PDA

View Full Version : I'm tired of hearing about the defense



Midcoasted
01-10-2009, 03:02 AM
Our defense really isn't that bad. It's a pleasure to watch. Our problem isn't really that we can't defend, it's more to do with the way we attack the basket ourselves. We are a high octance offensive team and we haven't really been dominated for four quarters at all this year. The fact we are not eating up a lot of clock with our posessions means the other team gets more posessions. More posessions means they will score more.

I dont care how many points we give up. Just as long as we aren't gettin dominated and have a chance to win then I am happy. All this fire O'Brien talk is just nonsense IMO. What were your expectations coming into this season? All of my bold predictions aside, they couldn't have been that high. I was just looking for the best possible scenarios and hoped they panned out in our favor.

If it was at all like last year we wouldn't be competing every single game. We are playing this year and our record doesn't indicate how strong our team is. The only thing that can and will remedy this is a favorable schedule swing.

Would you rather have a team that can't score at all, can't hit shots, has no offensive prowess like the previous 3 years? Just for some junk defense that clearly can't stop dominant teams/players. As well as a slow half court offense that creates less posessions for the other team and lulls everyone to death. The fans and players included. Yea other teams may score less but we aren't playing any relevant defense being down by 20.

I like the fact our games are like old ABA games. We were actually a great team in the ABA, one with championships to prove it. Maybe we can return to those days. If that means 120 point games every night I'm all for it. It is just so much more fun to watch than anything Carlisle did other than maybe his playoff runs.

Anyone complain about the defense in the Sun/Bulls finals? It was the first full finals I watched. I was nine. It was the greatest series I've seen in my life. The 120+ games were just awe inspiring. I'm not saying the Pacers are anywhere close to as good as these two teams, but I tend to enjoy high scorers, espescially in the playoffs/finals.

GrangerRanger
01-10-2009, 03:46 AM
Our major problem is defense, bro. As much as I like the team too.. you can't deny that our defense doesn't suck. Saying "As long as it keeps us in it is fine with me." doesn't justify anything. The defense hardly ever keeps us in a game, it's the offense that does. If we could somehow learn to play defense for one quarter or even 2, we'd win a lot more games after our shot starts getting flat (second half).

Kstat
01-10-2009, 03:48 AM
...."its a pleasure to watch?"

Ok, I can understand you saying the defense isn't as bad as the stats show. I might not agree with it, but I understand it. But implying you enjoy watching the pacers on the defensive end....why?

Did you enjoy Jarret Jack guarding Kobe at the end of the game with nobody within 10 feet to help him? I didn't even care about the outcome and I thought that was absurd.

Kstat
01-10-2009, 03:50 AM
Anyone complain about the defense in the Sun/Bulls finals?

....actually, the suns took a lot of heat for not even attempting to scheme against Jordan. The Suns lack of attention to defense is what eventually cost their coach his job.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 05:10 AM
In the last 3 games, the Pacers have given up 135, 110, and 121 points, and you think that's fine? That's an average of 122 points a game the Pacers are giving up! That's fine b/c your expectations aren't that great for this team, b/c they are in most of the games, and b/c the games are exciting? Wow, what low expectations you have. This is a major problem with many Pacers fans... their low expectations. I don't EXPECT to give up 122 a game in the last 3 games. 1 win 2 loses which says you are happy with a 33% winning team.

I EXPECT a team to play defense. That means not giving up 100 plus points a game.... or game after game after game. Check the Pacers record when they give up 100 plus points a game to the opposition. Oh, I forgot you are tired of hearing about the defense. Lets just play run n gun and lose games. That way you will be happy, and your low expectations for the Pacers can continue.

xtacy
01-10-2009, 05:59 AM
Our defense really isn't that bad.

yeah it can get worse than this. who knows may be JOB guards kobe next time?

our defense is so bad i thought sam perkins would do a better job guarding gasol last night. this defense is a pain to watch.

Kemo
01-10-2009, 06:32 AM
Oh, How I wish we would play defense as well as we did the first Boston game..
I mean, it showed we are capable..
I wonder if the coach just gave up on defense, being the key to winning,like he originally preached, and told the guys to just score and try to win by barraging them with points..

owl
01-10-2009, 08:37 AM
The Pacers need 1 or two players additionally who can play some back up minutes
aggressive defense. I would love to have Ariza from the Lakers
Anyone have opinions on him.

Kemo
01-10-2009, 08:46 AM
ya I do............


From what he said to Granger in last night's game , I think he is a punk..

Other than that, he is a good player.. But I wouldn't want him on our team..

Putnam
01-10-2009, 08:55 AM
Ever heard of the Maginot Line? After WW1, the French built a line of forts along their border to keep the Germans out. It worked! The Germens never breached the Maginot Line. Unfortunately, they marched around the Maginot Line through Belgium and conquered France in five weeks.

Last year, the Pacers played matador defense and gave up bucket after bucket in the paint. That has stopped this year thanks to O'Brien's "protect the paint defensively" mantra, but the price is open shots for the open man on the perimeter. O'Brien's defense is successful in stopping the parade of inside shots we saw last year. Most games (including last night), the Pacers hold the opponent to fewer inside points than they score themselves.

I'm not the guy to say which way is better. But clearly we are playing some kind of defense and getting some desirable results from it. Is there an alternative defensive scheme that would stop the open shots without opening up the lane again for easy drives to the hoop like teams were getting last year? 'Cause I'd rather keep it like it is than go back to the way it was.

EDIT: And, if the better way depends on having a roster of veteran players who are longer and faster than the opponent at every position, then O'Brien gets a pass as long as the Pacers are playing with the guys they've got.

NashvilleKat
01-10-2009, 09:13 AM
In the last 3 games, the Pacers have given up 135, 110, and 121 points, and you think that's fine? That's an average of 122 points a game the Pacers are giving up! That's fine b/c your expectations aren't that great for this team, b/c they are in most of the games, and b/c the games are exciting? Wow, what low expectations you have. This is a major problem with many Pacers fans... their low expectations. I don't EXPECT to give up 122 a game in the last 3 games. 1 win 2 loses which says you are happy with a 33% winning team.

I EXPECT a team to play defense. That means not giving up 100 plus points a game.... or game after game after game. Check the Pacers record when they give up 100 plus points a game to the opposition. Oh, I forgot you are tired of hearing about the defense. Lets just play run n gun and lose games. That way you will be happy, and your low expectations for the Pacers can continue.


We need to get rid of "defensive specialist" Dick Harter immediately, and find a coach who understand's today's modern game and and coach his players to play defense the right way. Harter quietly sits on the bench...you don;t even know he's there. He should be up, giving direction, and all over our guys when defensive lapses occur. Harter is the problem, not JOB or the players!

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 10:48 AM
The Pacers need 1 or two players additionally who can play some back up minutes
aggressive defense. I would love to have Ariza from the Lakers
Anyone have opinions on him.


That was covered in another thread about 2 weeks ago. I see no way the Pacers could sign him as a FA. Even better why would he want to leave the Lakers? The Lakers will do whatever to re-sign him. He's a very important player for them. Boston allowed Posey to leave thru FA, and it has hurt them. There is a lesson there to be learned, and I don't see that lesson lost on the Lakers.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 10:51 AM
We need to get rid of "defensive specialist" Dick Harter immediately, and find a coach who understand's today's modern game and and coach his players to play defense the right way. Harter quietly sits on the bench...you don;t even know he's there. He should be up, giving direction, and all over our guys when defensive lapses occur. Harter is the problem, not JOB or the players!


It was pointed out earlier this week that Harter isn't the defensive coach this year. That Lester Conner and another coach are doing the defensive coaching this year.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 11:21 AM
Ever heard of the Maginot Line? After WW1, the French built a line of forts along their border to keep the Germans out. It worked! The Germens never breached the Maginot Line. Unfortunately, they marched around the Maginot Line through Belgium and conquered France in five weeks.


I'm not the guy to say which way is better. But clearly we are playing some kind of defense and getting some desirable results from it.


The Germans also flew over Maginot Line with the Luftwaffe as part of Blitzkrieg through Beligum in 39. Belgium and Europe was totally unprepared for this type of new warfare.


Giving up the amount of points the Pacers do every game shows failure when the team is playing .333 type ball, giving up 100 plus points in losses, and having given up an average of 122 points to teams on this road trip.

If Bird can't see it and does nothing to correct it, he's at fault. The buck stops on his desk. Either he needs to step in and change the style/system this team is playing, trade for players that can defend, or a combination of both. He is the one that is fully responsible for what's going on his watch.... he's allowing it to happen.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 11:50 AM
The Pacers primary concern was Kobe containment. Or is it more called damage control when he still scores 36?

Kobe did a good job getting his team involved and setting up a lot of assists for himself early on.

I do think I saw Pau drive around the lane too much, but when you have to respect his jumpshot and he's perfected the run-down-the-side-of-the-lane and throw up a banked layup, it's tough for the weakside post help to block.

Pacers did an admirable job against a very good team. Now they need to take care against the teams like Chicago and Charlotte.

Celtics are still the better team. Bird takes comfort in this.

MyFavMartin
01-10-2009, 11:53 AM
The Germans also flew over Maginot Line with the Luftwaffe as part of Blitzkrieg through Beligum in 39. Belgium and Europe was totally unprepared for this type of new warfare.


Giving up the amount of points the Pacers do every game shows failure when the team is playing .333 type ball, giving up 100 plus points in losses, and having given up an average of 122 points to teams on this road trip.

If Bird can't see it and does nothing to correct it, he's at fault. The buck stops on his desk. Either he needs to step in and change the style/system this team is playing, trade for players that can defend, or a combination of both. He is the one that is fully responsible for what's going on his watch.... he's allowing it to happen.

Let's relax and see how the next month goes. We just got back Dunleavey and hopefully we'll get TJ and Marquis back soon.

The Pacers have been in most of their games throughout the season w/o Dunny, so let's be a little optimistic before demanding that a GM fire the coach of a rebuilding team.

Have to admit we're much better than last year.

Fool
01-10-2009, 12:08 PM
What defense?

BlueNGold
01-10-2009, 12:44 PM
There are several reasons we give up the 3rd most points in the NBA.

1) Our offense. We run quite a bit and shoot early in the shot clock. That gives the other team more opportunities.

2) Our personnel. You need someone on the interior who is long and quick enough to block shots or intimidate. If you don't have that, more often than not you are in the bottom quarter of the NBA on defense. Other than McBob who never plays, no one is remotely close to being able to protect the paint...so we rely on gimmicks which exposes the perimeter and midrange shots.

3) Our priorities. A free flowing offense is JOb's #1 priority. In so many words he passionately said he "loves fast break basketball and believes that's the way the game should be played". That is the most troubling basketball-view I have heard uttered by any basketball coach. It is no wonder we allow so many points.

4) Our substitutions. There are more questionable substitutions than I recall since Reggie Miller laced his shoes up for the first time. Last night it was a difficult situation, but at 6 foot 2, Jack is not the guy you want on Kobe at the end of a game. Seriously, you are asking to lose the game by doing that.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Let's relax and see how the next month goes. We just got back Dunleavey and hopefully we'll get TJ and Marquis back soon.

The Pacers have been in most of their games throughout the season w/o Dunny, so let's be a little optimistic before demanding that a GM fire the coach of a rebuilding team.

Have to admit we're much better than last year.


Please point out where I posted to "fire the coach"? Don't contribute things to me I never said! I have NEVER stated JO'B be fired. Never.

Am I happy with his coaching? Not really, but I have never expressed that JO'B should be fired. Bird isn't going to fire O'Brien this year, and maybe not even next year. This is Bird's "hand picked hired over the phone coach." One thing about Bird is he's got a lot of pride to go along with his stubborness. Firing JO'B is admitting his failure. He's not firing JO'B this year, and you can take that to the bank. JMOAA

I absolutely feel we have a better team than we did last year, unfortunately the win/loss column doesn't show this. Yes, I'm hoping having Dunleavy back with injured players back will equal more sucess, but I don't see it in a JO'B system where the Pacers have given up 100 or more points in 26 out of 36 games with at an average of 112 points to their opponents. They have only won 5 of those 26 games which translates into winning 19%, less than 1 in every 5 games. This reminds me of the finanical institutions who never stopped doing what got them into trouble in the 1st place. Just continue on doing the SOS. In the Pacers case, just play run n gun with little defense.

Isn't it strange that when the Pacers keep their opponents to 99 or less points they have won 8 out of those 10 games. That's a 80% win record!

I'm one of those that is tired of seeing little if any defense played while watching the losses mount up. You'd think Bird, O'Brien, and the defensive coaches would too, but apparently that's not the case.

Putnam
01-10-2009, 12:51 PM
The Germans also flew over Maginot Line with the Luftwaffe as part of Blitzkrieg through Beligum in 39.

The Germans went north of the Maginot Line and south of it. Not over it.

http://www.sitemaps.com/Custom_Map_Design/Historical/Maginot_Line.jpg


But anyway,


Giving up the amount of points the Pacers do every game shows failure when the team is playing .333 type ball, giving up 100 plus points in losses, and having given up an average of 122 points to teams on this road trip.

Please provide some evidence that the Pacers record would be better if they were averaging in the 80s rather than 100+. Show that these Pacers are capable of winning half-court games any better than they are doing now.

The Pacers record is 8-15 when they score 100+ and 5-21 when they allow the opponent 100+. Neither of those is good. But they are not losing because they give up 100+ points. I still can't understand why reasonable people are making this argument.

d_c
01-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Please provide some evidence that the Pacers record would be better if they were averaging in the 80s rather than 100+. Show that these Pacers are capable of winning half-court games any better than they are doing now.

The Pacers record is 8-15 when they score 100+ and 5-21 when they allow the opponent 100+. Neither of those is good. But they are not losing because they give up 100+ points. I still can't understand why reasonable people are making this argument.

Exactly. JOB is doing the best he can with the personnel he has. If he were to play a grind it out, defensive/halfcourt style it's unlikely they'd have more wins they do now.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 03:37 PM
Please provide some evidence that the Pacers record would be better if they were averaging in the 80s rather than 100+. Show that these Pacers are capable of winning half-court games any better than they are doing now.

I still can't understand why reasonable people are making this argument.


Whoever, besides you, even mentioned the Pacers scoring in the 80's. They don't have to score in the 80's only to play "D" and win. In the 1st 10 games, the Pacers were 5-5 scoring 102 points and only allowing 88. So why is it acceptable now to allow 112 points in 21 games lost where the opposition is scoring 100 plus points?


Maybe reasonable people relate to the average 112 points per game the Pacers are allowing in those 21 losses you stated. If something isn't working, by all means don't change it! Just keep on doing the SOS, and it will keep on giving the same results.......LOSSES!

Surely to goodness if you touch an electric fence trying to get to the other side after a while you'll figure it out that using the gate will result in not being shocked. Why continue getting shocked? After 36 games with a record of 13-33, you have to wonder why things are continuing. When will the light bulb come on for TPTB? It's so frustrating to see the same results in 2 out of every 3 games... LOSSES. How hard is it to try doing what they did in the 1st 10 games when the last 26 isn't yielding much other than losses?

Shade
01-10-2009, 03:39 PM
I'm tired of hearing about the defense

What defense?






























:devil:

Fool
01-10-2009, 04:23 PM
#17

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 04:43 PM
JOB is doing the best he can with the personnel he has.

He has BETTER players playing this year than last, and yet he has a worse record. Sorry, if that's the best he can do then that's not saying much for him nor his system.

Anthem
01-10-2009, 05:02 PM
I will say that the D didn't look worse than usual with Dun out there.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2009, 06:16 PM
I will say that the D didn't look worse than usual with Dun out there.

How could it? There is little "D" to begin with. To be quite honest his "D" might be an improvement.

MrSparko
01-10-2009, 06:47 PM
I never understood why people wouldn't want Dunleavy because of his D. The defense is already god awful you might as well improve the offense even more.

theboyjwo
01-10-2009, 11:15 PM
Pacers could save themselves about 9 points a game if they would just quit leaving the guy in the far corner open for a 3.

You see it every game, ball gets reversed all the way around to the corner or the gets passed over the lane to the corner off PG penetration.

Lakes hit a few of those last night.

BlueNGold
01-10-2009, 11:27 PM
Pacers could save themselves about 9 points a game if they would just quit leaving the guy in the far corner open for a 3.

You see it every game, ball gets reversed all the way around to the corner or the gets passed over the lane to the corner off PG penetration.

Lakes hit a few of those last night.

This is really a good point. I think the reason this happens is because of our defensive scheme. We are attempting to keep people from scoring too much in the paint...but we are not playing honest. It's like stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Call it a gimmick and good teams expose that. Better yet, just call it bad defense. The stats don't lie on this.

Edit: I find the title and direction of this thread humorous.

MrSparko
01-10-2009, 11:43 PM
This is really a good point. I think the reason this happens is because of our defensive scheme. We are attempting to keep people from scoring too much in the paint...but we are not playing honest. It's like stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Call it a gimmick and good teams expose that. Better yet, just call it bad defense. The stats don't lie on this.

My question is what coach, short of a legend, could make a team with Deiner, Ford, Murphy, Dunleavy, and Graham all playing relatively big minutes even average defensively?

BlueNGold
01-11-2009, 12:19 AM
My question is what coach, short of a legend, could make a team with Deiner, Ford, Murphy, Dunleavy, and Graham all playing relatively big minutes even average defensively?

The problem does include personnel, but that's not the only reason.

We have a number of decent defensive players. Jack, Quis and Rush on the perimeter. Granger, McRoberts and Foster are not bad defensively. What we do lack is athleticism, quickness and length in the front court. That is the real root of the problem. We adjust for this weakness in various ways, and pay dearly for those adjustments.

The best the Pacers can do to improve defense is throw McRoberts or maybe Baston out there to add energy and athleticism. Give McRoberts 15 minutes and Baston 10 whether they deserve the time or not.
They are not that good or consistent, so how effective that would be is suspect. But that's the direction to fixing this problem.

Here's a little proof: Our record is terrible, but we are 3-2 without our starting PF, Troy Murphy. We are 1-1 in games where he played less than 15 minutes. We are 4-1 in games where McRoberts played 10 or more minutes. The last time we held ANYONE under 100 points was the Philly game where McRoberts played 28 minutes...the most minutes of his CAREER...and Murphy did not play at all.

I don't know how much more proof anyone needs. This does not mean McRoberts is the better player. This means we need what he brings more than Murphy. This will become even more obvious with Murphy's twin brother Mike Dunleavy out on the perimeter.

We have enough spot of 3pt shooters. We need elbow grease and athleticism and maybe a little toughness to win more games.

MrSparko
01-11-2009, 12:24 AM
The problem does include personnel, but that's not the only reason.

We have a number of decent defensive players. Jack, Quis and Rush on the perimeter. Granger, McRoberts and Foster are not bad defensively. What we do lack is athleticism, quickness and length in the front court. That is the real root of the problem. We adjust for this weakness in various ways, and pay dearly for those adjustments.

The best the Pacers can do to improve defense is throw McRoberts or maybe Baston out there to add energy and athleticism. Give McRoberts 15 minutes and Baston 10 whether they deserve the time or not.
They are not that good or consistent, so how effective that would be is suspect. But that's the direction to fixing this problem.

Here's a little proof: Our record is terrible, but we are 3-2 without our starting PF, Troy Murphy. We are 1-1 in games where he played less than 15 minutes. We are 4-1 in games where McRoberts played 10 or more minutes. The last time we held ANYONE under 100 points was the Philly game where McRoberts played 28 minutes...the most minutes of his CAREER...and Murphy did not play at all.

I don't know how much more proof anyone needs. This does not mean McRoberts is the better player. This means we need what he brings more than Murphy. This will become even more obvious with Murphy's twin brother Mike Dunleavy out on the perimeter.

We have enough spot of 3pt shooters. We need elbow grease and athleticism and maybe a little toughness to win more games.

Alright you make good points. Though I'll disagree about Dunleavy not being a positive. Kudos overall though :P.

vnzla81
01-11-2009, 12:32 AM
The problem does include personnel, but that's not the only reason.

We have a number of decent defensive players. Jack, Quis and Rush on the perimeter. Granger, McRoberts and Foster are not bad defensively. What we do lack is athleticism, quickness and length in the front court. That is the real root of the problem. We adjust for this weakness in various ways, and pay dearly for those adjustments.

The best the Pacers can do to improve defense is throw McRoberts or maybe Baston out there to add energy and athleticism. Give McRoberts 15 minutes and Baston 10 whether they deserve the time or not.
They are not that good or consistent, so how effective that would be is suspect. But that's the direction to fixing this problem.

Here's a little proof: Our record is terrible, but we are 3-2 without our starting PF, Troy Murphy. We are 1-1 in games where he played less than 15 minutes. We are 4-1 in games where McRoberts played 10 or more minutes. The last time we held ANYONE under 100 points was the Philly game where McRoberts played 28 minutes...the most minutes of his CAREER...and Murphy did not play at all.

I don't know how much more proof anyone needs. This does not mean McRoberts is the better player. This means we need what he brings more than Murphy. This will become even more obvious with Murphy's twin brother Mike Dunleavy out on the perimeter.

We have enough spot of 3pt shooters. We need elbow grease and athleticism and maybe a little toughness to win more games.

Agreed. I even have a trade proposal with murphy and marquis for Ak47 and I have some people telling me that they prefer Murphy over him. They don't understand that the pacers need a defender and AK47 is one of the best defender out there

BlueNGold
01-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Alright you make good points. Though I'll disagree about Dunleavy not being a positive. Kudos overall though :P.

Oh, Dunleavy is a big positive. Hope I didn't give that impression. Murphy is the fool's gold though. Not many people agree with that though...

Big Smooth
01-11-2009, 02:01 AM
Our defense really isn't that bad. It's a pleasure to watch.

I'm going to just assume the bolded part was a typo and you mean to say the offense is a pleasure to watch because I have a real hard time figuring out it would be pleasurable to watch this team play defense.

Myself, I've accepted it is what is is and this team simply does not have the make up to play better defense at the moment but that is a far cry from saying I enjoy watching them give up 110-120 per night. I'm just real confused by that statement.

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2009, 03:15 AM
This is really a good point. I think the reason this happens is because of our defensive scheme. We are attempting to keep people from scoring too much in the paint...but we are not playing honest. It's like stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Call it a gimmick and good teams expose that. Better yet, just call it bad defense. The stats don't lie on this.

Edit: I find the title and direction of this thread humorous.

If we had better interior defense it would not be as necesary to pack the paint, we might be able to focus more on gaurding the perimeter.

I still think Troy Murphy, as nice as his stats are, is probably the biggest problem with our team overall. Hopefully some fool GM is convinced to trade for him based on the stats he is putting up, that would make my year.

oh and people, the reason we give up so many points is because of pace. Its also the reason we score so many. FG% is the key defensive stat.

vnzla81
01-11-2009, 10:54 AM
Oh, Dunleavy is a big positive. Hope I didn't give that impression. Murphy is the fool's gold though. Not many people agree with that though...

I agreed with the comment about murphy, he is getting double doubles, but it seems that they don't count because he lets his man score at will, he is the worst defender in the team, I know many people are in love with him, but I still think that the pacers defense would never be better until they make some changes.

beast23
01-12-2009, 09:50 AM
If you look at our opponents, they don't really mind the pace we play at. Perhaps they even enjoy it, knowing that they get to run and put up points for an entire game. They are even willing to play the first 3 quarters without putting forth their best efforts on defense.

But that's where the similarities end.

Most teams, even the bad ones, can get a defensive stop once in a while, even if by dumb luck alone.

When Q4 rolls around, the Pacers have a very difficult time getting a defensive stop. And that is the mark of a very, very bad defensive team.

Conversely, our opponents aren't all that concerned that we may have a lead going into the 4th quarter, because they know that with a defensive stop here and there, they are right back in the game.

Unfortunately, with the talent we have, we may be doing about as good as we can offensively. And, since we lack interior bigs to defend the paint, our "swarm" defense may be the only scheme that our coaches believe we can play.

Doesn't matter how you look at it, we are screwed.... at least for this year. Until we get more talent.

And, no matter how you dice it, we are not even an average defensive team. Not by a long shot.

Putnam
01-12-2009, 10:02 AM
Very good post, beast.


.

nerveghost
01-12-2009, 12:49 PM
My question is what coach, short of a legend, could make a team with Deiner, Ford, Murphy, Dunleavy, and Graham all playing relatively big minutes even average defensively?

I go back to our contending teams in the 90's with Brown and Bird

Brown's starting 5:

Jackson
Miller
McKey
D. Davis
Smits

Bird's starting 5:

Jackson
Miller
Mullin/Rose
D.Davis
Smits

On paper, those are some defensively challenged starting lineups. In reality, they were very effective.

To me the presence of Davis (and McKey) says a lot about the importance that size and shot-blocking has for a decent defensive team.

Currently, we guard to keep guys out of the paint because there is no one that makes it a "bad idea" for the opposing team. No Dale or Antonio to intimidate and block shots. I'm sure even a 7'4" Smits was a positive factor in that regard.

I believe if we had a strong defensive presence at the 5 or the 4, it would go a long way in improving our defense - I think it would make our rotations better and allow the 1, 2, and 3 spots to be in position to guard the perimeter. I think Rasho is fundamentally sound in team defense, but not a physical presence or a shotblocker. Hibbert is too young, and I am beginning to doubt his defensive toughness - I see his future as being a gifted offensive player much similar to Smits (I hope!)

That said, I do suspect that Obee's offense can make the players lazy on the defensive end. One thing about those teams of the past, and I have heard Harter say this, is that they played HARD on the defensive end, despite their physical shortcomings.

Unclebuck
01-12-2009, 01:12 PM
Dunleavy led the NBA last season in taking charges. I hardly think he'll hurt the defense

joew8302
01-12-2009, 01:34 PM
He has BETTER players playing this year than last, and yet he has a worse record. Sorry, if that's the best he can do then that's not saying much for him nor his system.

All other points aside everyone should read this one. This is a legit statement IMO.

Unclebuck
01-12-2009, 02:09 PM
He has BETTER players playing this year than last, and yet he has a worse record. Sorry, if that's the best he can do then that's not saying much for him nor his system.

I disagree. We haven't had JO, JT or Dunleavy this season at all. Rush and Roy are rookies and middle first round picks. I think we have better players at all. Are you saying that Rasho, Jack and Ford are better than JO and JT. JO and JT were a huge part of a 61 win team, they got to game 6 of the EFC. No we are less talented. We had to take a hit in order to get rid of JO and JT - the purging of the bad actors took about 3 seasons, but it is finally complete. The talent need to be increased and then the chemistry rebuilt.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-12-2009, 02:28 PM
I'll agree with UB here. This is a team running bench players out as starters and filling the bench with rookies and trade filler types.

joew8302
01-12-2009, 03:18 PM
I disagree. We haven't had JO, JT or Dunleavy this season at all. Rush and Roy are rookies and middle first round picks. I think we have better players at all. Are you saying that Rasho, Jack and Ford are better than JO and JT. JO and JT were a huge part of a 61 win team, they got to game 6 of the EFC. No we are less talented. We had to take a hit in order to get rid of JO and JT - the purging of the bad actors took about 3 seasons, but it is finally complete. The talent need to be increased and then the chemistry rebuilt.

I disagree. Marquis has been playing at a level above where he is at 99% of the time for the first part of this year. If you couple his offensive production with his vastly improved defense to Dunleavy's, I think in the end that evens out. Losing Jamal was addition by subtraction. Yes, we lost JO, but we had a major upgrade at the PG position and a major upgrade up front with Rasho and Hibbert over last season. Granger, Diener and Graham are all having better seasons than last year as well.

All things considered I think the comment is fairly accurate. O'Brien needs to be held accountable for this bad record and atrocious defense.

Justin Tyme
01-12-2009, 03:31 PM
I disagree. We haven't had JO, JT or Dunleavy this season at all. Rush and Roy are rookies and middle first round picks. I think we have better players at all. Are you saying that Rasho, Jack and Ford are better than JO and JT. JO and JT were a huge part of a 61 win team, they got to game 6 of the EFC. No we are less talented. We had to take a hit in order to get rid of JO and JT - the purging of the bad actors took about 3 seasons, but it is finally complete. The talent need to be increased and then the chemistry rebuilt.



I'm saying from the team LAST YEAR that won 36/37 games.

Last year Tinman was exiled to Siberia after the Suns game and didn't play the rest of the season.

JO was out much of the season and even when he played he was not much.

Daniels was injured and didn't contribute much either.

You had Diener as your starting PG with Daniels trying to play PG as well.

This year you have until recently had a healthy Daniels that has replaced Dunleavy. You have Granger playing better than last year. Murphy is playing PF and is producing overal better than last year. Ford and Jack at PG over last years PG by committee, which is a definate upgrade. Rasho at center along with Hibbert. Graham has been filling in well at SG when called upon. Then there is Rush and McBob.

How can you possibly feel that this years team isn't overall better than last years team with the addition of players on the team? B/c the won/lost record shows it? As far as I'm concerned, that is a product of the coach's run n gun helterskelter with little "D" system. I've almost come to the conclusion if O'Brien had better defensive players he wouldn't know how to use them or would he even use their defensive talents. It goes against his grain of playground score score system. He's obviously not a Bob Knight disciple of playing defense.

Unclebuck
01-12-2009, 03:40 PM
My point is last years team had more talent - more experience - and IMO should have been a better team than this years team.

Justin Tyme
01-12-2009, 03:59 PM
My point is last years team had more talent - more experience - and IMO should have been a better team than this years team.


I'll have to disagree. This years team should have a better record than last years team. It won't, but it won't be the fault of the players either.

Unclebuck
01-12-2009, 04:01 PM
I'll have to disagree. This years team should have a better record than last years team. It won't, but it won't be the fault of the players either.

Well obviously we disagree on this issue.


let me ask you this then, as you said last year's team was horrible and yet won 36 games - so do you give O'Brien credit for getting a horrible team to win 36 games?

Since86
01-12-2009, 04:01 PM
I'm saying from the team LAST YEAR that won 36/37 games.

Last year Tinman was exiled to Siberia after the Suns game and didn't play the rest of the season.

Not true. PHO happened on 1/9

Tinsley played 19 mins the next night against Sac (1/12), played 37mins 48 secs @ GS the very next game (1/13), then was suspen....I mean, suffered an injury and didn't play against GS @ Indy (1/16). It took nearly a full week for whatever to happen between JOb and Tinsley, which is why I think it's absolutely nuts people try to defend JOb and his reaction to that debacle of a performance put on by Jamaal in PHO. He should have torn JT a new ******* in the lockerroom directly after the loss, but nope, nearly a week went by before they had their falling out.

His final game of the season was 2/5/08 against SA, nine games after his...umm, not suspension but told to stay home GS game.

What that has to do with your original post, I have no clue. That incident just sticks in my craw, and is/was the final nail in JOb's coffin for me. (and yes, I'll admit I didn't want him here because I wish RC was still here, but I did atleast give him a chance)

Since86
01-12-2009, 04:03 PM
Well obviously we disagree on this issue.


let me ask you this then, as you said last year's team was horrible and yet won 36 games - so do you give O'Brien credit for getting a horrible team to win 36 games?


You say that, like 36 wins isn't horrible. 36-46 is a horrible record considering how weak the east is.

Unclebuck
01-12-2009, 04:29 PM
You say that, like 36 wins isn't horrible. 36-46 is a horrible record considering how weak the east is.

I just got reading about how bad last years (talent) team was and how this years team should be better, so I was just windering if the coach gets credit for getting such a horrible team last year to win 36 games.

36 wins isn't so bad really - 1 game out of the playoffs - I've endured much worse.

BlueNGold
01-12-2009, 07:20 PM
The main reason we have lost so many games is Dunleavy's absence. We would probably be on pace for winning 35 or so games again.

Our record without Jamaal Tinsley was better last year than the record with him. Case closed.

Our record with JO was about the same. We had 2 more wins with JO, but a bunch came at the end of the season when he was looking horrible and was truly a non-factor. There's an argument our record would have been better without him. All in all, he doesn't help much if your concern is winning...and the Raptors now realize that after going 6-4 without him and 10-18 with him. How people can't see this, I will never know.

Jack is not that valuable in this type of offense. Diener runs it better. TJ is not playing that much and fell off the wagon. Quis' apparent resurgence is fool's gold. What he adds he subtracts by not being able to stretch the defense out to the perimeter. Rasho is decent, but again, Dunleavy is just a lot better than any of those guys. No one else is a factor.

Justin Tyme
01-12-2009, 07:56 PM
Well obviously we disagree on this issue.


let me ask you this then, as you said last year's team was horrible and yet won 36 games - so do you give O'Brien credit for getting a horrible team to win 36 games?


Come on UB, I never said last years team was horrible. I said this years team has better players playing than last years team. Hence the won/loss record should be better, and it won't be.

My feeling is JO'B's system that he's trying to play is flawed b/c of the lack of "D" being played. His mentality of score, score, and score some more with giving lip service to playing "D" is not a winning combination as evidenced by the Pacers record. Even you have to agree this team played better "D" the 1st 10 games than it is now playing. Giving up 122 points in the last 4 games isn't exactly the definition of playing "D", now is it? It's like he's going to prove his system works no matter what. He has tunnel vision and can't see the system isn't working. He refuses to acknowledge his system isn't working. He needs to take the blinders off, step back, and look around at what's happening from a fresh view point. Hard headedness isn't going to win him anything but unemployment in the future. JMOAA

BlueNGold
01-12-2009, 09:01 PM
He has tunnel vision and can't see the system isn't working. He refuses to acknowledge his system isn't working. He needs to take the blinders off, step back, and look around at what's happening from a fresh view point. Hard headedness isn't going to win him anything but unemployment in the future. JMOAA

As long as he gives more minutes to Murphy than Foster and continues to plant McRoberts on the pine, I will never believe he is doing the most he can do to shore up the defense. It's arguable whether he's doing the most to win games, so he gets some slack there. But he's not doing everything possible to keep the opponent's ppg down....and our stats show that.

Even Baston would improve this defense. He may not be able to shoot JOb's 3 pointers, but he can block and change shots. He has shown he has the length to bother Rasheed Wallace's shot...while we all know what Sheed does to Troy.

As for JOb's job, judgment doesn't start until later this year. He has the cover of a rebuilding team and rookies playing this year...and Dunleavy's absence of course. But we top out the league in opponents ppg and win less than 30 games this year, the clock will be ticking.

Bball
01-12-2009, 09:29 PM
As long as he gives more minutes to Murphy than Foster and continues to plant McRoberts on the pine, I will never believe he is doing the most he can do to shore up the defense. It's arguable whether he's doing the most to win games, so he gets some slack there. But he's not doing everything possible to keep the opponent's ppg down....and our stats show that.


How about simply using a timeout to yell, teach, express his disappointment, etc when the team starts letting the opponent score at will?

BlueNGold
01-12-2009, 09:37 PM
How about simply using a timeout to yell, teach, express his disappointment, etc when the team starts letting the opponent score at will?

He's not disappointed. He doesn't watch that end of the court.

The Jazz are currently on course for scoring 144 points tonight. Okur is headed to a 72 point game himself....another career high for an opposing player.

We are good.

Bball
01-12-2009, 10:09 PM
.... Giving up 70 points in a half! :suicide:

Shade
01-12-2009, 10:14 PM
Again, I ask...










What defense? :whoknows:

BlueNGold
01-12-2009, 10:17 PM
It's a track meet. How can you stop anybody when you don't even slow down?

BlueNGold
01-12-2009, 10:21 PM
What was meant by 5% better defense?

Justin Tyme
01-12-2009, 10:23 PM
He's not disappointed. He doesn't watch that end of the court.

ROTFLMAO! That's funny.

Bball
01-12-2009, 10:24 PM
I figure we play no defense for 95% of the game and trade baskets and then OBrien wants us to play some defense for the final 5% of the game....

Justin Tyme
01-12-2009, 10:38 PM
I agree, I'm tired of hearing about the defense... I want to see some!!

Does O'Brien hate his job and wants to be fired? It's being to make me feel that's what he wants.

vnzla81
01-13-2009, 08:40 PM
I found this interesting, JOB is saying that they played good defense last night :laugh::laugh::laugh:

January 13, 2009
Mehmet who?
Posted by Mike Wells

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/01/mehmet_who.html

SALT LAKE CITY - I had no intention of talking about the Pacers defense until coach Jim O'Brien said something that caught my attention after the game.

"I thought we played great defense, Mike," O'Brien said. "I thought our defense was absolutely outstanding the whole second half. We held them to 39 percent the second, third and fourth quarter. I thought our defense was outstanding."

BlueNGold
01-13-2009, 09:11 PM
I found this interesting, JOB is saying that they played good defense last night :laugh::laugh::laugh:

January 13, 2009
Mehmet who?
Posted by Mike Wells

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/01/mehmet_who.html

SALT LAKE CITY - I had no intention of talking about the Pacers defense until coach Jim O'Brien said something that caught my attention after the game.

"I thought we played great defense, Mike," O'Brien said. "I thought our defense was absolutely outstanding the whole second half. We held them to 39 percent the second, third and fourth quarter. I thought our defense was outstanding."

No, Vinny. He said GREAT defense. Absolutely outstanding the whole second half the man said.

He stresses the 39% shooting without mentioning that:
1) The Jazz had scrubs playing. Deron Williams sat out a big part of the third quarter causing the Jazz to lose momentum. That was about the time the Pacers made a run.
2) The Jazz lost interest and took a break after realizing they could put 70 points on the board. Have you ever heard of the term "playing down to the competition?".

Great defense by the Pacers or a lack of focus by the Jazz? I've seen great defense, and JOb, that was not great defense.