always say it takes one "Oh ****" to wipe out a hundred "attaboys", well, Jeff wiped out several hundred! Then again, maybe he will come out with a little more fire next time with something to prove. Let's hope he does...

Shade
01-10-2009, 03:09 PM
I think this is true with almost all of the players. Because of injuries or holes in the roster, we have to ask more of guys like Jeff, Rasho, JJ, Brandon, Roy, Stephen, and even a Danny than you'd really prefer.

This is why I'm anxious to see this team with Quis, TJ, and Junior healthy.

I'm more looking forward to seeing us with TJ than anything.

Dun looks pretty healthy out there right now. He doesn't even look all that rusty.

Quis isn't going to be retained, so if it takes a while for him to return, I'm fine with that as well. We need to evaluate the roster we intend to have after this season.

Shade
01-10-2009, 03:10 PM
Me too!
I am, however, a little worried about how long it will take for Foster to live this one down. They always say it takes one "Oh ****" to wipe out a hundred "attaboys", well, Jeff wiped out several hundred! Then again, maybe he will come out with a little more fire next time with something to prove. Let's hope he does...

Eh, it wasn't that bad. In the grand scheme of things, this was not a terribly important game.

JayRedd
01-10-2009, 03:14 PM
Eh, it wasn't that bad. In the grand scheme of things, this was not a terribly important game.

Indeed. As dumb as it was, the likelihood of him actually doing anything that would have sent the game into overtime was pretty slim anyway. He's not scaring anyone as a face-up guy 18 feet from the hoop.

That said, I still would have rather seen him punt the ball into the stands than do what he did just as a sign he knew the clock was down under a second. And, actually, that probably would have been about as high a percentage scoring chance as his 18-footer.

I think in the eyes of most all Pacer fans, he'll go right back to being an elite rebounder who shoots 25% on layups in no time.

dryley
01-10-2009, 03:16 PM
Eh, it wasn't that bad. In the grand scheme of things, this was not a terribly important game.
Yeah....you're right. He'd have probably missed anyway, but I sure wish he'd got a shot off in time, it would have looked a lot better!

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 03:19 PM
I'll say this here in hopes that this thread is so long that no one will bother reading it anymore.

I am ready to be rid of Jeff Foster.

Sorry that's just how I feel. Several of you will be on here telling me about his intangibles and how he plays the right way and what a lock down defender he is and a hundred other things.

Sorry, I don't care. He just bores the ***** out of me and every min. he is on the floor is a min. I think should go to McBob.

No, this isn't because of that last second play. Jeff should have done something with it, but he should not have been in that position to begin with because did you see how the Lakers played tight on him giving him no options and no shot? Ok, that was a joke because as you can see the Lakers doubled off of him, again, and he had all the room in the world to shoot it.

But again this isn't about that game last night, it is what I am very much afraid of what is coming. Now that Dunleavy is back O'Brien will go to his fantasy of playing smalls and one forward (I refuse to use the word power to describe either Murphy or Foster) and I know it will end up being Foster.

Look I am not saying Jeff isn't good, he is, it's just that for whatever reason I am just sick of seeing him play.

I know he hasn't gotten more min. lately but for some reason I feel like he is on the floor more often.

Do I want Roy on the floor more? Yes, frankly I do but I understand there is a plan in place there so I am ok with it to a point. But I want McRoberts, Rasho and Murphy in there before I want Foster.

Sorry but for some reason I have been ranting in my house about Foster for two weeks now, I have no idea why.

I don't think signing him to an extension was a bad thing as I understand I am probably the only person who feels this way. But I really want to see him used either differantly or less.

I think that may be my problem right there, there have been more times that he is on the floor as the only big and that just for whatever reason offends me.

I don't mind him in there with Murphy or with Hibbert or Rasho.

Ok, irrational soapbox mode off now.

I think the pacers signed foster because he is a good trade bait if you know what I mean, the other part is that they did not know how good Mac Roberts was going to be and yes I agree with you they should play Mc bob more, they need to try to find a way to trade foster now that he has some value,Mc bob is a more improve JF taller and more athletic I always say that he plays more like the Bird man with Denver and that is not bad.

jhondog28
01-10-2009, 03:20 PM
I'm more looking forward to seeing us with TJ than anything.

Dun looks pretty healthy out there right now. He doesn't even look all that rusty.

Quis isn't going to be retained, so if it takes a while for him to return, I'm fine with that as well. We need to evaluate the roster we intend to have after this season.

I think Dun played like 23 minutes had 22pts 5 assists and 4 reb...I mean he almost had more points than Murph. If this is him at 80 percent imagine what 100 percent would be like.

count55
01-10-2009, 03:24 PM
I'm more looking forward to seeing us with TJ than anything.

Dun looks pretty healthy out there right now. He doesn't even look all that rusty.

Quis isn't going to be retained, so if it takes a while for him to return, I'm fine with that as well. We need to evaluate the roster we intend to have after this season.

I'm thrilled with Dun.

Agree with the Quis comment and TJ.

I just would love to see a month straight of a full roster to be able to evaluate the team without any *'s.

Hicks
01-10-2009, 03:29 PM
I just would love to see a month straight of a full roster to be able to evaluate the team without any *'s.

No kidding. It's been maddening. I still believe this was meant to be a .500 ball club, and there's just no way to prove it one way or the other with all the BS that's been playing interference.

jhondog28
01-10-2009, 03:38 PM
No kidding. It's been maddening. I still believe this was meant to be a .500 ball club, and there's just no way to prove it one way or the other with all the BS that's been playing interference.

I actually thought an interesting lineup would be to have Daniels, Granger, Dunleavy, Murphy and Hibbert on the floor at the same time. Have Dun play the point. Have Daniels play the 2 and have Granger play from the 3. Murphy plays the 4 and Hibbert at the 5. You have good defensive wings a smart player who grew up playing point guard up until sophmore year at Duke and outside offensive players in Murphy and Dunleavy. Hibbert would be there for defense and rebounding purposes.

imawhat
01-10-2009, 03:53 PM
Last night I couldn't believe Danny was on Kobe.

This morning, I thought "You know what? I'm glad. It lost us the game, but Granger needs to be able to guard the other team's best guy." Like you said, it was a stupid foul. I guarantee he doesn't make that mistake again.

Not you Anthem, but I think some people are way too quick to forget Danny's defense against Jason Richardson two nights ago in that closing sequence.

Or his defense against Wilson Chandler in the Knicks game (of course he wasn't on Wilson when he had that strong drive and dunk).

Or his defense against Artest (a player who can draw a foul just as easily as Kobe when he drives to the hoop).

He's our best defender right now, and he's done a hell of a job to close out games so far. There's no reason he shouldn't've been on Kobe at the end. He made a really dumb defensive play last night, but that's the exception, not the rule. He just needs to do a lot more research ('film') on top players before playing them.



The design was fine, the execution was horrible. I'm noted several times in this thread that I did not think Foster should be on the floor, and he was the guy who blew up the play. This is the problem with trying to run a set play with 3 seconds left. The Lakers either knew or guessed what was coming, and took away option number. It's difficult to say what option 2 was, because Jeff completely froze.

Per Mike Wells, Indy Star http://www.indystar.com/article/20090110/SPORTS04/90110001/1088/SPORTS04


Dunleavy threw the ball to Foster, who was then supposed to find one of his open teammates for a 3-pointer to win the game. The buzzer went off and he still had the ball in his hands because the Lakers defended the play so well.

“They shut it down,” O’Brien said. “We did not want to go into overtime without Danny Granger being on the court. Travis was one of the options, but he got lost in the shuffle.”

Very, very interesting. I thought for sure Dunleavy was getting the curl to the basket, but he was a decoy. It looks like we ALL missed Plan A, which may have been Diener.

Imo, this makes an even worse case for Foster. If Dun was a decoy, wtf did he not pass it to him? Dunleavy's shot was cut off, but no way was his pass to the weakside.


Excellent game and a nervous Staples Center at the end of the game.

I wish everyone could've experienced the collective groan when Dunleavy tied it with that three. I've been to some OT Lakers games with shots hit at the buzzer (most recently Nick Young's last year), and I've never heard the crowd get as nervous as they did last night. It was like they expected the Pacers to win.

I totally understand why Reggie enjoyed the road so much. There's nothing like shutting up thousands of people at once.

Shade
01-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Not you Anthem, but I think some people are way too quick to forget Danny's defense against Jason Richardson two nights ago in that closing sequence.

Or his defense against Wilson Chandler in the Knicks game (of course he wasn't on Wilson when he had that strong drive and dunk).

Or his defense against Artest (a player who can draw a foul just as easily as Kobe when he drives to the hoop).

He's our best defender right now, and he's done a hell of a job to close out games so far. There's no reason he shouldn't've been on Kobe at the end. He made a really dumb defensive play last night, but that's the exception, not the rule. He just needs to do a lot more research ('film') on top players before playing them.




Per Mike Wells, Indy Star http://www.indystar.com/article/20090110/SPORTS04/90110001/1088/SPORTS04



Very, very interesting. I thought for sure Dunleavy was getting the curl to the basket, but he was a decoy. It looks like we ALL missed Plan A, which may have been Diener.

Imo, this makes an even worse case for Foster. If Dun was a decoy, wtf did he not pass it to him? Dunleavy's shot was cut off, but no way was his pass to the weakside.



I wish everyone could've experienced the collective groan when Dunleavy tied it with that three. I've been to some OT Lakers games with shots hit at the buzzer (most recently Nick Young's last year), and I've never heard the crowd get as nervous as they did last night. It was like they expected the Pacers to win.

I totally understand why Reggie enjoyed the road so much. There's nothing like shutting up thousands of people at once.

If that was really plan A, then I'm pissed at JOB again.

Plan A is for a guy who has missed 14 of his last 15 three-pointers to shoot a 3-pointer? :huh:

imawhat
01-10-2009, 04:02 PM
If that was really plan A, then I'm pissed at JOB again.

Plan A is for a guy who has missed 14 of his last 15 three-pointers to shoot a 3-pointer? :huh:

I understand from a stats standpoint, but I preferred Diener shooting that shot. Other than Foster, he would've gotten the best look. And he's shown the ability to hit shots in the clutch.

jhondog28
01-10-2009, 04:05 PM
I understand from a stats standpoint, but I preferred Diener shooting that shot. Other than Foster, he would've gotten the best look. And he's shown the ability to hit shots in the clutch.

I think JOB said in his postgame that Dunleavy was trying to get a back cut open three because he did not want to go to overtime without Granger and if Dunleavy could not get open the second option was Diener. He said that Diener could not free himself up because he got caught in an onslaught of Lakers.

Shade
01-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Why would Murphy not be the second option?

Bball
01-10-2009, 04:13 PM
I assumed all along the plan was for Foster to toss the ball to someone for a 3 with Dunleavy being the first option. The problem I had all along was that Foster wouldn't draw any defensive pressure and is a dismal shooter even when wide open. So the Lakers had 5 guys to guard 4 of ours. Altho Rasho hasn't exactly been lighting it up of late, he can hit that little elbow shot. Nobody will ever say that of Foster. The Lakers would've been forced to guard him or allow him to be the last option for a shot at overtime. I would've taken Hibbert there too (over Foster). In that case, it would be a learning experience and of course Hibbert has a better outside shot than Foster as well. And Hibbert can pass.

I would've accepted Hibbert choking on the play more than Foster. Even McRoberts makes some sense (both in a lesson for the future possibility plus in a 'he can make the play' possibility). Foster should've at least gotten a shot off.... although we know he would've missed in all likelihood. Foster is a vet and there's really no excuse to let the clock expire.

But it all goes back to the question of why Foster was in the lineup in the first place.

jhondog28
01-10-2009, 04:16 PM
I assumed all along the plan was for Foster to toss the ball to someone for a 3 with Dunleavy being the first option. The problem I had all along was that Foster wouldn't draw any defensive pressure and is a dismal shooter even when wide open. So the Lakers had 5 guys to guard 4 of ours. Altho Rasho hasn't exactly been lighting it up of late, he can hit that little elbow shot. Nobody will ever say that of Foster. The Lakers would've been forced to guard him or allow him to be the last option for a shot at overtime. I would've taken Hibbert there too (over Foster). In that case, it would be a learning experience and of course Hibbert has a better outside shot than Foster as well. And Hibbert can pass.

I would've accepted Hibbert choking on the play more than Foster. Even McRoberts makes some sense (both in a lesson for the future possibility plus in a 'he can make the play' possibility). Foster should've at least gotten a shot off.... although we know he would've missed in all likelihood. Foster is a vet and there's really no excuse to let the clock expire.

But it all goes back to the question of why Foster was in the lineup in the first place.

I will say I think McRoberts should have been in instead of Foster. McRoberts is by far the more agressive player but more importantly has great passing ability.

Shade
01-10-2009, 04:24 PM
I assumed all along the plan was for Foster to toss the ball to someone for a 3 with Dunleavy being the first option. The problem I had all along was that Foster wouldn't draw any defensive pressure and is a dismal shooter even when wide open. So the Lakers had 5 guys to guard 4 of ours. Altho Rasho hasn't exactly been lighting it up of late, he can hit that little elbow shot. Nobody will ever say that of Foster. The Lakers would've been forced to guard him or allow him to be the last option for a shot at overtime. I would've taken Hibbert there too (over Foster). In that case, it would be a learning experience and of course Hibbert has a better outside shot than Foster as well. And Hibbert can pass.

I would've accepted Hibbert choking on the play more than Foster. Even McRoberts makes some sense (both in a lesson for the future possibility plus in a 'he can make the play' possibility). Foster should've at least gotten a shot off.... although we know he would've missed in all likelihood. Foster is a vet and there's really no excuse to let the clock expire.

But it all goes back to the question of why Foster was in the lineup in the first place.

Rasho is also a better passer.

Before the play unfolded, I told Pig Nash that everyone had to be expecting that Dun would be our first option, and that it could be a give-and-go once we saw him about to inbound. I openly wondered what our back-up plan was, and I was left still wondering well after the game had concluded.

imawhat
01-10-2009, 04:30 PM
He said that Diener could not free himself up because he got caught in an onslaught of Lakers.

Which I think is a nice way of saying Murphy/Jack *****ed up on that play. Lots of blame going to Foster, but it sounds like he wasn't the only player screwing up.


Btw, I agree with most that Foster shouldn't have been in there at the end.

Will Galen
01-10-2009, 05:13 PM
Defense is not the priority and it shows.

Priority is getting the paying customers back. Until we get the players that put this team into contention offense will rule.

NuffSaid
01-10-2009, 05:27 PM
That last play reminds me of the last play that we ran against the Lakers when we beat them earlier in the season. The difference being that it was Rasho instead of Foster. That is a huge difference, because Rasho is not only a better passer than Foster but a better shooter. We had our big in the high post, Marquis/Dunleavy was inbounding, the play was to cut backdoor and give it back to him. Marquis was able to cut, Dunleavy wasn't. Rasho was able to make the pass, Foster wasn't. Rasho could have made the shot if they gave him space. They disregarded Foster and left him open because they would rather have him shoot it than anybody else on the floor. That's the difference to me.

So don't blame O'Brien and say he doesn't know how to draw up plays. He drew up a perfect play vs Phoenix to get Danny open. This same play that he tried to run on the Lakers worked last time. It just backfired terribly this time out. Sometimes that happens, but it's more a problem of the personnel on the court not knowing the clock and at least getting a shot up.

Great game nonetheless. Can you imagine the buzz we could have gotten beating Phoenix/LA both on the road? Looking forward to this game vs Golden State. Is Jack playing? I'd love to see him and Danny go at it.
Here again, I agree. Same play, different players, different result. My boyz still played one helluva game. I'm proud of them regardless of the outcome. I'd rather they'd gotten the win, but a lose in a hard fought battle will gain my respect every time.

Bball
01-10-2009, 05:40 PM
Rasho is also a better passer.

Before the play unfolded, I told Pig Nash that everyone had to be expecting that Dun would be our first option, and that it could be a give-and-go once we saw him about to inbound. I openly wondered what our back-up plan was, and I was left still wondering well after the game had concluded.

The funny thing is, no matter what anyone thinks of the play design, Foster's presence reduced it's chance of success due to his offensive ineptitude over just about any other option in his place.

If we were going to use Foster on the floor there then IMHO someone else (other than Dun) should've taken the ball out of bounds and we should've tried Foster as a screener with Dunleavy on a catch and shoot mission. ...With Foster then crashing the board.

But what do I know. Hindsight is 20-20... but then Foster's offensive ineptitude and lack of need to be guarded away from the basket is well documented... Though that same lack of a need to be guarded helps him get to the glass for rebounds.

Bball
01-10-2009, 05:45 PM
Priority is getting the paying customers back. Until we get the players that put this team into contention offense will rule.

To a point I agree with you. But we have to be careful because losing 125-120 will take its toll on fans (and players too) eventually.

IMHO Granger's emergence and team chemistry have us ahead of schedule in some aspects but we're not adjusting and taking advantage of it, instead continuing with this over-reliance on offense and not trying to properly address our defensive short-comings. You can't ignore them forever. The question mark (for me) is whether there's a method to the madness.

-Bball

BlueNGold
01-10-2009, 06:03 PM
I don't know why there's so much confusion here.

The most passionate statement I have heard from the coach was after beating the Golden State Warriors 127-120. He was not only happy about winning, he was giddy like a school girl over the style of play. You will never see a strong defensive team under JOb almost regardless of personnel. This is about personnel, but moreso about priorities and coaching philosophy.

Like my mama always said, you can only love one thing. He loves fast break offense. He talks up defense, but he loves fast break offense.

BlueNGold
01-10-2009, 06:14 PM
Priority is getting the paying customers back. Until we get the players that put this team into contention offense will rule.

Actually, winning is the priority. That's what takes care of getting paying customers back. Until we improve our defense, that winning thing ain't happening much.

The Pacers need to do two things to begin winning more games.

1) Acquire a defensive minded PF to pair with Hibbert.
2) Acquire a defensive minded coach.

I don't expect either of those two things happening this year or next, but I don't care that much. Things will improve and I have no doubt this is on the whiteboard.

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 06:33 PM
can anybody come with a list of NBA coaches out of work? I am kind of curious to see who is out there, I like EJ and MJackson but I have not idea who else is out there

owl
01-10-2009, 07:12 PM
I don't know why there's so much confusion here.

The most passionate statement I have heard from the coach was after beating the Golden State Warriors 127-120. He was not only happy about winning, he was giddy like a school girl over the style of play. You will never see a strong defensive team under JOb almost regardless of personnel. This is about personnel, but moreso about priorities and coaching philosophy.

Like my mama always said, you can only love one thing. He loves fast break offense. He talks up defense, but he loves fast break offense.

I remember that game and OB's response. So unless the Pacers can be the re-incarnated
Laker Show they are doomed as far as a championship is concerned. So OB eventually goes
or he changes his stripes. Frankly the Pacers need a couple of defensive minded veterans and a year or two of maturity to be a serious threat no matter who is coaching.
This offense is a training ground and when defense actually becomes a priority
they will be ready on the offensive side and will be able to shut down or slow down the
other team to win games consistently.

GO!!!!!
01-10-2009, 07:35 PM
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CMobile%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmso htmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CMobile%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmso htmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CMobile%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmso htmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> I'm going to break All the rules and skip half the pages but seriously, I watched the last play a couple times and I can't Blame Jack for the last play anyways, when I watch the whole fourth Quarter I might change my mind...

He had a hand in Kobe's face, it looked reasonable D to me.. The Size difference hurt him more than anything and they played some Good D on our last possession

Sucky Lose, but I can't blame anyone really, Just wish Foster had been closer with the final attempt..

BlueNGold
01-10-2009, 09:44 PM
I remember that game and OB's response. So unless the Pacers can be the re-incarnated
Laker Show they are doomed as far as a championship is concerned. So OB eventually goes
or he changes his stripes. Frankly the Pacers need a couple of defensive minded veterans and a year or two of maturity to be a serious threat no matter who is coaching.
This offense is a training ground and when defense actually becomes a priority
they will be ready on the offensive side and will be able to shut down or slow down the
other team to win games consistently.

Your reference to showtime is telling. It has been on my mind as I have tried to piece together what I think JOb would like to see.

The problem with modeling after showtime is that it was effective partially because two of the best players of all-time were on the same team at the most important positions - PG and C. It was also effective because there was less parity in the league at the time. There was a big difference for a long period of time between the Laker/Celtic teams and the rest of the league. Things are not that unbalanced these days.

Another point is that everything in the NBA changed with the Detroit Bad Boys and their defense. Remember John Salley, Zeke, Microwave, Laimbeer, Mahorn, etc.? Anyone who doesn't remember that transition for the NBA is going to value defense less than one who lived through it.

Even Chicago's strong suit was arguably defense with Pippen, Rodman, Grant, Cartwright and Jordan....all extremely good defensively...while Rodman and Cartwright were nearly non-existent on offense at times.

Then came the San Antonio and Detroit dynasties. These were all built on defense even more than Chicago.

While I get a little misty-eyed about Magic and Kareem, I seriously doubt that show would go on so easily in today's NBA against a dominant defense like the Spurs for example. The game has changed and that's why Golden State is Golden State and the best records in the NBA are largely those with the lowest opposing PPG.

As a result, it is upsetting to me anytime the opposition scores 110+ points even if we score a little more....because it's simply not a good symptom if you want to compete in the playoffs and ultimately contend for a championship.

YoSoyIndy
01-10-2009, 11:03 PM
can anybody come with a list of NBA coaches out of work? I am kind of curious to see who is out there, I like EJ and MJackson but I have not idea who else is out there

Mark Jackson isn't a coach. He has no coaching experience. All he's done is make sure to have his people put his name out there every time there's a job opening.

YoSoyIndy
01-10-2009, 11:07 PM
Actually, winning is the priority. That's what takes care of getting paying customers back. Until we improve our defense, that winning thing ain't happening much.

The Pacers need to do two things to begin winning more games.

1) Acquire a defensive minded PF to pair with Hibbert.
2) Acquire a defensive minded coach.

I don't expect either of those two things happening this year or next, but I don't care that much. Things will improve and I have no doubt this is on the whiteboard.

JOB is a defensive-minded coach. He also got a well-known defensive-minded assistant coach in Dick Harter.

I'll paraphrase/adjust something Kstat said in another post -- it seems like the team is too worried about getting the ball up the court that they aren't minding their defensive responsibilities. It's the same mentality as a WR heading upfield prior to catching the ball. Catch the ball, then get YAC. Stop the basketball, then move it up the court.

I would love to have a defensive-minded PF, but I'm happy w/ Murphy's scoring and rebounding.

I just think we need more experience as a team. Some teams take a little longer to mesh, and we're one of them.

vnzla81
01-10-2009, 11:10 PM
JOB is a defensive-minded coach. He also got a well-known defensive-minded assistant coach in Dick Harter.

I'll paraphrase/adjust something Kstat said in another post -- it seems like the team is too worried about getting the ball up the court that they aren't minding their defensive responsibilities. It's the same mentality as a WR heading upfield prior to catching the ball. Catch the ball, then get YAC. Stop the basketball, then move it up the court.

I would love to have a defensive-minded PF, but I'm happy w/ Murphy's scoring and rebounding.

I just think we need more experience as a team. Some teams take a little longer to mesh, and we're one of them.

JOB is a defensive minded coach? jaja :bs:

count55
01-10-2009, 11:46 PM
JOB is a defensive minded coach? jaja :bs:

Prior to coming to Indiana, here are the full season defensive results and rankings for Jim O'Brien's teams:

2004-2005 Philly: Defensive Rating 104.3 (10th), Opp FG% .443 (11th) (out of 30 teams)

2002-2003 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.6 (7th), Opp FG% .435 (7th) (out of 29 teams)

2001-2002 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.0 (5th), Opp FG% .425 (3rd) (out of 29 teams)

The pace is what's best suited to this personnel, though the coaching staff does need to simplify the rotations somewhat, and the players need to execute better. This team needs to get better defensively, but the implication that O'Brien is somehow opposed to defense is complete bull****. The track record of his teams prior to here speaks for itself.

MrSparko
01-10-2009, 11:47 PM
Prior to coming to Indiana, here are the full season defensive results and rankings for Jim O'Brien's teams:

2004-2005 Philly: Defensive Rating 104.3 (10th), Opp FG% .443 (11th) (out of 30 teams)

2002-2003 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.6 (7th), Opp FG% .435 (7th) (out of 29 teams)

2001-2002 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.0 (5th), Opp FG% .425 (3rd) (out of 29 teams)

The pace is what's best suited to this personnel, though the coaching staff does need to simplify the rotations somewhat, and the players need to execute better. This team needs to get better defensively, but the implication that O'Brien is somehow opposed to defense is complete bull****. The track record of his teams prior to here speaks for itself.


But but but the Pacers suck at defense! Thus O'Brien hates defense.

BlueNGold
01-11-2009, 12:43 AM
Prior to coming to Indiana, here are the full season defensive results and rankings for Jim O'Brien's teams:

2004-2005 Philly: Defensive Rating 104.3 (10th), Opp FG% .443 (11th) (out of 30 teams)

2002-2003 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.6 (7th), Opp FG% .435 (7th) (out of 29 teams)

2001-2002 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.0 (5th), Opp FG% .425 (3rd) (out of 29 teams)

The pace is what's best suited to this personnel, though the coaching staff does need to simplify the rotations somewhat, and the players need to execute better. This team needs to get better defensively, but the implication that O'Brien is somehow opposed to defense is complete bull****. The track record of his teams prior to here speaks for itself.

Not sure if that makes much of a case for JOb. His defense became worse each year based on your stats. In 2007-08, he was 26th. The negative slope continued with the same team as he dropped even further to 28th in 2008-09 after acquiring several good defensive players in Jarrett Jack, McRoberts, Rush and a healthy Quis. Certainly they are better defenders than Diener and Dunleavy from last year.

PPG allowed by year:
JOb: 2007-08: 105.4 (26th)
JOb: 2008-09: 106.3 (28th)

Anyway, 28th out of 30 for PPG, does not impress however you slice it when you have players like Granger, Foster, Quis, Jack, Baston, McRoberts and Rush to throw on the floor. No lockdowns there, but it's not trash.

dryley
01-11-2009, 12:48 AM
[QUOTE=JayRedd;832643]Indeed. As dumb as it was, the likelihood of him actually doing anything that would have sent the game into overtime was pretty slim anyway. He's not scaring anyone as a face-up guy 18 feet from the hoop.

That said, I still would have rather seen him punt the ball into the stands than do what he did just as a sign he knew the clock was down under a second. And, actually, that probably would have been about as high a percentage scoring chance as his 18-footer.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Dece
01-11-2009, 01:01 AM
I don't think anyone is saying he's OPPOSED to defense... you can't be opposed to defense, that's just silly. It'd be like me saying I'm opposed to sleeping with supermodels, of course I'm not, that doesn't mean I have a good strategy for getting said supermodels in my bed.

Whatever his thoughts on defense are, they aren't working. How does that saying go... actions talk, something walks? Yea.

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2009, 01:07 AM
I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

Thanks to Count, JayRedd, and Aesop for trying to bring some semblance of reason to the discussion.

I try to avoid the ignore feature in general, but there is a solid segment of posters who I continuously skip over because they do nothing but **** and moan about the coach in a very irrational manner.

I remember something count55 said about second guessing... how its really easy to second guess because you can never really be proven wrong. haha, I mean, if Stephan Graham had been on Kobe and Kobe abused him as he surely would have you would be hearing "Obrien cant coach his way out of a paper bag! why would you have graham on him???" Same **** different day.

MrSparko
01-11-2009, 01:54 AM
I don't think anyone is saying he's OPPOSED to defense... you can't be opposed to defense, that's just silly. It'd be like me saying I'm opposed to sleeping with supermodels, of course I'm not, that doesn't mean I have a good strategy for getting said supermodels in my bed.

Whatever his thoughts on defense are, they aren't working. How does that saying go... actions talk, something walks? Yea.

You ever thought about using Graham as your go-to wingman? He'll date the fat one!

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2009, 02:03 AM
Not sure if that makes much of a case for JOb. His defense became worse each year based on your stats. In 2007-08, he was 26th. The negative slope continued with the same team as he dropped even further to 28th in 2008-09 after acquiring several good defensive players in Jarrett Jack, McRoberts, Rush and a healthy Quis. Certainly they are better defenders than Diener and Dunleavy from last year.

PPG allowed by year:
JOb: 2007-08: 105.4 (26th)
JOb: 2008-09: 106.3 (28th)

Anyway, 28th out of 30 for PPG, does not impress however you slice it when you have players like Granger, Foster, Quis, Jack, Baston, McRoberts and Rush to throw on the floor. No lockdowns there, but it's not trash.

I don't think ppg is an accurate gauge of defense. So much of scoring is dictated by pace. Opponent FG% is a much better gauge. Of course, we haven't been too good in that category either. Obrien has a good defensive record as a coach with two other teams, and this team as presently constructed needs to play a fast paced offense to be effective... does anyone remember the end of Ricks last year? Now that scares me.

Honest to god I think Murphy goes down to injury and mcbob plays big minutes, this team would get inexplicably better at defense. Just having an athletic shotblocking big who can man up opposing 4s would be HUGE. I also think Obrien needs to simplify his defensive system.. but having better man defenders out their consistently would help make this possible.

Josh Mcroberts needs to play more. I want less Rasho and Jeff and more Mcbob. We need athleticism in the frontcourt. I haven't been listening to the obrien show latley but someone needs to call in and address this.

Bball
01-11-2009, 07:35 AM
Our defense looked better early in the year. Where did that go? We were disrupting passing lanes and very active. A player can be open but his teammates have to be able to get the ball to him cleanly to take advantage of it.

I think the offense is being preached to the point it's taking away from the defense. Players are finding it better to cruise on defense and work on offense and that is also the signal OBrien is sending out by his actions regardless of what he's saying. Hit your marks on defense but "go go go" on offense.

I just don't think the team could maintain that defensive intensity AND keep the pedal to the metal on offense physically or mentally. Players like Rasho were quickly used up because of it. The pace is more than the team can stand without letting one phase of the game suffer and defense is that phase to suffer. I just don't see anything really being done to address it... at all.

If Jim OBrien is a 'defensive minded coach' then you're not going to prove it with the Pacers.

YoSoyIndy
01-11-2009, 09:36 AM
JOB is a defensive minded coach? jaja :bs:

Defensive-minded doesn't mean he's getting great results on defensive end.

Kinda weird how you respond to one of my posts but not the post responding to you.

xtacy
01-11-2009, 10:19 AM
JOB is a defensive-minded coach.

unless he thinks that best defense is offense he's not.

count55
01-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Not sure if that makes much of a case for JOb. His defense became worse each year based on your stats. In 2007-08, he was 26th. The negative slope continued with the same team as he dropped even further to 28th in 2008-09 after acquiring several good defensive players in Jarrett Jack, McRoberts, Rush and a healthy Quis. Certainly they are better defenders than Diener and Dunleavy from last year.

PPG allowed by year:
JOb: 2007-08: 105.4 (26th)
JOb: 2008-09: 106.3 (28th)

Anyway, 28th out of 30 for PPG, does not impress however you slice it when you have players like Granger, Foster, Quis, Jack, Baston, McRoberts and Rush to throw on the floor. No lockdowns there, but it's not trash.

Three teams in the top third of the league in defense seems like a pretty good case to me. It at least solidly disproves this statement:


You will never see a strong defensive team under JOb almost regardless of personnel. This is about personnel, but moreso about priorities and coaching philosophy.



Our defense looked better early in the year. Where did that go? We were disrupting passing lanes and very active. A player can be open but his teammates have to be able to get the ball to him cleanly to take advantage of it.

I think the offense is being preached to the point it's taking away from the defense. Players are finding it better to cruise on defense and work on offense and that is also the signal OBrien is sending out by his actions regardless of what he's saying. Hit your marks on defense but "go go go" on offense.

I just don't think the team could maintain that defensive intensity AND keep the pedal to the metal on offense physically or mentally. Players like Rasho were quickly used up because of it. The pace is more than the team can stand without letting one phase of the game suffer and defense is that phase to suffer. I just don't see anything really being done to address it... at all.

If Jim OBrien is a 'defensive minded coach' then you're not going to prove it with the Pacers.

There is something to this, but I'm struggling to accept it part and parcel. There's no question the defense is failing. There's no question that Rasho has jumped the shark. I also see Hibbert laboring in limited minutes.

I have always said there are limitations to O'Brien's ability. I don't think that he can overcome a paucity of talent. I also think that he gives his trust to players a little too grudgingly, and can lose the forest for the trees from time to time.

In the Clippers post-game thread, I explained why I thought Hibbert never saw any time in OT. Basically, he'd been replaced in the fourth at about the 5:28 mark as part of the normal rotation. The Pacers then went from 3 down to 4 up with 0:31 left. (That does not comment on Hibbert, only that the team on the floor, with Rasho, was having success in that stretch.) Then, we missed a FT, and Clips got Thornton's three to push it to OT.

I think two things led to his decision not to play Hibbert in either OT: (1) Foster was already out, so another relatively untested rookie, McBob, was playing, and (2) he was chasing the game, felt he was this close, and felt more comfortable relying on the vets to make plays than to risk upsetting the apple cart.

Now, I'm not defending his decisions, I'm merely explaining what I think the reasoning was behind making what I consider a mistake. I think we may have seen a little of that in the Foster debacle the other night. O'Brien said afterwards that we didn't want to go to OT. That discussion, though unintentionally, probably played into Jeff's "pass for a 3 or bust" mentality.

I think this may be what's happening with the defense. I have no doubt in my mind that O'Brien, his staff, and the team all want the defense to be better. However, I suspect that the combination of competing in all of these games and the fear that a significant change in what they are doing may bring about more harm than good is what is resulting in at least part of what we're seeing now. BTW...I think that's the mindset of the players, as well. I think they're all chasing the game, being too reactionary.

Now, I'll be interested to see what impact Dunleavy does have. Prior to Junior's return, we had been able to win a couple of games that were tight down the stretch, but they were against admittedly bad competition. In the two games he's played, we were able to pull out a win at Phoenix, and come from behind and generally play better down the stretch against the Lakers, despite the final outcome.

Two games do not make a trend, so I will be interested to see how this team plays over the rest of January. It is a relatively tough schedule, and today is the only one of the road games that you would put solidly in the "winnable" category. However, I'm hopeful that the return of Dunleavy, (and hopefully the soon return of Ford and Daniels) will provide more players to be comfortable with, therefore making them chase the game a little less and get back to trying to make real changes to improve the defense.

BlueNGold
01-11-2009, 12:51 PM
I suppose JOb can adopt a good defensive team and manage to avoid an immediate collapse. I don't find that surprising. Anyone can do that simply be not making it a priority...which is basically what BBall is saying. Defense dies on the vine under JOb based on the stats. The troubling thing is, there is no precedent of JOb ever improving a defense.

The trend is telling. Even in the course of this season, the trend is there.

BlueNGold
01-11-2009, 12:59 PM
I think the offense is being preached to the point it's taking away from the defense. Players are finding it better to cruise on defense and work on offense and that is also the signal OBrien is sending out by his actions regardless of what he's saying. Hit your marks on defense but "go go go" on offense.

This hits the heart of the matter. There are the priorities you think you have...and the priorities you really do have.

Words versus action. They are often not the same.

YoSoyIndy
01-11-2009, 01:17 PM
unless he thinks that best defense is offense he's not.

The defensive mistakes the team make are system breakdowns during key moments. A great example is during the Hawks game when Joe Johnson's man (can't recall the player) shifted off of him while he was on the weak side even though Joe was red hot and dying to shoot. Joe got the ball, drilled the 3, and clinched the game.

That's not a coaching mistake because no way Coach thought they did the right thing defensively.

Our team isn't bad defensively because we have an anti-defensive coach. Our team is bad because we have several average or below average individual defenders who make poor decisions.

JayRedd
01-11-2009, 01:32 PM
Not sure if that makes much of a case for JOb. His defense became worse each year based on your stats. In 2007-08, he was 26th. The negative slope continued with the same team as he dropped even further to 28th in 2008-09 after acquiring several good defensive players in Jarrett Jack, McRoberts, Rush and a healthy Quis. Certainly they are better defenders than Diener and Dunleavy from last year.

PPG allowed by year:
JOb: 2007-08: 105.4 (26th)
JOb: 2008-09: 106.3 (28th)

Anyway, 28th out of 30 for PPG, does not impress however you slice it when you have players like Granger, Foster, Quis, Jack, Baston, McRoberts and Rush to throw on the floor. No lockdowns there, but it's not trash.

You're mistaking PPG for defense. That really has nothing to do with anything aside from pace. Furthermore, the stats count used were defensive rating and opponent's FG% and you just arbitrarily switched it to PPG, which is obviously not a valid comparison.

Here they are again:

2004-2005 Philly: Defensive Rating 104.3 (10th), Opp FG% .443 (11th) (out of 30 teams)

2002-2003 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.6 (7th), Opp FG% .435 (7th) (out of 29 teams)

2001-2002 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.0 (5th), Opp FG% .425 (3rd) (out of 29 teams)

And here are the Pacers under JO'B:

2007-2008 Indiana: Defensive Rating 107.5 (15th), Opp FG% .454 (10th) (out of 30 teams)

2008-2009 Indiana: Defensive Rating 108.8 (20th), Opp FG% .461 (21st) (out of 30 teams)

In sum, we were average to above average last season, and crappy to rather crappy so far this year. You can't look at a coaching career of those five seasons and come to the conclusion that the coach is anti-defense. He's had four above average defensive teams and one bad one. That's not a trend. It's an aberration.

count55
01-11-2009, 02:48 PM
I suppose JOb can adopt a good defensive team and manage to avoid an immediate collapse. I don't find that surprising. Anyone can do that simply be not making it a priority...which is basically what BBall is saying. Defense dies on the vine under JOb based on the stats. The troubling thing is, there is no precedent of JOb ever improving a defense.

The trend is telling. Even in the course of this season, the trend is there.

In 1999-2000, Boston was 18th in Defensive Rating (105.6) and 27th in Opp FG% (.470). The following year, O'Brien took over from Pitino with 48 games left. That 2000-2001 team finished 16th in Defensive Rating (103.7) and 25th in OppFG% (.459). As was posted earlier, the next two years were 5th & 7th in Defensive Rating and 3rd & 7th in FG%.

In the two partial seasons he coached (2000-2001 & 2003-2004), I am unable to provide Defensive Rating because I don't have all of the data on pace/possessions split below the full season. However, after 34 games in 2001 under Rick Pitino, the Celtics were giving up 98.3 pts on .468 shooting. In the final 48 games under O'Brien, they gave up only 95.7 pts on .453 shooting. O'Brien coached 46 games in 2003-2004 before resigning. The Celtics gave up 95.2 pts on .427 shooting. In the 36 games under his replacement, John Carroll, they gave up 98.6 pts on .449 shooting

In Philly, he was 10th in Defensive Rating and 11th in OppFG%. The year before he got there, Philly was 10th in DR at 101.9 and 11th in OppFG% at .432. The numbers got worse, but the ranking was flat. The year after he left, the team fell to 25th in Defensive Rating at 108.1 and 22nd in OppFG% at .463.

There's no question that the Pacers are a bad defensive team this year that must get better. However, the history appears to controvert the positions that O'Brien (a) has no interest in defense and (b) has no demonstrable history of being able to have a positive impact on the defensive performance of his teams.

vnzla81
01-11-2009, 03:47 PM
The defensive mistakes the team make are system breakdowns during key moments. A great example is during the Hawks game when Joe Johnson's man (can't recall the player) shifted off of him while he was on the weak side even though Joe was red hot and dying to shoot. Joe got the ball, drilled the 3, and clinched the game.

That's not a coaching mistake because no way Coach thought they did the right thing defensively.

Our team isn't bad defensively because we have an anti-defensive coach. Our team is bad because we have several average or below average individual defenders who make poor decisions.

I actually agree in what you are saying, the problem is that the pacers don't have the players to play decent D, every time they have Dunleavy and Murphy on the floor together makes easier for the other players to get stupid fouls.

Midcoasted
01-11-2009, 04:00 PM
I actually agree in what you are saying, the problem is that the pacers don't have the players to play decent D, every time they have Dunleavy and Murphy on the floor together makes easier for the other players to get stupid fouls.

So Dunleavy returns, we almost beat LA in LA and did beat Phoneix in the desert. You can tell this already only after two games together on this years team?

vnzla81
01-11-2009, 04:22 PM
So Dunleavy returns, we almost beat LA in LA and did beat Phoneix in the desert. You can tell this already only after two games together on this years team?

nope, I got to see this last year, don't you remember? there is not way you can make Murphy or Mike to play D, one thing is trying, another thing is doing it.

imawhat
01-11-2009, 07:07 PM
Our defense looked better early in the year. Where did that go? .......

......I just don't think the team could maintain that defensive intensity AND keep the pedal to the metal on offense physically or mentally. Players like Rasho were quickly used up because of it. The pace is more than the team can stand without letting one phase of the game suffer and defense is that phase to suffer.


I think you sort of answered your question, rhetorical or not.

Here are some things that have happened to make our defense worse:

-We stopped playing angles on defense. We've abandoned forcing opponents into the corners (which was working, btw), and we've abandoned forcing opponents into their 'secondary' direction (which is an extremely simple but effective tactic).

Someone mentioned it in another thread, but one play that's been killing us lately is the wide-open corner threes. Erase three of those and that's a 9 PPG difference. Forcing guys to the corners would eliminate this.

-Our players are routinely out of defensive stance. Easily correctable issue, and I'm dumbfounded that this happens. Watch the game tonight; guys aren't getting in stance AND they're not getting their hands out.

-The part about Rasho says it all. I think our defense stopped playing well simultaneously with Rasho's decline in quality play. I don't think Rasho was the defensive anchor, but believe they are somewhat related. The problems started happening with fatigue and refusal to have a bigger rotation.

YoSoyIndy
01-11-2009, 07:16 PM
I actually agree in what you are saying, the problem is that the pacers don't have the players to play decent D, every time they have Dunleavy and Murphy on the floor together makes easier for the other players to get stupid fouls.

That's right.

I think Dunleavy can develop into a decent defender. I don't think it is in Murphy's DNA.