PDA

View Full Version : Most of you aren't going to like this



Unclebuck
01-14-2009, 10:53 PM
I think it is time to stop playing around and put our best lineup on the court. Rush, Graham, Roy, Josh - it is time you all sit down and watch, we need to win some game. (see I told you most of you won't like this)

Time to put Jeff into the starting lineup (O'Brien said before the game tonight that Jeff needs to play more) along with Ford (once he gets healthy - which he isn't right now) Dunleavy, Granger and Murphy. Use Jack, Daniels (when he gets healthy) and Rasho as the primary bench players with Diener as a spot player. That team will start to win and with the schedule as easy as it is after next week - I think we can still make the playoffs - but more importantly, we can play good basketball.

Really, I suspect O'Brien is thinking the same thing I am and if we can get the top 8 healthy, we'll see what I am suggesting

pianoman
01-14-2009, 10:56 PM
i completely agree

Lord Helmet
01-14-2009, 10:57 PM
I'm fine with whatever can get us playing decent basketball, and most importantly winning more games and hopefully a playoff spot.

jeffg-body
01-14-2009, 10:57 PM
I can't agree with you more Unclebuck.

dohman
01-14-2009, 11:00 PM
I agree but here as of late Hibbert has been playing some good ball. I would honestly rather have him on the court then rasho being the backup to to foster and when murph needs a break move foster to pf.

Bball
01-14-2009, 11:04 PM
I've been wondering if I'd play Foster at all, not give him more minutes.

McKeyFan
01-14-2009, 11:06 PM
Use Jack, Daniels

Probably the best remedy for Pacer fans this year.

duke dynamite
01-14-2009, 11:07 PM
I had to read that again. At first I thought you wanted the young guys to start.

LOL

Otherwise, I agree with you, Buck.

Unclebuck
01-14-2009, 11:08 PM
I had to read that again. At first I thought you wanted the young guys to start.

LOL

Otherwise, I agree with you, Buck.

Yeah, I like to make people read carefully.

duke dynamite
01-14-2009, 11:09 PM
Yeah, I like to make people to read carefully.
I sat down with a glass of milk, and had to read that...

I called into the call-in show, and talked to Kevin Lee about these guys are our starters. Kevin concurred.

BlueNGold
01-14-2009, 11:11 PM
Well, Josh has been sitting...and Rush has been sitting of late...so no real changes there. I don't think JOb needs any pushing to sit those guys.

Now, sitting Graham and Roy is probably a good move if you want to make the playoffs. I don't think swapping Rasho and Foster around accomplishes much...but it doesn't hurt either.

A healthy Quis would help, but the addition of Dunleavy is the factor. If he plays well, we do have a shot of squeezing in. He needs to get back in form within a few weeks or it is over regardless of who else we put on the floor.

Unclebuck
01-14-2009, 11:12 PM
I sat down with a glass of milk, and had to read that...

I called into the call-in show, and talked to Kevin Lee about these guys are our starters. Kevin concurred.

I thought that might have been you

Infinite MAN_force
01-14-2009, 11:16 PM
I've been wondering if I'd play Foster at all, not give him more minutes.

I agree with this. I would love to see Mcbob take Fosters minutes. Foster just looks ineffective out there.

Not developing our youth is folly. A first round playoff exit where our young guys don't see the floor isn't helping in the longterm. I would like to see less Graham, but inexperienced or not, Rush, Hibbert, and Mcroberts bring some skills and talents to this team that the vets are severly lacking. Getting these guys time is essential to improving the team in the long run. How about Defense? Post Scoring? Athleticism? Aren't those three things this team lacks????? Aren't those the things holding us back? I say more Rush, Hibby, and Mcbob.

Peck
01-14-2009, 11:26 PM
I'm torn on this as I think that you are correct that if the Pacers want to win more games now the lineup you are advocating is probably at least the most effective. I would probably still put Rasho in over Foster but that's just me.

However I also think this is very very short sighted and may in fact have long term damage.

Obviously making the playoffs for Danny, Mike and Troy would be beneficial. But at the same time that team, as is, at best is just going to make the playoffs.

If we ever want to advance in the playoffs, obviously not this year, Roy and Brandon had better not have to have a rookie year next year.

But let's not kid ourselves either. One game does not a season make. This was a Piston team that was not the Pistons. I have not seen them play this lackluster or bad since before Dumars took over the club.

If the lineup you suggest does not win at a high volume I would suggest that it would be a failure of monumental proportions to not play the rookies at least minimal min.

In fact if Roy is now back to being DNP-CD'd until we are either being blown out or we are blowing someone out then someone needs to lose thier job. If it's O'Brien or Hibbert I don't know. But with what he has shown on the floor there is zero reason for him to not play and develop.

Spirit
01-14-2009, 11:33 PM
I'm sorry but Roy is already our best Center. He needs to start and play as much as possible.

El Pacero
01-14-2009, 11:58 PM
I called into the call-in show, and talked to Kevin Lee about these guys are our starters. Kevin concurred.

You did a good job Tony, ha. I liked how you mentioned "our forum" . . . I agree with the staring lineup like Kevin did, but not so sure about Graham just yet in Buck's lineup.

Roaming Gnome
01-15-2009, 12:03 AM
Good Job, Duke.... My wife recognized your voice...then it was a dead giveaway when you mentioned, "our forum".
***

As for the topic at hand, I STILL don't think we are that good of a ball club to keep our young players off the court. IMHO, just sitting the young guys is only going to make us a 38 win team. To me, that isn't good enough to totally shut down our young players.

If that is the direction that we are going.... stepping away from development and making a run. Jim O'Brien isn't the right coach for this team!!! I have no problem with O'Brien as the teacher in practice and getting our guys prepared to play, but really.... If we are to become so serious that we're not rebuilding... Jim O'Brien is wasting our time as coach.

The reason this isn't a "Fire Jim O'Brien" rant is because I feel he is doing a solid job as a training coach for our rebuilding effort.

duke dynamite
01-15-2009, 12:14 AM
No problem. Always willing to represent. I try to call as much as I can, especially during the *long* drive home after games. Tonight I had the pleasure of not having to pay attention to the roads and call from my house!

I do feel that these guys are our starting lineup. It is hard to tell if this will stunt the development of our rookies, I think it could.

I've got a good feeling about what UncleBuck is trying to say will benefit us most. He isn't known for being totally nuts.

But man did this win feel good tonight. I like it. I want more.

larry
01-15-2009, 12:40 AM
It is cool, but I'm not big on Jack or Travis.
I just don't think Jack is much of a point & isn't good enough offensive wise to be a 2 guard.
I have come to like him more than I did 10 games ago for his all out hustle.
I use to hate Foster when he was young, because of his bad skills, but his heart & hustle won me over. Jack can be a good scrap player like Foster became by giving us defense & a spark trough hustle.

Travis just hurts us on the defensive like Buckner pointed out. He isn't good enough on the other end to make it worth him playing imo. This leaves me to using Jack more as our backup point, because of the 2 he can play D & get hot every now & again.

I kind of like what I see out of Grahm & he doesn't make more mistakes than Jack. They would both play & also Rush looks good to me. Not as good as Dun or Danny obviously.

CableKC
01-15-2009, 12:50 AM
When Marquis returns and Ford gets more healthy....I fully expect that the primary rotation of players would consist of an 8-man rotation with Jack/Marquis/Granger/Murphy/Rasho/Dunleavy/Ford/Foster where each of them would get the bulk of the minutes throughout the game.

However, I would hope that players like Diener ( at the PG rotation ) and McRoberts / Hibbert ( at the Big Man PF/C rotation ) would get a very consistent 10-15 mpg. I'm not advocating this because I'm on some "Get Hibbert / McRoberts / Diener some underdeserved minutes" bandwagon......it's because players like Foster, Rasho ( most notably ) and Murphy ( to a lesser degree ) are not conditioned to play at this pace that we force upon the other team. Getting Hibbert or McRoberts ( depending on Matchups ) a consistent 10-15 minutes a game could mean the difference between Foster and/or Rasho providing a "far more effective" performance at 24+ mpg as opposed to an "average" performance 28-30 mpg a game.

As for Diener....the only reason why I would include him in the PG rotation is not only to give Ford and Jack some rest....but to provide some energy and change of pace when Ford and/or Jack become erratic on the PG spot with Turnovers...which ( unfortunately ) happens more often then not in the 2nd half ( when we need to be more careful with the ball ). If anything ( with Jack's tendency to cough up the ball at the most worst times ), I would hope that Diener would be brought in during stretches of the game when we need to do our best to protect the ball and slow down the scoring in the game in order to protect a lead.

To me, I think that one of the key factors in how well we do for the rest of the season is fatigue and how we deal with it. This doesn't mean that I expect them to come in and score a whole bunch of points or even fully implement JO'Bs offense/defenses........but their primary purpose is to provide some energy off the bench and not doing anything stupid while "towing the line" and "keeping us afloat" when our key finishers are getting some rest.

BRushWithDeath
01-15-2009, 12:53 AM
This is so short sighted it isn't funny. In your best case scenario, we get swept in the first round. And our potential future loses a whole year. Plus, our draft pick gets worse. Yes, let's play for that that.

Pacerized
01-15-2009, 01:09 AM
I'd go with this lineup. If we want to win games we need to play or vets. Players need to earn their minutes, and I've never agreed with forcing minutes on a player just to see him develop.

Anthem
01-15-2009, 01:11 AM
I disagree, Buck. The team needs to look heavily at maximizing trade value of its few assets, especially Quis and Rasho. If you can use one of them to move Murphy or Tinsley then you do it.

trey
01-15-2009, 01:17 AM
I think we should look more towards the future. As most of you guys are saying, this team does not have a very good chance of going far in the playoffs even if they make it. I think we look at next season and how good we will be. Develop Rush, Hibbert, and McRoberts, get a nice player in the draft, and then make some serious noise in the playoffs next season. We still might possibly slip into the playoffs this season while giving our younger players some significant play time.

Kemo
01-15-2009, 01:24 AM
A healthy Quis would help, but the addition of Dunleavy is the factor. If he plays well, we do have a shot of squeezing in. He needs to get back in form within a few weeks or it is over regardless of who else we put on the floor.



It would be nice if JOB recognized, and knew when to pull a cold player, and put in fresh legs.. or to keep a hot hand on the floor ..
NOT to let the same players try and play out of their slump.. even if it means we lose.. because of stubborness in coaching phillosophy..

What SHOULD be done.. is ..
For instance, he starts Dun , subs Quis in for him if he notices Mike ain't doing anything or is having a hard time (see GS game).. Same for Quis, when he notices quis pullin some bonehead moves, pull him.. This is just an example..

The problem really , and truthfully lies with JOB NOT knowing who to play, and most importantly WHEN..

If Foster is playing like a bonehead , missing open layups and whining about fouls , pull him , put McRoberts in for a good 3 minutes, see if McRoberts has a hot hand with his shot , with assists, rebounds, shot altering and etc... If he is playing excellent, either keep him in the game, or make sure and put him back in later in the game at some point... Don't bury him back on the bench for eternity...untill another injury and he is needed again...

JOB needs to MAKE THAT ASSESMENT on the fly ,pay attention , and reward good play to these guys like McBob , Hibbert , and even Baston honestly.. Most importantly this "playtime reward" be given off of actually earning it on the court gametime..

The HECK with just rewarding PT off of (in my best Allen Iverson voice) practice. Real , in-game contributions is what should warrant more PT to these players.. Yes practice may be where coach gets to be more up-close and personal with our guys.. But a guy could light it up in practice , then fold under pressure and play like utter ***** in every other game he plays ..

I think we have the talent to do some good things .
But untill JOB either "gets it" , or has his "ah-ha" moment , it is gonna be an uphill battle developing on-court chemistry , and a winning environment on the court and in the locker room..

I really think the players themselves are acually learning to play to each other's strengths and weaknesses..and starting to mesh well..
But it is taking them longer than it should be .. And I think it all falls on what I mentioned above...

Look at when we had the injury / flu problem for a few games..
Our end of the bench guys came in , and got the job done..
Heck I think we won a decent percentage of the games in that stretch..

What I am saying , is I believe our players could be better utilized to their full potential..
I really think McRoberts could be our answer to a PF.. But only playing 1 out of every 5 games for a only a few minutes ISN'T GONNA DO IT ! ...

I think Rasho/Hibbert with some very ltd Foster should man the C position , Foster/McBob at PF with some DG in there ,splitting duties @ the SF as well .. and on down the line .. etc..

I hate seeing McRoberts not get a fair shake, considering how good he has been in his ltd minutes out on the court .. I see it as time going by and talent wasted ..

.
.
.
.
.
Then we got Hibbert...he is 7"2 for Heaven's sake..

And when he is playing damn good, don't pull him for the rest of the game , after only 3 fouls... Then only play him every 3 games for 10-15 minutes .. JUST TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN..!! in a cycle.. over and over again..
Roy isn't gonna learn from his mistakes on fouling, if you pull him for good like that for the game.. He needs to be punished, by LETTING him foul his way out the game...
That way , his time on the court will be dependant on how he manages his fouls.. and how he plays...Otherwise, you are gonna have a timid giant in Roy Hibbert, afraid of drawing himself a foul..
It is gonna do more harm , than good.. He needs to be out there LEARNING how to position himself in real games.. not (in my best Allen Iverson voice) PRACTICE only ...

.
.
.

Bball
01-15-2009, 01:29 AM
I think it is time to stop playing around and put our best lineup on the court. Rush, Graham, Roy, Josh - it is time you all sit down and watch, we need to win some game. (see I told you most of you won't like this)


Why? Do you think chemistry is about to dissolve? Fan support about to crumble? Do you think the players are on the verge of a mutiny? The rookies are busts?

If it's just to win a few extra games this season and make the playoffs... big whoo... What good will that do in the long run?

As long as the rookies/newbies have untapped potential then they need to get some court time to get them experience. If that costs us a few games, so be it. If that costs us the playoffs, so what? I can live with a high draft pick and better odds in the lottery.

That's why as much as I hate the fact OBrien doesn't preach defense like I think he should, I'm not calling for his head. Let these guys get some confidence in their offense, see the pitfalls of no defense, learn their physical and mental limits, and then let the next coach install a playoff basketball system and rein things in and put some structure back into the game. That next coach is coming sooner rather than later because nobody can think what we're doing now can be sustained long term for any kind of playoff success (or even much regular season success).

I personally have never seen the good of a bad team making the playoffs. Not short term or long term as far as the product on the court goes. Few are going to cry too loudly if this team misses the playoffs. We'd be missing a golden opportunity to play the youngsters and be able to take our lumps without too much backlash. If we get the youngsters some experience and start winning as well, that is gravy and you take it. But otherwise, let them learn the game and let the team have a crack at a high draft pick. Better to do it now rather than play the system, always sniffing for an 8th seed in a weak conference, and end up stunningly mediocre with a series of mediocre draft picks and nothing for the fans to hang their hats on as a light at the end of the tunnel.

It's going to be much harder 2-3 years down the road to decide 'maybe we do need to develop our young players' because the natives will be much more restless by then... if they've not tuned out altogether.

Roaming Gnome
01-15-2009, 06:07 AM
Why? Do you think chemistry is about to dissolve? Fan support about to crumble? Do you think the players are on the verge of a mutiny? The rookies are busts?

If it's just to win a few extra games this season and make the playoffs... big whoo... What good will that do in the long run?

As long as the rookies/newbies have untapped potential then they need to get some court time to get them experience. If that costs us a few games, so be it. If that costs us the playoffs, so what? I can live with a high draft pick and better odds in the lottery.

That's why as much as I hate the fact OBrien doesn't preach defense like I think he should, I'm not calling for his head. Let these guys get some confidence in their offense, see the pitfalls of no defense, learn their physical and mental limits, and then let the next coach install a playoff basketball system and rein things in and put some structure back into the game. That next coach is coming sooner rather than later because nobody can think what we're doing now can be sustained long term for any kind of playoff success (or even much regular season success).

I personally have never seen the good of a bad team making the playoffs. Not short term or long term as far as the product on the court goes. Few are going to cry too loudly if this team misses the playoffs. We'd be missing a golden opportunity to play the youngsters and be able to take our lumps without too much backlash. If we get the youngsters some experience and start winning as well, that is gravy and you take it. But otherwise, let them learn the game and let the team have a crack at a high draft pick. Better to do it now rather than play the system, always sniffing for an 8th seed in a weak conference, and end up stunningly mediocre with a series of mediocre draft picks and nothing for the fans to hang their hats on as a light at the end of the tunnel.

It's going to be much harder 2-3 years down the road to decide 'maybe we do need to develop our young players' because the natives will be much more restless by then... if they've not tuned out altogether.

Thanks Bball... This is what I was looking for!

joew8302
01-15-2009, 07:54 AM
I completely disagree with the premis of this post. We have proven over and over we are not a good team. At the very, very, very best, with no injuries this is a 500 ballclub. I would just as soon take our lumps now and develop Hibbert, develop Granger more, see what we have in McBob, and figure out if Rush is at all capable of playing in the league.

I see this as MUCH more beneficial gaining a higher draft pick and getting young guys experience as opposed to trotting out an average cast of vets, winning 38 games and being someones sacrificial lamb in the playoffs.

RWB
01-15-2009, 08:41 AM
Put me in the Uncle Buck camp. I want the team to make the playoffs and I fully understand the likelyhood of getting swept in the first round. But I also see someone like Granger and Dunleavy getting to the point of not giving a sh if we don't make the effort this year. I understand the long term goal of playing the rooks, but they're still excited just to be in the NBA. You can't always just play for next year without souring some players who's time is already here.

I see the comment what would the guys learn from an early exit? Simply they learn the intensity cranks up 10 fold and man that was a blast and WANT to do it again. As it is now I don't want the attitude to be, eh who cares I get a paycheck.

Bball
01-15-2009, 08:51 AM
Put me in the Uncle Buck camp. I want the team to make the playoffs and I fully understand the likelyhood of getting swept in the first round. But I also see someone like Granger and Dunleavy getting to the point of not giving a sh if we don't make the effort this year. I understand the long term goal of playing the rooks, but they're still excited just to be in the NBA. You can't always just play for next year without souring some players who's time is already here.

I see the comment what would the guys learn from an early exit? Simply they learn the intensity cranks up 10 fold and man that was a blast and WANT to do it again. As it is now I don't want the attitude to be, eh who cares I get a paycheck.

For me to agree then I'd have to jump on the "Fire OBrien" bandwagon because this lack of defensive intensity, poor defensive fundamentals, and questionable application of system and players is every bit as much to do with the depths of our losing record as getting the young players court time is (and then some).

ABADays
01-15-2009, 09:01 AM
Are we rebuilding or wanting to settle for a one and out playoff spot? If we were seriously competing for a championship of any kind I could see sitting some guys but we're not. These young guys need to play to compete for said championship in the future.

Roaming Gnome
01-15-2009, 09:11 AM
Are we rebuilding or wanting to settle for a one and out playoff spot? If we were serious competing for a championship of any kind I could see sitting some guys but we're not. These young guys need to play to compete for said championship in the future.

If I were confident that this team would make the play-offs, my tune would be different. I'm just not confident in this teams ability to make the play-offs. By sitting the young guys, I see a greater potential of a wasted season where we finish with 38 wins. "Play-offs....."

Please don't mistake this as any form of tanking, or shooting for anything in the draft. I could care less about the "worlds largest crap shoot" right now.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 09:22 AM
If we ever want to advance in the playoffs, obviously not this year, Roy and Brandon had better not have to have a rookie year next year.


If the lineup you suggest does not win at a high volume I would suggest that it would be a failure of monumental proportions to not play the rookies at least minimal min.

In fact if Roy is now back to being DNP-CD'd until we are either being blown out or we are blowing someone out then someone needs to lose thier job. If it's O'Brien or Hibbert I don't know. But with what he has shown on the floor there is zero reason for him to not play and develop.



I think it is a falehood that a rookie needs to play a lot of minutes in their rookie season or they will be damaged for their whole career - or that they will be a rookie for 2 or 3 seasons. I don't believe that at all. Did it hiurt Reggie that he didn't start his rookie season - No. Did it hurt Granger that he only played 22.5 minutes per game his rookie season - No. I mean would DG be any better right now had he played 35 minutes per game his rookie season -No. Would David Harrison be a star center right now had he played 30 minutes per game in his rookie season - of course not. A player is going to be as good as he is going to be whether he plays 80 games and 35 minutes per game or whether he plays 40 games and 10 minutes per game in his rookie season.

In fact maybe they might learn just as much being around a winning team vs being around a team that isn't winning.

Jonathan
01-15-2009, 09:24 AM
Are we rebuilding or wanting to settle for a one and out playoff spot? If we were serious competing for a championship of any kind I could see sitting some guys but we're not. These young guys need to play to compete for said championship in the future.

Look at the Playoff Experience on out team Granger little, Rasho/Foster & Ford good.
Dunleavy, Murphy, Jack, none. The only way to win a championship is to get these guys some experience in the playoffs. I believe 100% if Atlanta would have had more playoff experience they would have beat Boston last year.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 09:25 AM
I disagree, Buck. The team needs to look heavily at maximizing trade value of its few assets, especially Quis and Rasho. If you can use one of them to move Murphy or Tinsley then you do it.

OK, and wouldn't using those two players in a regular rotation and on a team that can play better than .500 ball starting now, wouldn't that raise their trade value vs what it is right now

xtacy
01-15-2009, 09:33 AM
i partially agree with you on this one.

roy has been playing good lately and i think he deserves to get minutes. and josh can help us when we need some energy on the court.

speaking of rush he is the biggest disappointment of this season for me.

Quis
01-15-2009, 09:40 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree with Buck and the other instant gratification fans. Give me what's best for the long term interest of the team, all day, every day. In this case I'd say a high lottery pick and a guy ready to go into his sophomore season as a legit starting center with offensive ability, Roy Hibbert, easily trumps sneaking into the playoffs with sub-par talent.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 09:40 AM
Are we rebuilding or wanting to settle for a one and out playoff spot? If we were serious competing for a championship of any kind I could see sitting some guys but we're not. These young guys need to play to compete for said championship in the future.

Agreed. who is going to get experience if the veterans are playing? the pacers have 5 or 6 players that may not come back next year, do you want them to get experience? for what? "the winning is contagious and they are going to learn how to win" come on now, the best thing the pacers need to do right now is play the rookies and almost rookie Mc roberts and see what they have, I still think the pacers are not going to make it to the playoffs, so why not give some playing time to the future players of this team, why they keep giving 25min to a player like rasho when we all know he is not coming back(to get experience?) do like other teams do, look at miami last year they were really bad and now they are way better than the pacers, why? because they knew they were not going anywhere last year, so why bother to barely make the playoffs and get you bud kick in the 1st round and not even get a good draft pick.That is what makes the difference between good teams and bad teams, good teams know when to let it go, SA got Duncan,Cleveland got LJ, Miami got Wade and last year Beasley,Orlando got Howard, etc ,etc.
I know the pacers got lucky with Danny Granger, nobody spected him to be the player he is now, but that only happens once every 5 years or maybe once every 10years, I want this team to be a contender in 2years not a pretender for the next 10.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 09:42 AM
I haven't read this thread yet. But I wanted to post specifically on the topic UB brought up.

Sitting our young guys does one thing the vetrans do not need, a shorter rotation. Listen if we happen to make the playoffs with a healthy lineup, and benching our youth will be a miracle. Rush, Roy, and McRoberts should have around 15 minutes between them, just to give the regulars added rest.

Ford-30
Dunleavy-32
Granger-37
Murphy-30
Foster-30

Rasho-16
Daniels-25
Jack-25

This leaves 14 minutes to the said three. When we need added defense in the backcourt, Rush comes in. Foster and Rasho have foul trouble, Roy. We need energy off of the bench, McRoberts.

Sure it is consistent, but allows the starters to be overworked. This team may never be in possesion to have this oppurtunity. I say win, but realize we have a whole half season.

And for the naysayers. And numbers people what will it take for the Pacers to make the playoffs. Philly is 18-20 in the 8th spot. What turnaround are we going to need? If Philly stays even? If philly slips and others emerge? I am not good with numbers. They be hard.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 09:46 AM
OK, and wouldn't using those two players in a regular rotation and on a team that can play better than .500 ball starting now, wouldn't that raise their trade value vs what it is right now

I agree with unclebuck on this one, they are maybe playing the old guys to get their trade value higher, other teams are sitting their veterans and it gets to the point were other teams are offering crap because they don't know what kind of players is left.

RWB
01-15-2009, 09:49 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree with Buck and the other instant gratification fans.

Yes I was a big fan of the George Irvine years. :devil: You know, let's wait till next year.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 09:49 AM
OK, how about this. Lets play the best 8 or 9 players - or maybe the 8 or 9 players that gives us the best chance of winning this season. play them in a regular rotation - sure with injuriues and foul trouble - the rookies and young guys will get some time. Isn't that what a coach is supposed to do.

I find it incredible that some of the same people calling for the firing of O'Brien are the same people who want him to play the rookies and sacrifice wins for the future (I think that is a false scenerio to begin with). Is that anything more unfair. How would you like to be fired from your job because you weren't allowed to put 100% effort into it - that is what you are asking JOB to do.

I can see Bird after the season telling JOB, "Jim we are going to have to let you go, you are fired - we just didn't win as many games as we should have" "But larry, you had me play the rookies, and that is why we only won 32 games" OK so Jim is gone but every potential coach is aware that Larry handcuffed the coach. You think we'll get a bigtime coach in here - No way

Besides all this how is it fair to Foster, Murph, TJ, Jack, Rasho, Dun and especially Granger to play anything but the lineup that gives them the best chance of winning. Explain that to me

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 09:56 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMk5sMHj58I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMk5sMHj58I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Pacerized
01-15-2009, 09:57 AM
It looks like you have Mike Wells ear on this.

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

THE `BURG - The Pacers took care of two problems Wednesday.
They beat the Pistons for the first time since Al Harrington, Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O'Neal were still wearing Pacers uniforms.
They also won in overtime for the first time since Halloween 2007.
Jim O'Brien should slowly start to be able to figure out his rotation as players work their way back from injuries.
Mike Dunleavy started his first game of the season and T.J. Ford, who O'Brien said looked like was playing with a rod in his spine, had a good game off the bench with 23 points, six rebounds and four assists.
What do you think the rotation should look like once Marquis Daniels returns and Ford is finally healthy?

Here's my lineup:

PG: Ford, Jack
SG: Dunleavy, Graham
SF: Granger, Daniels
PF: Murphy, Granger
C: Foster, Nesterovic

I left Hibbert and Rush out the rotation because the Pacers need to go with their veterans if they expect to make a run at a playoff spot.
Hibbert has played well at times, but his foul trouble hurts the Pacers too much because it helps the opposing team get into the bonus quicker. We all know the Pacers don't need to help the opposing team get to the foul line. The blue and gold have attempted 251 fewer free throws than their opponents.
Rush, who looked like he would be a regular in the rotation earlier, lacks confidence right now.
"I have a difficult time figuring it out to tell you the truth," O'Brien said before the Golden State game. "He's not playing with the same amount of confidence that I have in him. He needs to be more aggressive. Certainly it's not easy to come in the league as a rookie. He'll find his way, but he's still searching."

RWB
01-15-2009, 09:57 AM
Besides all this how is it fair to Foster, Murph, TJ, Jack, Rasho, Dun and especially Granger to play anything but the lineup that gives them the best chance of winning. Explain that to me

Don't sweat it UB. When Granger and Dunleavy start requesting to be traded in the off season we'll be able to get some additional draft picks so we can get more rookies.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 10:01 AM
"I have a difficult time figuring it out to tell you the truth," O'Brien said before the Golden State game. "He's not playing with the same amount of confidence that I have in him. He needs to be more aggressive. Certainly it's not easy to come in the league as a rookie. He'll find his way, but he's still searching."
Same problem he had at Kansas. This may not be a rookie thing.

DocHolliday
01-15-2009, 10:08 AM
I think it is time to stop playing around and put our best lineup on the court. Rush, Graham, Roy, Josh - it is time you all sit down and watch, we need to win some game. (see I told you most of you won't like this)

Time to put Jeff into the starting lineup (O'Brien said before the game tonight that Jeff needs to play more) along with Ford (once he gets healthy - which he isn't right now) Dunleavy, Granger and Murphy. Use Jack, Daniels (when he gets healthy) and Rasho as the primary bench players with Diener as a spot player. That team will start to win and with the schedule as easy as it is after next week - I think we can still make the playoffs - but more importantly, we can play good basketball.

Really, I suspect O'Brien is thinking the same thing I am and if we can get the top 8 healthy, we'll see what I am suggesting



I can't believe so many tenured folks on this site see the playoffs as being realistic given that such a thing would take winning streaks (more than one!). I haven't seen anything that gives that kind of hope, no matter who plays.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 10:11 AM
I can't believe so many tenured folks on this site see the playoffs as being realistic given that such a thing would take winning streaks (more than one!). I haven't seen anything that gives that kind of hope, no matter who plays.

agreed. this was only one win and some people are acting like the pacers can go all the way to the finalls

ABADays
01-15-2009, 10:13 AM
I can see Bird after the season telling JOB, "Jim we are going to have to let you go, you are fired - we just didn't win as many games as we should have" "But larry, you had me play the rookies, and that is why we only won 32 games" OK so Jim is gone but every potential coach is aware that Larry handcuffed the coach. You think we'll get a bigtime coach in here - No way

And we got a big time coach this time? I rest my case.

Speed
01-15-2009, 10:15 AM
I've thought about this too. I think the rotation would be 8 deep in a playoff situation. (I'm not saying they'll make the playoffs or starting that discussion.)

I think it would be:

TJ
Dun
DG
Murphy
Nesto

with back ups

Jarret
Marquis
Foster

I think these are you top 8 experienced players who will give you the best chance to win a playoff game or series at this moment. I'm not considering matchups or anything. I just think Obie would play these 8 in a do or die game.
--------------------


Posted yesterday by me, so ya I agree! :D

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 10:16 AM
agreed. this was only one win and some people are acting like the pacers can go all the way to the finalls

Really, please highlight such comments.

I would just like to see how good this current team can be - don't we need to know that before the offseason before we make changes.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 10:17 AM
I think the finals is unrealistic and UB probably does as well. But playoff experience is the most underrated thing on this forum.

beast23
01-15-2009, 10:25 AM
OK, how about this. Lets play the best 8 or 9 players - or maybe the 8 or 9 players that gives us the best chance of winning this season. play them in a regular rotation - sure with injuriues and foul trouble - the rookies and young guys will get some time. Isn't that what a coach is supposed to do.

Buck, over the span of the next 4-5 games, I believe what you propose is a good idea. I think it would be a good thing to find out just how competitive this team is capable of being. And, it would benefit Bird so that he is able to determine exactly what this team requires personnel / performance wise for the short and long terms.

With that said I also do NOT believe it is possible to stick with only the best 8-9 players throughout the remainder of the season. Our pace of play just won’t allow it. Unquestionably, we have one of the fastest defense-to-offense transition teams in the league. Our offensive opportunities are very much dependent on running.
<O:p</O:p
However, as has been discussed in a couple of threads over the past week, to play our defensive scheme the way it should be played requires just as much energy as our offense does. A major complaint has been that either our scheme is flawed or that we do not have players capable or willing to pull it off.
<O:p</O:p
But I haven’t seen a change in our defensive scheme. Because of that, I firmly believe that we will be unable to go with only eight or nine players in a rotation over the long haul while playing both a running offense and a swarm defense. I believe our players will begin to wear down, that we may not improve our win-loss record in the long haul, and that we will definitely not develop our younger players as much as we would have if we were to just stick with a broader rotation.
<O:p</O:p
I think that your belief is a valid option; I just don’t think it will create a lasting benefit. Our main problem is that we don’t have enough quality players at this time. Since we are not acquiring them at the moment, we only have one recourse and that is to do everything we can to develop them.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 10:28 AM
Really, please highlight such comments.

I would just like to see how good this current team can be - don't we need to know that before the offseason before we make changes.

the problem is maybe half of this team won't be here next year, that is what you guys don't understand. About my comments before I am just saying that the pacers just won one game and don't get to excited.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 10:31 AM
Buck, over the span of the next 4-5 games, I believe what you propose is a good idea. I think it would be a good thing to find out just how competitive this team is capable of being. And, it would benefit Bird so that he is able to determine exactly what this team requires personnel / performance wise for the short and long terms.

With that said I also do NOT believe it is possible to stick with only the best 8-9 players throughout the remainder of the season. Our pace of play just wonít allow it. Unquestionably, we have one of the fastest defense-to-offense transition teams in the league. Our offensive opportunities are very much dependent on running.
<O:p</O:p
However, as has been discussed in a couple of threads over the past week, to play our defensive scheme the way it should be played requires just as much energy as our offense does. A major complaint has been that either our scheme is flawed or that we do not have players capable or willing to pull it off.
<O:p</O:p
But I havenít seen a change in our defensive scheme. Because of that, I firmly believe that we will be unable to go with only eight or nine players in a rotation over the long haul while playing both a running offense and a swarm defense. I believe our players will begin to wear down, that we may not improve our win-loss record in the long haul, and that we will definitely not develop our younger players as much as we would have if we were to just stick with a broader rotation.
<O:p</O:p
I think that your belief is a valid option; I just donít think it will create a lasting benefit. Our main problem is that we donít have enough quality players at this time. Since we are not acquiring them at the moment, we only have one recourse and that is to do everything we can to develop them.

that was good.....;)

avoidingtheclowns
01-15-2009, 10:40 AM
I think it is a falehood that a rookie needs to play a lot of minutes in their rookie season or they will be damaged for their whole career - or that they will be a rookie for 2 or 3 seasons. I don't believe that at all. Did it hiurt Reggie that he didn't start his rookie season - No. Did it hurt Granger that he only played 22.5 minutes per game his rookie season - No. I mean would DG be any better right now had he played 35 minutes per game his rookie season -No. Would David Harrison be a star center right now had he played 30 minutes per game in his rookie season - of course not. A player is going to be as good as he is going to be whether he plays 80 games and 35 minutes per game or whether he plays 40 games and 10 minutes per game in his rookie season.

In fact maybe they might learn just as much being around a winning team vs being around a team that isn't winning.

you're justifying writing roy/brandon out the rotation completely by mentioning danny playing 22.5min and reggie playing 22.4min per game as rookies?

Bball
01-15-2009, 10:46 AM
Besides all this how is it fair to Foster, Murph, TJ, Jack, Rasho, Dun and especially Granger to play anything but the lineup that gives them the best chance of winning. Explain that to me

Of the ones that will most likely be around when the Pacers do (hopefully) start seeing legit playoff contention, you ask/tell them would you rather continue to scrape along as a sometime 8th seed and 1st round fodder here and there or would you rather be part of a strong team with a several year run at the playoffs with the potential for true contention?

I'm really kind of down on Foster right now so I don't care what he thinks. Rasho is in all likelihood gone and if he does stay how far out in the future do we project him to be here contributing?

I'd think TJ, Jack, Murphy, Dun, and Granger would all opt to be a legit team for years rather than a squeaker team.

I'm not at all saying "tank". I'm saying we have a coach who isn't promoting a playoff type of system. We're not even close to our final roster and several tweaks are obviously coming. We don't have that good of a shot at the playoffs as it stands (especially with Jim O "the O stands for Offense" Brien at the helm with his grand experiment unfolding this season)... and it's really too late to address that now plus the players are still playing hard even if he's not giving them the tools to win). Nobody is expecting a lot of the Pacers this season and we've fallen enough in the standings that the playoff bandwagon has emptied. As I said, the players are still playing hard as it is... With this Chinese Fire Drill offense it's kind of silly to limit the rotation IMHO and we need to use and develop some depth to deal with it (as the pace is IMHO one of our own foes).

Not only does it give players a chance to develop but it also gives us a better chance to evaluate players in game conditions. It also helps showcase players. In either case, it helps in the off-season when roster decisions need to be made.

If we spin our wheels and throw the kitchen sink at any one season we're simply delaying the inevitable. We delayed the inevitable for much of the 2000 already and you see what it got us. We certainly delayed the inevitable last season. The buzzards are already circling and just waiting for the For Sale sign to go out on Penn and Delaware. This team needs long term success as well as a light at the end of the tunnel. Backing into the playoffs would be fool's gold and losing in 4 games or so would hurt more than it would help.

Play to develop players (and a solid rotation that can handle this pace) 1st and play to win within that framework. If we make the playoffs under that scenario then we're likely trending upward (unless a lot of bad teams fall aside to let us fall into the playoffs) and everyone will see it and it will be the light at the end of the tunnel. But then looking at draft picks and roster moves won't be so important because we'd be developing from within. And if we don't claw our way to the playoffs with what we have, we have a nice draft pick and probably a few player assets to use to upgrade the roster.

Gnome said it right when he said we don't likely make the playoffs no matter what we do. I base my thinking on that as well.

sloopjohnb
01-15-2009, 10:46 AM
I left Hibbert and Rush out the rotation because the Pacers need to go with their veterans if they expect to make a run at a playoff spot."

If we make the playoffs this year that is great. But if we do it without developing the young players, it would be a little bit frustrating to me.

xtacy
01-15-2009, 10:47 AM
I think the finals is unrealistic and UB probably does as well. But playoff experience is the most underrated thing on this forum.

good point.

another thing is if we finish at 7th or 8th spot and push a contender team like cavs,celtics or may be even magic to 6 or 7 games in the first round it would be great for us. that would do a huge impact around the league and make people realize that this team is all about basketball now.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 10:51 AM
you're justifying writing roy/brandon out the rotation completely by mentioning danny playing 22.5min and reggie playing 22.4min per game as rookies?

No, I'm saying a player in year 3 or 4 is going to be as good as he is regardless of how many minutes they get in their rookie season.

nerveghost
01-15-2009, 10:54 AM
I don't want to make the playoffs with a losing record. Its like going to play outside when you have the flu - Its just better to stay indoors and hug a toilet.

If we are one game over .500, I'd be for it.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 10:54 AM
good point.

another thing is if we finish at 7th or 8th spot and push a contender team like cavs,celtics or may be even magic to 6 or 7 games in the first round it would be great for us. that would do a huge impact around the league and make people realize that this team is all about basketball now.
Perception is key to getting these great FAs to sign with us right Millertime.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 10:56 AM
I don't want to make the playoffs with a losing record. Its like going to play outside when you have the flu - Its just better to stay indoors and hug a toilet.

If we are one game over .500, I'd be for it.
No that is like saying I don't want to go out with Megan Fox cause she has a pimple.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 11:03 AM
I think the finals is unrealistic and UB probably does as well. But playoff experience is the most underrated thing on this forum.

I think playoffs experience is the most overrated thing, look at other teams that when to the playoffs with a crapy team and got out of the 1st round,Wizards, memphis, Warriors,philladelphia,etc,etc, right now they still suck and they are maybe worts than the pacers, did the playoffs experience make them better? I say nope. They did the same thing the pacers have been doing for years, wait, wait and wait to barely miss or make it to the playoffs and finally realize that to get better you need to rebuild with good draft picks and start from cero.

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 11:04 AM
When Marquis returns and Ford gets more healthy....I fully expect that the primary rotation of players would consist of an 8-man rotation with Jack/Marquis/Granger/Murphy/Rasho/Dunleavy/Ford/Foster where each of them would get the bulk of the minutes throughout the game.

However, I would hope that players like Diener ( at the PG rotation ) and McRoberts / Hibbert ( at the Big Man PF/C rotation ) would get a very consistent 10-15 mpg. I'm not advocating this because I'm on some "Get Hibbert / McRoberts / Diener some underdeserved minutes" bandwagon......it's because players like Foster, Rasho ( most notably ) and Murphy ( to a lesser degree ) are not conditioned to play at this pace that we force upon the other team. Getting Hibbert or McRoberts ( depending on Matchups ) a consistent 10-15 minutes a game could mean the difference between Foster and/or Rasho providing a "far more effective" performance at 24+ mpg as opposed to an "average" performance 28-30 mpg a game.

As for Diener....the only reason why I would include him in the PG rotation is not only to give Ford and Jack some rest....but to provide some energy and change of pace when Ford and/or Jack become erratic on the PG spot with Turnovers...which ( unfortunately ) happens more often then not in the 2nd half ( when we need to be more careful with the ball ). If anything ( with Jack's tendency to cough up the ball at the most worst times ), I would hope that Diener would be brought in during stretches of the game when we need to do our best to protect the ball and slow down the scoring in the game in order to protect a lead.

To me, I think that one of the key factors in how well we do for the rest of the season is fatigue and how we deal with it. This doesn't mean that I expect them to come in and score a whole bunch of points or even fully implement JO'Bs offense/defenses........but their primary purpose is to provide some energy off the bench and not doing anything stupid while "towing the line" and "keeping us afloat" when our key finishers are getting some rest.


As I read your post I realized you didn't mention Rush, was that an oversight or on purpuse?

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 11:07 AM
good point.

another thing is if we finish at 7th or 8th spot and push a contender team like cavs,celtics or may be even magic to 6 or 7 games in the first round it would be great for us. that would do a huge impact around the league and make people realize that this team is all about basketball now.

Do you really think the pacers can go as far as 7 games Vs cleveland or any of this teams?

"This is one of those post unclebuck" remember is only one win.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 11:14 AM
I think playoffs experience is the most overrated thing, look at other teams that when to the playoffs with a crapy team and got out of the 1st round,Wizards, memphis, Warriors,philladelphia,etc,etc, right now they still suck and they are maybe worts than the pacers, did the playoffs experience make them better? I say nope. They did the same thing the pacers have been doing for years, wait, wait and wait to barely miss or make it to the playoffs and finally realize that to get better you need to rebuild with good draft picks and start from cero.
Do you know if their ticket sells increased after the playoffs? Did they not sign key players to help them, because they were more attractive than a team not going any where? You play to win the game. You don't play to loss to hope to have a chance to win. Warriors lost Baron because they had Ellis and he got hurt. The Wiz are injured. Memphis sold all of their veterans for youth. Philly is banged up and are not deep. Look at each team indivually and you will see that by making the playoffs the are able to HAVE a team and have options.

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 11:16 AM
It would be nice if JOB recognized, and knew when to pull a cold player, and put in fresh legs.. or to keep a hot hand on the floor ..
NOT to let the same players try and play out of their slump.. even if it means we lose.. because of stubborness in coaching phillosophy..

What SHOULD be done.. is ..
For instance, he starts Dun , subs Quis in for him if he notices Mike ain't doing anything or is having a hard time (see GS game).. Same for Quis, when he notices quis pullin some bonehead moves, pull him.. This is just an example..

The problem really , and truthfully lies with JOB NOT knowing who to play, and most importantly WHEN..

If Foster is playing like a bonehead , missing open layups and whining about fouls , pull him , put McRoberts in for a good 3 minutes, see if McRoberts has a hot hand with his shot , with assists, rebounds, shot altering and etc... If he is playing excellent, either keep him in the game, or make sure and put him back in later in the game at some point... Don't bury him back on the bench for eternity...untill another injury and he is needed again...

JOB needs to MAKE THAT ASSESMENT on the fly ,pay attention , and reward good play to these guys like McBob , Hibbert , and even Baston honestly.. Most importantly this "playtime reward" be given off of actually earning it on the court gametime..

The HECK with just rewarding PT off of (in my best Allen Iverson voice) practice. Real , in-game contributions is what should warrant more PT to these players.. Yes practice may be where coach gets to be more up-close and personal with our guys.. But a guy could light it up in practice , then fold under pressure and play like utter ***** in every other game he plays ..

I think we have the talent to do some good things .
But untill JOB either "gets it" , or has his "ah-ha" moment , it is gonna be an uphill battle developing on-court chemistry , and a winning environment on the court and in the locker room..

I really think the players themselves are acually learning to play to each other's strengths and weaknesses..and starting to mesh well..
But it is taking them longer than it should be .. And I think it all falls on what I mentioned above...

Look at when we had the injury / flu problem for a few games..
Our end of the bench guys came in , and got the job done..
Heck I think we won a decent percentage of the games in that stretch..

What I am saying , is I believe our players could be better utilized to their full potential..
I really think McRoberts could be our answer to a PF.. But only playing 1 out of every 5 games for a only a few minutes ISN'T GONNA DO IT ! ...

I think Rasho/Hibbert with some very ltd Foster should man the C position , Foster/McBob at PF with some DG in there ,splitting duties @ the SF as well .. and on down the line .. etc..

I hate seeing McRoberts not get a fair shake, considering how good he has been in his ltd minutes out on the court .. I see it as time going by and talent wasted ..

.
.
.
.
.
Then we got Hibbert...he is 7"2 for Heaven's sake..

And when he is playing damn good, don't pull him for the rest of the game , after only 3 fouls... Then only play him every 3 games for 10-15 minutes .. JUST TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN..!! in a cycle.. over and over again..
Roy isn't gonna learn from his mistakes on fouling, if you pull him for good like that for the game.. He needs to be punished, by LETTING him foul his way out the game...
That way , his time on the court will be dependant on how he manages his fouls.. and how he plays...Otherwise, you are gonna have a timid giant in Roy Hibbert, afraid of drawing himself a foul..
It is gonna do more harm , than good.. He needs to be out there LEARNING how to position himself in real games.. not (in my best Allen Iverson voice) PRACTICE only ...

.
.
.


I can agree with a good portion of your post, but where and when does Murphy play if McBob/Foster play the PF?

Quis
01-15-2009, 11:21 AM
I'd only consider making the playoffs a successful season if it meant Hibbert, Rush, and/or McRoberts played a noticeable role in getting us there. If it means gluing all three to the bench and riding the coattails of aging mediocrity (Foster, Murphy, Rasho, etc.) I'd consider it a total failure.

I don't consider a 35-40 win team anymore relevant than a 20-30 win team. The difference being the 20-30 win team is in a much better position to draft a talent that will help get them out of irrelevancy. We're better off taking our lumps now and drafting a top flight talent that will hopefully grow into a great sidekick for Danny rather than continuing to waste time on forgettable seasons with nothing positive to show for it; i.e., winning 36 games and drafting a third-tier shooting guard prospect.

sloopjohnb
01-15-2009, 11:21 AM
good point.

another thing is if we finish at 7th or 8th spot and push a contender team like cavs,celtics or may be even magic to 6 or 7 games in the first round it would be great for us. that would do a huge impact around the league and make people realize that this team is all about basketball now.

We would get swept by Orlando or Cleveland. Boston would have no problems with us either in a 7 game series.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 11:24 AM
For those of you who seemoingly don't care if the pacers win or lose as long as they develop their rookie talent - then why do you always freak out in the game threads and in the postgame threads

Bball
01-15-2009, 11:32 AM
For those of you who seemoingly don't care if the pacers win or lose as long as they develop their rookie talent - then why do you always freak out in the game threads and in the postgame threads

I don't think I freak out too much but if I do it's because OBrien isn't preaching defense and actually seems somewhat OK with our (lack of) defense.... even complimenting it.

But as long as they play hard for him then we might as well ride it out and see if anything changes. If not, I do want him gone before next season.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 11:32 AM
For those of you who seemoingly don't care if the pacers win or lose as long as they develop their rookie talent - then why do you always freak out in the game threads and in the postgame threads

because they are not playing the rookies, and JOB makes stupid calls every time at the end of games like giving the ball to jack in the last seconds of every game(he made the shot once) and because he benchs Roy and Mc roberts for not reason.

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 11:34 AM
OK, and wouldn't using those two players in a regular rotation and on a team that can play better than .500 ball starting now, wouldn't that raise their trade value vs what it is right now

Daniels is already playing well, so it wouldn't help. He is in a team option year as well. Other GM's are quite aware of this.

Rasho is journeyman big with a 8 mil expiring that other GM's already know his ability. Those 2 playing on a .500 team until Feb 19th does nothing enhance their trade value.

If Rasho isn't traded b4 the deadline, he is wasted as trade material. Don't say S&T b/c that's slim to next to none happening.,.. it can't be counted on happening.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-15-2009, 11:38 AM
I doubt the Pacers make the playoffs this year but it would certainly be good for their development if they did. Whoever said PO experience doesn't matter is a boob. The last championship team that didn't have extensive playoff experience on their roster was the '47 Warriors.

OakMoses
01-15-2009, 11:42 AM
I was thinking about this even before reading UB's thread, but it seems more relevant now.

Here's the question: If playing a smaller rotation and shelving the young guys would guarantee us 38-40 wins and a playoff appearance, would you support it? This would essentially mean very limited minutes for Hibbert, Rush, and McRoberts.

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 11:45 AM
And we got a big time coach this time? I rest my case.


Maybe one next time that won't be an over the phone hire.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-15-2009, 11:45 AM
How is this gonna generate a different line of conversation than UB's thread. There are no prizes for who starts the most threads.


As a caveat, I'm not intentionally calling you out mellifluous. It's just that we don't need multiple threads about the same damn thing. The last few weeks everytime I click on a thread it's exactly the same as the one I'd just clicked on.

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 11:51 AM
Buck, over the span of the next 4-5 games, I believe what you propose is a good idea. I think it would be a good thing to find out just how competitive this team is capable of being. And, it would benefit Bird so that he is able to determine exactly what this team requires personnel / performance wise for the short and long terms.

With that said I also do NOT believe it is possible to stick with only the best 8-9 players throughout the remainder of the season. Our pace of play just wonít allow it. Unquestionably, we have one of the fastest defense-to-offense transition teams in the league. Our offensive opportunities are very much dependent on running.
<O:p</O:p
However, as has been discussed in a couple of threads over the past week, to play our defensive scheme the way it should be played requires just as much energy as our offense does. A major complaint has been that either our scheme is flawed or that we do not have players capable or willing to pull it off.
<O:p</O:p
But I havenít seen a change in our defensive scheme. Because of that, I firmly believe that we will be unable to go with only eight or nine players in a rotation over the long haul while playing both a running offense and a swarm defense. I believe our players will begin to wear down, that we may not improve our win-loss record in the long haul, and that we will definitely not develop our younger players as much as we would have if we were to just stick with a broader rotation.
<O:p</O:p
I think that your belief is a valid option; I just donít think it will create a lasting benefit. Our main problem is that we donít have enough quality players at this time. Since we are not acquiring them at the moment, we only have one recourse and that is to do everything we can to develop them.


AMEN!

This thread is one of the best I've seen on PD in sometime. There has been MANY great posts which this is one. Just so many good posts that it is hard to comment on each one. I have throughly enjoyed reading the 1st 2 pages of this thread!!!

RamBo_Lamar
01-15-2009, 11:56 AM
How is this gonna generate a different line of conversation than UB's thread. There are no prizes for who starts the most threads.


As a caveat, I'm not intentionally calling you out mellifluous. It's just that we don't need multiple threads about the same damn thing. The last few weeks everytime I click on a thread it's exactly the same as the one I'd just clicked on.


Well if they ever do come up with a prize for most threads, I would like to
recommend it be called the "Millertime Award".


:laugh:

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 11:57 AM
Of the ones that will most likely be around when the Pacers do (hopefully) start seeing legit playoff contention, you ask/tell them would you rather continue to scrape along as a sometime 8th seed and 1st round fodder here and there or would you rather be part of a strong team with a several year run at the playoffs with the potential for true contention?

I'm really kind of down on Foster right now so I don't care what he thinks. Rasho is in all likelihood gone and if he does stay how far out in the future do we project him to be here contributing?

I'd think TJ, Jack, Murphy, Dun, and Granger would all opt to be a legit team for years rather than a squeaker team.

I'm not at all saying "tank". I'm saying we have a coach who isn't promoting a playoff type of system. We're not even close to our final roster and several tweaks are obviously coming. We don't have that good of a shot at the playoffs as it stands (especially with Jim O "the O stands for Offense" Brien at the helm with his grand experiment unfolding this season)... and it's really too late to address that now plus the players are still playing hard even if he's not giving them the tools to win). Nobody is expecting a lot of the Pacers this season and we've fallen enough in the standings that the playoff bandwagon has emptied. As I said, the players are still playing hard as it is... With this Chinese Fire Drill offense it's kind of silly to limit the rotation IMHO and we need to use and develop some depth to deal with it (as the pace is IMHO one of our own foes).

Not only does it give players a chance to develop but it also gives us a better chance to evaluate players in game conditions. It also helps showcase players. In either case, it helps in the off-season when roster decisions need to be made.

If we spin our wheels and throw the kitchen sink at any one season we're simply delaying the inevitable. We delayed the inevitable for much of the 2000 already and you see what it got us. We certainly delayed the inevitable last season. The buzzards are already circling and just waiting for the For Sale sign to go out on Penn and Delaware. This team needs long term success as well as a light at the end of the tunnel. Backing into the playoffs would be fool's gold and losing in 4 games or so would hurt more than it would help.

Play to develop players (and a solid rotation that can handle this pace) 1st and play to win within that framework. If we make the playoffs under that scenario then we're likely trending upward (unless a lot of bad teams fall aside to let us fall into the playoffs) and everyone will see it and it will be the light at the end of the tunnel. But then looking at draft picks and roster moves won't be so important because we'd be developing from within. And if we don't claw our way to the playoffs with what we have, we have a nice draft pick and probably a few player assets to use to upgrade the roster.

Gnome said it right when he said we don't likely make the playoffs no matter what we do. I base my thinking on that as well.


WOW! Another great post!

Roaming Gnome
01-15-2009, 12:08 PM
Thread Merged!

beast23
01-15-2009, 12:18 PM
For those of you who seemoingly don't care if the pacers win or lose as long as they develop their rookie talent - then why do you always freak out in the game threads and in the postgame threadsPersonally, I want to win as many games as possible.

But without a change to either our defensive scheme or by acquiring an additional decent post defender, I don't believe we will accomplish that goal by limiting our rotation to 8 or 9 players.

It could be argued either way that our defensive scheme is as good as we can do right now with the talent that we have. We could execute better, but without that post defender I mentioned, I suppose that rushing and trapping the ball and attempting to contend perimeter shots is as good a philosophy as anything else.

So running the ball offensively while attacking the ball defensively is going to require the energy of more than just 8-9 players. Therefore, the development of our younger players is not only beneficial in the future, playing them is required in the present.

If we plan to make a trade by the trading deadline that will net us an interior defender, then I could see shifting the rotation to 8-9 players at this time. We would just have to hope that the energy level of the 8-9 players that we utilize can hold out until the trade is made.

Buck, does this make sense?

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 12:18 PM
Congrats UB on starting such a great thread. I know we joust with each other over our views, especially on O'Brien, but I can't convey how much I have enjoyed reading so many wonderful posts in this thread.

Bball, Beast, and so many others have had some great posts. Hope, to read some more later.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 12:19 PM
Thread Merged!

thank you..........by the way I like Eddie white and Bob

diamonddave00
01-15-2009, 12:27 PM
I'm not as excited as most about Rush, Hibbert and McRoberts .

Hibbert is a lumbering big guy from a bygone era , he has raw skills but his game is totally unsuited for the Pacers motion , cut and pass offense (aside from the pass portion.) His lumbering machanical movements make Rik Smits look like an athletic phenom. Even at 7'2 Hibbert's rebounding instincts are are sadly missing.

Rush will never be a star he is a complimentary player as he was at Kansas, very inconsistant shooter much like his brother Kareem . He has skills to play defense but sadly what I see, right or wrong , he lacks the inner drive to be anything more than a 12 ppg scorer shooting in the low 40% range.

McRoberts is a more athletic Jeff Foster but please don't confuse his balls to the wall spurts for extreme talent. Josh has raw skills but should have stayed at Duke his final 2 years to hone them.

None of the 3 in my opinion will ever be more than solid reserves in the NBA , all teams need that . But to think giving them 25-30 minutes a night will make them big stars - sorry its not going to happen.

The Pacers got lucky getting Danny Granger a top 5 talent at 17 due to draft night concerns about a surgury repaired knee. Rush and Hibbert went about where their talent level slotted them in a mediocre draft, slots which usually develops role players not stars.

As the Pacers currently consist , playing for the playoffs and getting the young guys spot minutes is the best move. Minutes must be earned Rush's 39% fg shooting hasn't earned him time nor has his lost in headlights look on the court.

Hibbert's effort has been there but his lack of quickness limits his minutes to match ups as does his lack of ability to move his feet on defense he is a foul magnet for any bigman who can handle the ball and drive - hell anyone who can drive just goes straight at him and his slowfootness is exposed 3 fouls in 5 minutes and bench time again.

It appears Bird got what he wanted in the draft : class guys but sadly very limited NBA talented ones.

nerveghost
01-15-2009, 12:29 PM
If O'Brien were to bench the vets who are clearly playing better in favor of getting the young guys more time so they can develop, what kind of message does that send? The Pacers should be about developing a culture of winning, and to do that you gotta teach the rooks to earn their minutes for the right reasons.

The cream rises to the top. If the rooks are good players, they'll get their time - just like Granger did. If they can't get time this season, I'm confident Bird and Morway will make room for them in the offseason.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 12:34 PM
Wow maybe I am glad Scott Skiles is not our coach. Some of you would have a heart attack.

RWB
01-15-2009, 12:48 PM
If O'Brien were to bench the vets who are clearly playing better in favor of getting the young guys more time so they can develop, what kind of message does that send? The Pacers should be about developing a culture of winning, and to do that you gotta teach the rooks to earn their minutes for the right reasons.

The cream rises to the top. If the rooks are good players, they'll get their time - just like Granger did. If they can't get time this season, I'm confident Bird and Morway will make room for them in the offseason.

Absolutely agree with the thoughts in this post and hi-lighted culture for a reason. That's all we'ver heard about for the last three years is the culture must change in the Pacers locker room. Wells just recently posted in his blog that the locker is the best he has seen in years. Let's not destroy that right away with the pushing of minutes. As others have noted some of these guys won't be back and those minutes will be available next season. Let's see what kind of dedication the young pups give us this summer on how they've worked on their game. If they work hard then the coach will give them the time.

Blink
01-15-2009, 12:53 PM
thank you..........by the way I like Eddie white and Bob

:picard:

Quis
01-15-2009, 01:06 PM
Playoff experience really only matters if you have enough talent to capitalize on it. Do we have that talent level? I'd say no. Making the playoffs wont do jack diddly for the long-term health of our franchise.

What the pro-38 win playoff brigade doesn't realize is that nobody wants to lose, but the fact is we are. No amount of message board sunshine is going to fix that. We need to be looking at realistic, proactive solutions to turning our team around, not unrealistic wishful thinking.

Our #1 priority needs to be improving our talent level, not playoff experience. How do we accomplish that? Through a trade? Maybe, but with our limited trade assets and the fact that we're batting about .200 on trades with Bird in control, I doubt it. We don't have the capspace to make a big time free agent signing. So then what are we left with...?

The best way for a team with limited assets (like us) to acquire top-tier talent is through the draft, preferably a top-5 pick. I know a lot of you are draftaphobics and don't like hearing it, but it's the truth. Look at Danny. A great talent for certain, a huge steal at #17, yet multiple players of his quality are found at the top of the draft almost every single year.

History doesn't lie. The draft is what primarily turns most franchises around. It's our only hope.

CableKC
01-15-2009, 01:13 PM
We should just change the title of this thread into the yearly "Lottery or Playoffs" thread. :rolleyes:

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 01:14 PM
Playoff experience really only matters if you have enough talent to capitalize on it. Do we have that talent level? I'd say no. Making the playoffs wont do jack diddly for the long-term health of our franchise.

What the pro-38 win playoff brigade doesn't realize is that nobody wants to lose, but the fact is we are. No amount of message board sunshine is going to fix that. We need to be looking at realistic, proactive solutions to turning our team around, not unrealistic wishful thinking.

Our #1 priority needs to be improving our talent level, not playoff experience. How do we accomplish that? Through a trade? Maybe, but with our limited trade assets and the fact that we're batting about .200 on trades with Bird in control, I doubt it. We don't have the capspace to make a big time free agent signing. So then what are we left with...?

The best way for a team with limited assets (like us) to acquire top-tier talent is through the draft, preferably a top-5 pick. I know a lot of you are draftaphobics and don't like hearing it, but it's the truth. Look at Danny. A great talent for certain, a huge steal at #17, yet multiple players of his quality are found at the top of the draft almost every single year.

History doesn't lie. The draft is what primarily turns most franchises around. It's our only hope.

nice post ,I agree. by the way there is not way this team could get 38wins I don't even think they could get 30wins

Bball
01-15-2009, 01:14 PM
I'm not saying bench the vets, I'm saying don't bench the younger players.

...Although you could bench Foster or use several of his minutes to get some of these young guys some space in the rotations and I wouldn't complain. Foster is increasingly looking like a situational guy... in the wrong situation... to me....

-Bball

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 01:16 PM
None of the 3 in my opinion will ever be more than solid reserves in the NBA , all teams need that . But to think giving them 25-30 minutes a night will make them big stars - sorry its not going to happen.




Thank you and I agree 100%. I mean it isn't like we have a rookie Chris Paul sitting on the bench while Jack is playing.

BRushWithDeath
01-15-2009, 01:16 PM
I'm not saying bench the vets, I'm saying don't bench the younger players.

...Although you could bench Foster or use several of his minutes to get some of these young guys some space in the rotations and I wouldn't complain. Foster is increasingly looking like a situational guy... in the wrong situation... to me....

-Bball


He's been downright terrible recently. And has been getting more and more minutes because of it.

RWB
01-15-2009, 01:18 PM
Our #1 priority needs to be improving our talent level, not playoff experience. How do we accomplish that? Through a trade? Maybe, but with our limited trade assets and the fact that we're batting about .200 on trades with Bird in control, I doubt it. We don't have the capspace to make a big time free agent signing. So then what are we left with...?

The best way for a team with limited assets (like us) to acquire top-tier talent is through the draft, preferably a top-5 pick.

So are you saying we need to tank a season? Maybe a couple of seasons? I'm not sure this franchise can suffer too long without at least making the playoffs. What a slippery slope that could be. How long before the Ps have a player(s) reincarnate into a Gilbert Arenas twin? Can you imagine Dunleavy or Granger saying 'Oh what the heck since we're losing I just might shut it down for the season'.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 01:26 PM
We should just change the title of this thread into the yearly "Lottery or Playoffs" thread. :rolleyes:

When I started the thread - I didn't intend it to end up like that (typically I get bored with those threads)

For those critisizing Jeff - I'm just thankful that you aren't coaching the team and I do have to wonder what you are watching. Pacers are just better with jeff on the floor

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2009, 01:34 PM
Major flaws with the logic in the initial post:

A) Playing Rush, Hibbert, or McRoberts inherently gives you less of a chance of winning the current game.

Not if they are doing something better than the guy they are replacing, such as defense from Rush vs Jack on SGs or post scoring which no one else on the team does besides Roy.

B) That the Pacers have been playing these kids a lot and that they've been the key elements in the losses, and not key in the wins.

Since when were we seeing mostly youth in all these losses? They've lost plenty when Rush, McBob and Roy barely saw the floor. I will admit that the +/- for Rush and Roy is poor, but Jack and Troy aren't doing so hot themselves. Also Rush is part of 2 of the Pacers top 5-man units also (82games.com) by win% and minutes.

C) That the vets are just waiting to suck up tons of minutes without an ounce of impact on their playoff home stretch game.

A HUGE reason teams like to get the younger guys some minutes during the year and only shorten the bench in the playoffs is specifically to keep guys fresh when they need them most. Have you seen Rasho? Have you seen Foster's back issues the last few years? These guys badly need Roy and McBob sucking up some minutes now if you want them to play well in April.

D) The core 4 have some huge history of winning.

Look, love the effort this year and obviously Danny and Troy stepped their games up to a higher level than last year, but DG, Dun, Troy and Jeff weren't exactly ripping up the win column the last season and a half either. I think the idea that we are obviously sitting on wins that are being flushed away for the benefit of developing players is just wrong.



One other thing to think about is the Long/Reggie situation. A case could have been made to just play Long a ton and back off Reggie and his poor defense that first season. Long was still shooting it well and was an experienced vet.

Carry this also to Granger while we are at it. In both cases there came a time when you were winning "then" because the guy had gotten prior playing time. Granger is awesome now, but his +/- was in the toilet his first 2 seasons. He was often lost, didn't have anywhere near the scoring he does now, and easily could have been set aside as a 17 pick that was way too raw to be tolerated in the "win now" world he came into.

I want wins now as well, but I ALSO want wins in 2-3 years. At some point that's going to be the now just like this one. Will we be looking at a team that still hasn't developed and recalling fondly a few seasons prior when the vets got the team to 38 wins and almost made the playoffs?

Nope. We'll be unhappy with the growth of the younger players.

It's about balance, and good teams (see Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Celtics, etc) all win with young guys getting a chance too. I mean it's not like Rondo had tons of seasons under his belt or that George Hill is pulling splinters in San Antonio. Or Randolph in Phoenix who I just pointed out recently (and KILLED the Pacers in that game).


Rush has hit the bench, the team still kept losing. McBob doesn't even get to play and nearly every time he does get good minutes they win. Hibbert started off weak but has been part of solid starts in recent weeks. So really what's the issue here?

I see two things, the same two I've already seen. McBob's +/- vs Graham/Jack suggest you should be toning down the small ball and getting him more minutes. And while Rush isn't great, it's not like Graham has had so much +/- success that you've got to keep Rush out.

Unless you really think Graham is the future there is no reason not to continue to feed MILD MINUTES to both Rush and McBob. Each getting 5-8 per night isn't costing you games at all, and in fact it's probably helping you win NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2009, 01:36 PM
When I started the thread - I didn't intend it to end up like that (typically I get bored with those threads)

For those critisizing Jeff - I'm just thankful that you aren't coaching the team and I do have to wonder what you are watching. Pacers are just better with jeff on the floor
I'm 100% anti-tank. I just think you must balance playing youth with the normal vets getting worn down.

Jeff is the smartest player on the team which is a big part of his success, although his hustle is also key. I want to see him play too, but I also hate to see him lose his back late in the season.

OakMoses
01-15-2009, 01:37 PM
How is this gonna generate a different line of conversation than UB's thread. There are no prizes for who starts the most threads.

As a caveat, I'm not intentionally calling you out mellifluous. It's just that we don't need multiple threads about the same damn thing. The last few weeks everytime I click on a thread it's exactly the same as the one I'd just clicked on.

I was more interested in the poll results than in the conversation. Some clarification on whether or not UB was correct in his thread title.

Thanks for merging the threads.

Major Cold
01-15-2009, 01:43 PM
So this is how we create a poll in an already existing post?

nerveghost
01-15-2009, 01:51 PM
Have faith - we have a good group and a budding superstar. This is an average team plagued by injuries. We are one or two good players away from a 44 win season - a good first step (and I remind you that O'Brien took a 44 win Celtics team to the Conference finals).

We got our star player 4 years ago. Now we have to get a good compliment of players in the lower picks, like when we got Davis at #13 in 1991 and Best at #23 in 1995. I'm hoping that process started last year with Hibbert and Rush and we can add to it in the next draft.

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 02:09 PM
When I started the thread - I didn't intend it to end up like that (typically I get bored with those threads)

For those critisizing Jeff - I'm just thankful that you aren't coaching the team and I do have to wonder what you are watching. Pacers are just better with jeff on the floor


Maybe they saw the blown layups. Like the one at the start of the game he should have dunked instead of missing the layup. The constant complaining he's getting fouled or he didn't foul when he gets called for one. He's turned into a constant whiner.

Maybe they feel as a 10 year vet, he never improved his game each year. Maybe the foul shots he missed in last nights game. Never developing a jump shot in 10 years... something more than dunks and put backs. He is notorious for missing FT's and layups/putbacks, which he did numerous times last night.

Or as a 10 year vet, they felt he should have done more look like a deer in the headlights with the ball at the end of the game recently.

Maybe up until the last game or two he hasn't been producing like he did earlier in the year. He even hit a few 3's earlier in the season, remember? He was scoring double digits scoring as well as rebounding.

Maybe, they feel they have seen a drop in his game after the start he had and aren't happy with his play.



I like Jeff, but as of late he's really beginning to grate on me. Maybe the losing or age is catching up with him is the problem. Whatever it is, IMO, the Pacers should not have given him an extension. When they did, they took a valuable assest, his expiring, out of their trade arsenal, and saddled themselves with 6 mil in salary that could be used elsewhere next year. JMOAA

BRushWithDeath
01-15-2009, 02:13 PM
Maybe they saw the blown layups. Like the one at the start of the game he should have dunked instead of missing the layup. The constant complaining he's getting fouled or he didn't foul when he gets called for one. He's turned into a constant whiner.

Maybe they feel as a 10 year vet, he never improved his game each year. Maybe the foul shots he missed in last nights game. Never developing a jump shot in 10 years... something more than dunks and put backs. He is notorious for missing FT's and layups/putbacks, which he did numerous times last night.

Or as a 10 year vet, they felt he should have done more look like a deer in the headlights with the ball at the end of the game recently.

Maybe up until the last game or two he hasn't been producing like he did earlier in the year. He even hit a few 3's earlier in the season, remember? He was scoring double digits scoring as well as rebounding.

Maybe, they feel they have seen a drop in his game after the start he had and aren't happy with his play.



I like Jeff, but as of late he's really beginning to grate on me. Maybe the losing or age is catching up with him is the problem. Whatever it is, IMO, the Pacers should not have given him an extension. When they did, they took a valuable assest, his expiring, out of their trade arsenal, and saddled themselves with 6 mil in salary that could be used elsewhere next year. JMOAA


Thank you for saying what so many others have been thinking. The airball free throw was just a microcosm of his recent play.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 02:20 PM
I really shouldn't do this, because I don't want this to turn into a Foster thread - but he did shoot 4 of 5 last night. Sure he struggled at the free throw line - but for most of the season he's been around 70% in FT's. He has imnproved his game every year. (there is more to the game than offense - but even there he's improved almost every year in FT%, and his shooting is better now than ever.

nerveghost
01-15-2009, 02:26 PM
most, if not all, of the teams in the league would kill for Jeff Foster.

Since86
01-15-2009, 02:28 PM
his shooting is better now than ever.

And it's still atrocious. I literally turn away every time he attempts a 15ft jumpshot. His form from his feet, to his release makes me cringe.

I don't know which is worse, him taking the shot or JOb actually encouraging him to take it. That in itself should be a fireable offense.

CableKC
01-15-2009, 02:28 PM
As I read your post I realized you didn't mention Rush, was that an oversight or on purpuse?
Nope.....it was on purpose. Unless Marquis is traded before the trade deadline....I really think that JO'B will use our best SG/SF rotation right now......Marquis, Granger, Dunleavy, Jack should get the majority of the mintues at the SG/SF rotation. Unfortunately, there is some reason why BRush is playing behind Graham.....I don't know the exact reason why....but I suspect it's a combination of BRush simply making mistakes and ( as many of you have put it in the Game-Threads ) looking lost on defense. Unlike many of you....the main reason why I am not as concerned about BRush getting minutes in his rookie season is that I think that BRush will get his chance and minutes next season after Marquis' Team Option is ( likely ) not picked up.

Although I do side with UncleBuck on this and believe myself that it is as important to teach the core of players that it is as important to win and be competitive ( since I still believe that Bird's top priority is to make a return to the Playoffs mainly to attract fans back to Conseco Fieldhouse....even if it means a quick 1st round exit ) as it is to prepare for the future ( by playing the rookies ), I do understand why many of you think that we should just give our rookies as many minutes as they can handle and see what happens....whether it is Playoffs or Lottery.

My preference is to follow what UncleBuck suggested where we play our best 8-man rotation ( assuming that they are healthy ) where they get the bulk of the minutes ( while also giving Diener and McRoberts/Hibbert about 10 mpg each for relief purposes ) for up 2-3 weeks worth of games just to see how well we can do. The unfortunate truth is that due to injuries to key players at various times over this season, we haven't really seen what we can do since we have had key players out of the lineup. I want to know whether we can truly compete or not for a Playoff spot this season or not. I agree with the poster that suggested that the Hawks have greatly benefitted from their 1st round Playoff Exit. Playoff experience IMHO can build the confidence of a team and give them some exporure to the pressure cooker that I hope they will eventually experience.

But after this stretch of games where we play this 8-10 man rotation and we see no real change in any win-loss record....then I may change my mind and side with the "Lottery or Bust" bandwagon....but for now, I need to know how well we can do before I decide to jump off the cliff with most of you.

dryley
01-15-2009, 02:40 PM
Major flaws with the logic in the initial post:

A) Playing Rush, Hibbert, or McRoberts inherently gives you less of a chance of winning the current game.

Not if they are doing something better than the guy they are replacing, such as defense from Rush vs Jack on SGs or post scoring which no one else on the team does besides Roy.

B) That the Pacers have been playing these kids a lot and that they've been the key elements in the losses, and not key in the wins.

Since when were we seeing mostly youth in all these losses? They've lost plenty when Rush, McBob and Roy barely saw the floor. I will admit that the +/- for Rush and Roy is poor, but Jack and Troy aren't doing so hot themselves. Also Rush is part of 2 of the Pacers top 5-man units also (82games.com) by win% and minutes.

C) That the vets are just waiting to suck up tons of minutes without an ounce of impact on their playoff home stretch game.

A HUGE reason teams like to get the younger guys some minutes during the year and only shorten the bench in the playoffs is specifically to keep guys fresh when they need them most. Have you seen Rasho? Have you seen Foster's back issues the last few years? These guys badly need Roy and McBob sucking up some minutes now if you want them to play well in April.

D) The core 4 have some huge history of winning.

Look, love the effort this year and obviously Danny and Troy stepped their games up to a higher level than last year, but DG, Dun, Troy and Jeff weren't exactly ripping up the win column the last season and a half either. I think the idea that we are obviously sitting on wins that are being flushed away for the benefit of developing players is just wrong.



One other thing to think about is the Long/Reggie situation. A case could have been made to just play Long a ton and back off Reggie and his poor defense that first season. Long was still shooting it well and was an experienced vet.

Carry this also to Granger while we are at it. In both cases there came a time when you were winning "then" because the guy had gotten prior playing time. Granger is awesome now, but his +/- was in the toilet his first 2 seasons. He was often lost, didn't have anywhere near the scoring he does now, and easily could have been set aside as a 17 pick that was way too raw to be tolerated in the "win now" world he came into.

I want wins now as well, but I ALSO want wins in 2-3 years. At some point that's going to be the now just like this one. Will we be looking at a team that still hasn't developed and recalling fondly a few seasons prior when the vets got the team to 38 wins and almost made the playoffs?

Nope. We'll be unhappy with the growth of the younger players.

It's about balance, and good teams (see Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Celtics, etc) all win with young guys getting a chance too. I mean it's not like Rondo had tons of seasons under his belt or that George Hill is pulling splinters in San Antonio. Or Randolph in Phoenix who I just pointed out recently (and KILLED the Pacers in that game).


Rush has hit the bench, the team still kept losing. McBob doesn't even get to play and nearly every time he does get good minutes they win. Hibbert started off weak but has been part of solid starts in recent weeks. So really what's the issue here?

I see two things, the same two I've already seen. McBob's +/- vs Graham/Jack suggest you should be toning down the small ball and getting him more minutes. And while Rush isn't great, it's not like Graham has had so much +/- success that you've got to keep Rush out.

Unless you really think Graham is the future there is no reason not to continue to feed MILD MINUTES to both Rush and McBob. Each getting 5-8 per night isn't costing you games at all, and in fact it's probably helping you win NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.

Hear Hear! (or is it here here??) Mostly I find myself agreeing with UB, but I don't see where the vets have done so great and the young guys have done so bad. Aside from fouls (real or rookie calls) I think Hib has done very well, and I say let him use his six fouls. McBob, well it's hard to tell because he gets so few minutes, but so far I've been impressed. Not to mention lately Foster and Rasho have just looked tired...

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Hear Hear! (or is it here here??) Mostly I find myself agreeing with UB, but I don't see where the vets have done so great and the young guys have done so bad. Aside from fouls (real or rookie calls) I think Hib has done very well, and I say let him use his six fouls. McBob, well it's hard to tell because he gets so few minutes, but so far I've been impressed. Not to mention lately Foster and Rasho have just looked tired...

But we never have had the vets together. Last night was the first time all season that we had our best team on ythe floor and Ford is about about 60% anyway. But now Daniels is out - I thinbk we need to know what we have with the 9 that I mentioned in the first post. I think that is a better than .500 team.

NuffSaid
01-15-2009, 03:24 PM
POS - Starters/Reserve

PF - Murphy/Foster
C - Hibbert/Rasho
PG - Ford/Deiner/Jack
SG - Dunleavy/Quis/Graham
SF - Granger/Quis

Ideally, that's the roster w/rotations I'd like to see w/Quis being the 1st Guard and Foster being the first big off the bench, respectively. However, I know that's not what's going to happen. To that, I think UB may be right. If JOB wants this team to make the playoffs, he has to do something to turn things around. I'm sure he wants to see the young guys develop, but if he continues to rely on them to get the job done this team may not make it to the post-season for a second straight year. Don't get me wrong; I think Hibbert has great promise, and McRob and Graham has done some good things w/the limited minutes they've had, but I think it's time to go with the vets since they have a better grasp on defensive schemes. We need to get Quis back out there, but I see a lineup similar to what UB proposed:

POS - Starters/Reserve

PF - Murphy/Foster
C - Foster/Rasho
PG - Ford/Deiner/Jack
SG - Dunleavy/Quis
SF - Granger/Dunleavy/Quis

For my taste, I'd rather see Ford and Deiner hold down the PG spot because both can push the tempo. Use Jack for stronger defense @ the Point or to slow the tempo alittle. Dunleavy and Quis are interchangeable btwn the SG & SF positions, even Granger!

Stick w/the vets as much as possible from here on out and this team might just get a foot in the door this year.

OakMoses
01-15-2009, 03:26 PM
most, if not all, of the teams in the league would kill for Jeff Foster.

There is not a single team in the NBA for whom Foster would not be a rotation player.

HeliumFear
01-15-2009, 03:29 PM
<i>More minutes for Rush, Hibbert, and McRoberts</i>

Let's tank and hope we get lucky in the lottery IMO :P

OakMoses
01-15-2009, 03:33 PM
But we never have had the vets together.

This is an excellent point. I like all three of our young guys quite a bit, and I think they should all be used situationally. It's time, however, to play our best players no matter what and see if we can play ourselves into or out of the playoffs. Give it a month or so, and if we're not making the run that the schedule says we should, then we can start playing the youngsters.

For the record, I really like the way O'Brien is using Hibbert right now. He force feeds him some minutes at the beginning of games where he thinks he can be effective. In games where he's clearly going to be outmatched (like trying to guard any big Detroit would have put on the floor), he goes in a different direction.

dryley
01-15-2009, 03:51 PM
I'm glad I'm not running this team with you guys as advisors...cuz I'd be totally "waffling"! I'd be Dan Quayle II....
It would be ideal to have 9 or 10 healthy guys who were all capable of playing 40 minutes if called upon. However, we don't have and never will. It just bugs me to be watching Rasho struggle to get up and down the court, and there's McBob over there with his tongue hanging out and tail waggin' like a ****zu Hound, sayin' "C'mon man, open that door! Just 5 minutes, I'll run like the wind!" I just don't get it...

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 04:08 PM
I have no problem with JO'B playing the vets, but I want to see a 10 man rotation if he insists on playing a run n gun helterskelter with little "D" style game. I don't want players constantly gunning out of gas from fatigue or see players later in the season woren out from fatigue.

I'm not expecting big minutes for the rookies, I consider McBob a rookie, but I do want them to "get playing time on a consistant basis." Yes, like everyone else I'd like to see the Pacers win, and getting a healthy roster to play would be nice just to see what it can do. BUT at the sametime Bird has seen enough of these players to know what he's got and what this team needs... an inside presence for one. I don't want to go much more than about 3-4 weeks playing the vets to see what they can produce. I don't want to waste the trade deadline by letting a "wait and see attitude" prevail only to findout Bird waited too long to pull the trigger losing an expiring contract or two that could have been used in a trade.

From an O'Brien and Bird point, I don't feel they can go much longer w/o getting this team to winning. My feeling is they are beginning to feel the heat, and need to start producing more than ever. JMOAA

BlueNGold
01-15-2009, 04:33 PM
Last night is a terrible measuring stick about whether a certain set of players should be in the game or not. Also, the fact Dunleavy has returned is going to help our team. Whoever's getting time right now will now look better than otherwise. All the calculus has changed.

Kemo
01-15-2009, 05:37 PM
I haven't read this thread yet. But I wanted to post specifically on the topic UB brought up.

Sitting our young guys does one thing the vetrans do not need, a shorter rotation. Listen if we happen to make the playoffs with a healthy lineup, and benching our youth will be a miracle. Rush, Roy, and McRoberts should have around 15 minutes between them, just to give the regulars added rest.

Ford-30
Dunleavy-32
Granger-37
Murphy-30
Foster-30

Rasho-16
Daniels-25
Jack-25

This leaves 14 minutes to the said three. When we need added defense in the backcourt, Rush comes in. Foster and Rasho have foul trouble, Roy. We need energy off of the bench, McRoberts.



I agree , but I would have it tweaked a bit myself to the following..

This is just a rough estimate I'd go by , and it would also depend on who is playing particularly well that particular game.. and who we are matched up against..
Also these minute wouldn't be concrete, just the minimum I would go by..

TOTAL there are 240 minutes to distribute...



Ford-29
Dunleavy-30
Granger-37
Murphy-25
Roy 17


Foster-20
Jack-22
Rasho-18


Daniels-16
McRoberts 12
Rush /Diener/ 10-12 min
Graham/Baston 2-4 min

CableKC
01-15-2009, 06:08 PM
Ford-30
Dunleavy-32
Granger-37
Murphy-30
Foster-30

Rasho-16
Daniels-25
Jack-25

This leaves 14 minutes to the said three. When we need added defense in the backcourt, Rush comes in. Foster and Rasho have foul trouble, Roy. We need energy off of the bench, McRoberts.



Ford-28
Dunleavy-30
Granger-37
Murphy-25
Foster-20

Rasho-19
Daniels-25
Jack-22

Roy 16
McRoberts 10
Rush /Graham 8
Okay....my turn! My turn!

Since I believe that fatigue is a MAJOR factor in how well we do in the 2nd half ( especially when it comes to our primary PF/C rotation of Murphy/Foster/Rasho )....I'm far more conservative then most of you when it comes to divying up minutes for Granger and our Guards....so I'm gonna do my best impression of Carlisle and his eggtimer minutes :):

Ford - 28 mpg as our primary PG
Marquis - 28 mpg as our primary SG
Granger - 34 mpg as our primary SF but playing some backup PF minutes
Murphy - 28 mpg as our primary PF
Foster - 24 mpg as our primary Center but playing some backup PF minutes
Dunleavy - 32 mpg playing backup SG and SF minutes ( 6th Man )
Jack - 28 mpg playing backup SG and PG minutes
Rasho - 20 mpg playing backup Center

Diener - 8 mpg as our 3rd string backup PG
McRoberts ( or Hibbert...depending on Matchups ) - 10 mpg as our 5th PF/C in the lineup

I would try to give the bulk of the 10 minutes for McRoberts/Hibbert in the 2nd half when it's very apparent that Murphy/Rasho/Foster are winded and need rest to finish up games.....whereas I would do the same for Diener to get a more stable PG in the lineup that would simply protect the ball in the 2nd half when we need to play less erratically and in a more "controlled" manner while pushing the tempo. Of course, the main intent would be to give our finishers more time to rest so that they are energy to focus on defense/offense and close out games.

As for my finishers.....it's a toss-up between Ford/Jack ( depending on who is not getting torched on the other end ) alongside Dunleavy ( or Marquis if Dunleavy is being owned by the other SG ), Granger, Murphy and Foster.

MiaDragon
01-15-2009, 07:16 PM
I think it is time to stop playing around and put our best lineup on the court. Rush, Graham, Roy, Josh - it is time you all sit down and watch, we need to win some game. (see I told you most of you won't like this)

Time to put Jeff into the starting lineup (O'Brien said before the game tonight that Jeff needs to play more) along with Ford (once he gets healthy - which he isn't right now) Dunleavy, Granger and Murphy. Use Jack, Daniels (when he gets healthy) and Rasho as the primary bench players with Diener as a spot player. That team will start to win and with the schedule as easy as it is after next week - I think we can still make the playoffs - but more importantly, we can play good basketball.

Really, I suspect O'Brien is thinking the same thing I am and if we can get the top 8 healthy, we'll see what I am suggesting

Why would we sacrifice the future (by delaying the development of our young guys) to try and squeeze into the playoffs. All Iíve been hearing when we loose is ďGeeze weíre rebuilding this year!?!Ē. Even if healthy I cant see us making it past the 1st round so I cant see that as any sort of an accomplishment, actually quite the opposite.

CableKC
01-15-2009, 07:40 PM
Why would we sacrifice the future (by delaying the development of our young guys) to try and squeeze into the playoffs. All I’ve been hearing when we loose is “Geeze we’re rebuilding this year!?!”. Even if healthy I cant see us making it past the 1st round so I cant see that as any sort of an accomplishment, actually quite the opposite.
I don't see how losing in the 1st round of the Playoffs is less of an accomplishment then missing it entirely.

Is it so much of a "black or white" issue where we should try for the Playoffs ONLY if we can make it to the next round or we shouldn't even bother and aim for the Lottery?

For now.....without seeing how well we do without a healthy lineup....I don't think that we should give up yet and aim for the Lottery. But I still think that winning games by putting out the best lineup out there breeds confidence in the Team as a whole...which is important to carry on into the next season.

On top of that.....even if it's a quick 4 game Playoff series, by simply playing in the Playoffs, the experience and confidence that it builds in a young team is important. I'm not saying that the we would do as well as the Hawks did this year compared to last....but you can look at them as an example of what Playoff Experience can do for a young team.

BTW....if having BRush and Hibbert out there comprises the "best lineup", I'm all for playing them....but the truth is that we have better players ahead of them in the rotation.

But truth be told....for now, it's way too early to decide what the right answer is on the question of "Lottery or Playoffs".

Justin Tyme
01-15-2009, 07:40 PM
Even if healthy I cant see us making it past the 1st round so I cant see that as any sort of an accomplishment, actually quite the opposite.

The accomplishment maybe the jingling of the till. Maybe ownership would like the extra money the playoff games would provide, plus it would be a selling point next year when trying to sell season tickets. They can tout being back in the playoffs with a team of milk drinkers. PR and the change of the image from the past.

count55
01-15-2009, 09:28 PM
I think it is time to stop playing around and put our best lineup on the court. Rush, Graham, Roy, Josh - it is time you all sit down and watch, we need to win some game. (see I told you most of you won't like this)

Time to put Jeff into the starting lineup (O'Brien said before the game tonight that Jeff needs to play more) along with Ford (once he gets healthy - which he isn't right now) Dunleavy, Granger and Murphy. Use Jack, Daniels (when he gets healthy) and Rasho as the primary bench players with Diener as a spot player. That team will start to win and with the schedule as easy as it is after next week - I think we can still make the playoffs - but more importantly, we can play good basketball.

Really, I suspect O'Brien is thinking the same thing I am and if we can get the top 8 healthy, we'll see what I am suggesting

I saw this thread earlier, but was on my blackberry, so I couldn't read it fully. Since then, it's exploded, and between the 11 hour workdays and the 4 hours in a car, I'm too tired right now to go through all of the posts.

I was listening to Obie's show on the way home tonight. It sounds like Buck is right, and that Obie is thinking the same way.

These are the highlights (strictly from memory):

He said he couldn't call Dunleavy a good defender, but he could call him an excellent team defender. The decisions were much better and the unit functioned much better with Dunleavy.

He said what defensive success we've had lately occurred with Foster on the floor. He said Jeff was an interesting guy, and he "does some stuff on the floor that we both laugh about", but that he was vibrant and energetic, but that we needed to play him more.

He said that no one had demonstrated that they deserved the starting Center job (meaning both Rasho and Roy). He said they'd go small more, meaning Foster at C.

He said that Graham has gotten better defensively, but he's still not where they want him.

He said that he probably wouldn't go beyond a 9-man rotation. Mentioned that Travis didn't play last night because both Jack and Ford were playing at a very high level, and he didn't see a spot to play a third point guard.

He said that Quis is not going to be back tomorrow, and he sounded like he didn't think he was going to be back any time soon. He said he's not made the progress they hoped, and it's been so long since he practiced that he...(I kind of missed the rest, but it was clear that Obie did not expect Daniels back for awhile.)

He also said that Quis was "solid" as a starter for us, but the context of that comment escapes me at the moment.

He said he was very disappointed to see that TJ was in a lot of back pain today. He said it's tough, that Ford played less than 30 minutes, but "couldn't stand up straight" today.

He said he was happy with the defense for the last 7 quarters. He talked about units and decisions, and a number of things that lead me to believe that my comments in the "banging head on tv" thread might be pretty on the mark.

He wrapped it up by saying that he thought they were going to need to "get Dunleavy on the floor, and force feed some minutes to Foster."

All that being said, and without going through whatever arguments have occurred in this thread, I have the following POV's:

- I agree that we should try to win games. I don't see a great deal of value of just throwing guys out there to be bad.
- However, I think that Hibbert has shown relatively steady improvement, and I think he should keep getting 12-18 minutes, but I'm OK with the occasional DNP-CD for matchups, like GS and last night. However, I don't think he should be benched out of hand.
- Rasho should be minute limited, probably to 12-18. He simply wears down too quickly. This also argues for continuing to give Roy minutes.
- I still think Rush will be a good player, but if he's the odd man out, I'm OK with it. He's gotten plenty of minutes, and he hasn't made particularly strong progress. Graham has been deserving of the minutes ahead of him. (BTW...I think we'll have at least a couple of weeks before Quis is back, so he'll still get a few minutes for a while...he'll have a shot to move ahead of Graham.)
- I am concerned about a law of diminishing returns with Jeff. I think he's likely to wear down physically and be less of a contributor if he's consistently plays more than 30 minutes. I am also disappointed that McBob likely won't get a look soon.

I guess what I'd say is this: I want to try to make the playoffs, but I actually believe that minutes for Hibbert and McBob will help us towards that goal. I am also hopeful that Rush can sort things out.

One thing about making the playoffs, though: we'll probably need to play between 9 and 11 games over .500 for the balance of the season to have a shot. That's probably winning 75-80% of our home games and 45-55% of our road games. It's a very longshot.

(Apologies if this repeats stuff that was already said.)

Peck
01-15-2009, 09:37 PM
I saw this thread earlier, but was on my blackberry, so I couldn't read it fully. Since then, it's exploded, and between the 11 hour workdays and the 4 hours in a car, I'm too tired right now to go through all of the posts.

I was listening to Obie's show on the way home tonight. It sounds like Buck is right, and that Obie is thinking the same way.

These are the highlights (strictly from memory):

He said he couldn't call Dunleavy a good defender, but he could call him an excellent team defender. The decisions were much better and the unit functioned much better with Dunleavy.

He said what defensive success we've had lately occurred with Foster on the floor. He said Jeff was an interesting guy, and he "does some stuff on the floor that we both laugh about", but that he was vibrant and energetic, but that we needed to play him more.

He said that no one had demonstrated that they deserved the starting Center job (meaning both Rasho and Roy). He said they'd go small more, meaning Foster at C.

He said that Graham has gotten better defensively, but he's still not where they want him.

He said that he probably wouldn't go beyond a 9-man rotation. Mentioned that Travis didn't play last night because both Jack and Ford were playing at a very high level, and he didn't see a spot to play a third point guard.

He said that Quis is not going to be back tomorrow, and he sounded like he didn't think he was going to be back any time soon. He said he's not made the progress they hoped, and it's been so long since he practiced that he...(I kind of missed the rest, but it was clear that Obie did not expect Daniels back for awhile.)

He also said that Quis was "solid" as a starter for us, but the context of that comment escapes me at the moment.

He said he was very disappointed to see that TJ was in a lot of back pain today. He said it's tough, that Ford played less than 30 minutes, but "couldn't stand up straight" today.

He said he was happy with the defense for the last 7 quarters. He talked about units and decisions, and a number of things that lead me to believe that my comments in the "banging head on tv" thread might be pretty on the mark.

He wrapped it up by saying that he thought they were going to need to "get Dunleavy on the floor, and force feed some minutes to Foster."

All that being said, and without going through whatever arguments have occurred in this thread, I have the following POV's:

- I agree that we should try to win games. I don't see a great deal of value of just throwing guys out there to be bad.
- However, I think that Hibbert has shown relatively steady improvement, and I think he should keep getting 12-18 minutes, but I'm OK with the occasional DNP-CD for matchups, like GS and last night. However, I don't think he should be benched out of hand.
- Rasho should be minute limited, probably to 12-18. He simply wears down too quickly. This also argues for continuing to give Roy minutes.
- I still think Rush will be a good player, but if he's the odd man out, I'm OK with it. He's gotten plenty of minutes, and he hasn't made particularly strong progress. Graham has been deserving of the minutes ahead of him. (BTW...I think we'll have at least a couple of weeks before Quis is back, so he'll still get a few minutes for a while...he'll have a shot to move ahead of Graham.)
- I am concerned about a law of diminishing returns with Jeff. I think he's likely to wear down physically and be less of a contributor if he's consistently plays more than 30 minutes. I am also disappointed that McBob likely won't get a look soon.

I guess what I'd say is this: I want to try to make the playoffs, but I actually believe that minutes for Hibbert and McBob will help us towards that goal. I am also hopeful that Rush can sort things out.

One thing about making the playoffs, though: we'll probably need to play between 9 and 11 games over .500 for the balance of the season to have a shot. That's probably winning 75-80% of our home games and 45-55% of our road games. It's a very longshot.

(Apologies if this repeats stuff that was already said.)

This is all very very dissapointing to hear.

Frankly I suspected this all along and I was very much afraid that once Mike came back that this would occur.

Well, if we are in win now mode then I think that he should be held to that standard. So in other words anything less than a .500% will be considered a huge failure. I am not talking about the overall record because I don't know if they can make that up or not, but from here forward we better be winning at least as much as we lose.

The excuse of rebuilding season is now out the window if they are going to shorten the rotation to players who are already developed and established.

flox
01-15-2009, 09:40 PM
Wow, I can't believe some people want to fire Obie. I agree with everything he says, and I agree with most of what Count has said. I give us a slightly better chance at the playoffs though, considering what Hollinger playoff odds has us at(22%), the weaker schedule coming up (we lead the league with an opposing SOS of .540), and the team finally getting healthy.

Unclebuck
01-15-2009, 09:50 PM
This is all very very dissapointing to hear.

Frankly I suspected this all along and I was very much afraid that once Mike came back that this would occur.

Well, if we are in win now mode then I think that he should be held to that standard. So in other words anything less than a .500% will be considered a huge failure. I am not talking about the overall record because I don't know if they can make that up or not, but from here forward we better be winning at least as much as we lose.

The excuse of rebuilding season is now out the window if they are going to shorten the rotation to players who are already developed and established.

They will be .500 the rest of the way, assuming no major injuries ot the core players.

It was a geat show by O'Brien tonight, I agreed 100% with everything he said. I liked how he said that Rush needs to earn his minutes and he hasn't to this point. I liked that he said Roy wouldn't have a chance to guard Okur or Sheed. I liked that he said the offense really suffers when Josh is on the floor and that his defense has a long, long way to go. I loved how he said that Roy picking up all those fouls is hurting the team.

I guess Jeff didn't earn his starting spot by Christmas per usual, but he has before the midpoint of the season. Once again Jeff has risen like the Phoenix, coaches come and go, big guys come and go, but Jeff always regains his rightful spot.

Hopefully someone recorded it or it will be on Pacers.com

He talked about how the team needs more mentally and physically tough players and that Bird is 100% with him on winning now.

I'm excited about the second half of the season. I just hope daniels can play again and Ford gets healthy and we'll see what this team can be

I am 100%

Bball
01-15-2009, 10:09 PM
I think Foster needs traded because we need to get past the crutch of falling back on Foster. There's a reason Foster has to 'rise' from the ashes.

Foster's 'hustle' is not nearly the standout it was now that he's playing alongside other players that are hustling. His defense IMHO is one of the most over-rated things on this forum. ...And his offense? It's offensive. When you play beside a lazy player like JO it's not hard to look like a hustle player.

I agree Foster tries... and he has his good points. But Foster is far from the answer to what ails this team. Somewhere else I said Foster is a situational player... and we need to limit those situations.

IMHO Foster makes a far better whipping boy than Murphy. ...But that's just me I guess.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 10:17 PM
I have a question, does anybody knows if the pacers can trade Eddie Jones contract? does are another 2mil they can use to make a trade

flox
01-15-2009, 10:18 PM
I would love to see Foster get traded for something for the future, as much as I love Foster Rasho is a decent option and gives Hibbert some more PT, so he can average 6 fouls a game. Maybe then we can even see what Baston is made of.

BRushWithDeath
01-15-2009, 10:22 PM
They will be .500 the rest of the way, assuming no major injuries ot the core players.

It was a geat show by O'Brien tonight, I agreed 100% with everything he said. I liked how he said that Rush needs to earn his minutes and he hasn't to this point. I liked that he said Roy wouldn't have a chance to guard Okur or Sheed. I liked that he said the offense really suffers when Josh is on the floor and that his defense has a long, long way to go. I loved how he said that Roy picking up all those fouls is hurting the team.

I guess Jeff didn't earn his starting spot by Christmas per usual, but he has before the midpoint of the season. Once again Jeff has risen like the Phoenix, coaches come and go, big guys come and go, but Jeff always regains his rightful spot.

He talked about how the team needs more mentally and physically tough players and that Bird is 100% with him on winning now.


If the team isn't .500 the rest of the way this season is a complete and utter waste.

You liked that he said Roy had no chance to guard Okur or Sheed. Well neither did any of those on the floor. You might as well play the guy who can score since nobody could defend.

You liked that he said the offense really suffers when Josh is on the floor and his defense has a very long way to go. Foster is far more detrimental offensively. And Josh has been far and away our best interior defender.

I agree with the Rush statement. He hasn't earned his minutes. However, perhaps if he weren't so worried about making a mistake and getting yanked he'd play better. But right now, I agree that Graham is playing better.

I don't want O'Brien fired. I never have. But I don't agree with everything he says. And his supposed "team defense" is a joke, just like his "rotations". I put rotations in quotation marks because there is no rhyme or reason for most of what he does. Again, I'm not part of the fire O'Brien camp. But he's off base.

flox
01-15-2009, 10:47 PM
Really? I think that Obie's rotation is pretty clear, you play for our team, you will get x amount of minutes, no more, no less, unless there is foul trouble. I always thought it was pretty easy to follow. As for our defense, we didn't have Dunleavy or Ford for a while, we lost Marquis for a while (veteran plus good length and quickness), and we lost JO and replaced it him with 12 minutes of Roy Hibbert (good shotblocker, but fouls more and is a poor post defender otherwise). Our team is doing ok defensively considering the setbacks we have had and the fact that we have medicore defenders playing on our team.

I loved the defensive effort last night of Ford-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster last night. If that continues our defense will be fine.

count55
01-15-2009, 10:49 PM
I have a question, does anybody knows if the pacers can trade Eddie Jones contract? does are another 2mil they can use to make a trade

No, he's retired, and, IIRC bought out. It's dead.

vnzla81
01-15-2009, 10:51 PM
No, he's retired, and, IIRC bought out. It's dead.

thanks

BlueNGold
01-15-2009, 10:54 PM
You liked that he said the offense really suffers when Josh is on the floor and his defense has a very long way to go. Foster is far more detrimental offensively. And Josh has been far and away our best interior defender.

I agree with the Rush statement. He hasn't earned his minutes. However, perhaps if he weren't so worried about making a mistake and getting yanked he'd play better. But right now, I agree that Graham is playing better.

I don't want O'Brien fired. I never have. But I don't agree with everything he says. And his supposed "team defense" is a joke, just like his "rotations".

Great post. This captures some very important points, is concise and very accurate. It's a shame JOb disagrees with this.

It's a bigger shame he won't even experiment with playing Josh McRoberts more minutes, particularly since our record is far better with him on the floor for more than just garbage minutes.

Hicks
01-15-2009, 11:00 PM
I have a question, does anybody knows if the pacers can trade Eddie Jones contract? does are another 2mil they can use to make a trade

I think we bought him out, so no.

BRushWithDeath
01-15-2009, 11:02 PM
Great post. This captures some very important points, is concise and very accurate. It's a shame JOb disagrees with this.

It's a bigger shame he won't even experiment with playing Josh McRoberts more minutes, particularly since our record is far better with him on the floor for more than just garbage minutes.

Another concern is how could McRoberts not be starting to get frustrated? Granted his body language hasn't said anything to indicate that he is, but as a player to make a contribution nearly every time you hit the floor and seeing the players in front of you struggle mightily would have to weigh on your psyche. So far he's looked like a great teammate but I just don't see how he couldn't be upset with his lack of time. I just hope this doesn't cause him to start playing ultra conservatively on either end if he ever does play again.

BlueNGold
01-15-2009, 11:08 PM
Another concern is how could McRoberts not be starting to get frustrated? Granted his body language hasn't said anything to indicate that he is, but as a player to make a contribution nearly every time you hit the floor and seeing the players in front of you struggle mightily would have to weigh on your psyche. So far he's looked like a great teammate but I just don't see how he couldn't be upset with his lack of time. I just hope this doesn't cause him to start playing ultra conservatively on either end if he ever does play again.

I could be very wrong about this, but I get the sense he's just pleased to be in Indy...close to Pizza King...:D

Seriously, he brings a couple things to the floor the Pacers need desperately.....but it doesn't seem to matter.

Roaming Gnome
01-15-2009, 11:11 PM
Another concern is how could McRoberts not be starting to get frustrated? Granted his body language hasn't said anything to indicate that he is, but as a player to make a contribution nearly every time you hit the floor and seeing the players in front of you struggle mightily would have to weigh on your psyche. So far he's looked like a great teammate but I just don't see how he couldn't be upset with his lack of time. I just hope this doesn't cause him to start playing ultra conservatively on either end if he ever does play again.

I think the only thing that probably stops him from being frustrated to the point of doing something foolish is that he "is" in the NBA and not in Fort Wayne. I just wish McRobberts got the same consistent burn as Roy got for a period of time. I'd like to see what we have other then the couple cameos that we've been privy to.

I've liked what I've seen out of both Roy and McBob in short stretches, I just don't understand why those short stretches cant be a little more consistent?

flox
01-15-2009, 11:13 PM
I don't particularly see McRoberts upset with a lack of PT, this is a kid that got drafted in the 2nd round, and was stuck in the D-League for year. PT is not an issue for this player.

In addition, going by +/-, it seems that McRoberts is a negative on the court, and that he gives up more than what he produces. His shooting % is also really low. I love his energy, and think given time he could be a poor man's Foster, but he still needs a bit of development. The kid is only 21, he's a senior in college right now. Him even playing is a success story, just like Hibbert being in the rotation for consistent 12 minutes in his rookie year on a fast paced team.

Peck
01-16-2009, 12:29 AM
Well I didn't listen to O'Brien on the radio so I will go with what U.B. and count have said.

So if this is true, then from tonight forward we are in win now mode.

Anything less than .500% ball, barring any injury to the core or something else that is unforseen, should be grounds for calling for O'Briens job.

He will no longer, by his own statements (per both of you), have the excuse of saying that we are building. I realize that he never did use that statement so let me put it this way, his supporters will no longer have that as a crutch.

I was ambivilant about him before tonight, I thought he did some things good and some things bad but I was willing to play along this year and even next because I thought the point was to build for something else.

But if he litterally is going to limit the players to Granger, Ford, Jack, Dunleavy, Foster, Murphy, Daniels, Rasho and Graham then unless he wins with that group I will no longer be ambivilant towards him.

In fact I will go back to my original stance after the Phoenix game.

Brad8888
01-16-2009, 01:03 AM
A coaching staff has a duty to maximize both current and future results. If shortening the rotation will achieve both ends in a tangible way, the fans, including those on both sides of these discussions here, will come around and give a resounding approval.

Time, and results by the end of the season, will tell. Hopefully our potential players of the future will be extremely patient and not beg to be allowed to develop elsewhere, causing us to go through an even more protracted rebuilding process.

count55
01-16-2009, 05:47 AM
Well I didn't listen to O'Brien on the radio so I will go with what U.B. and count have said.

So if this is true, then from tonight forward we are in win now mode.

Anything less than .500% ball, barring any injury to the core or something else that is unforseen, should be grounds for calling for O'Briens job.

He will no longer, by his own statements (per both of you), have the excuse of saying that we are building. I realize that he never did use that statement so let me put it this way, his supporters will no longer have that as a crutch.

I was ambivilant about him before tonight, I thought he did some things good and some things bad but I was willing to play along this year and even next because I thought the point was to build for something else.

But if he litterally is going to limit the players to Granger, Ford, Jack, Dunleavy, Foster, Murphy, Daniels, Rasho and Graham then unless he wins with that group I will no longer be ambivilant towards him.

In fact I will go back to my original stance after the Phoenix game.

Now, he did not say that specifically (or at least I didn't hear him say that). He only said his rotation would be 9, generally.

However, otherwise, I don't have any objection to your POV.

BlueNGold
01-16-2009, 06:52 PM
We have 43 games remaining and only 14 wins. If we go .500 the rest of the way, we will wind up with 35 or 36 wins and probably be on the outside looking in. Last year the 8th seed was Atlanta with 37 wins...so to squeek into the playoffs, we need to finish the season better than .500.

IMO, if we cannot go .500 over the next 20 games it will be time to give the rookies time. ...so for right now it's not a terrible experiment although it's not what I would do because I simply doubt we have the horses to go better than .500 the rest of the way, particularly with Dunleavy at 50-70%.