PDA

View Full Version : 6:22 in the third quarter



Peck
03-20-2009, 08:57 PM
Reporting from the game. Jack and ford had to be seperated on the bench due to fighting. Jack left the bench and has not returned. I'm on my phone sorry for the format. Does anyone watching on tv know what happened

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 08:58 PM
I hate to say it was just a matter of time, but I think it's probably true. Ford has never wanted to share time.

Evan_The_Dude
03-20-2009, 08:58 PM
Oh my

kester99
03-20-2009, 09:12 PM
I saw no mention of it on the telecast.

Maybe Jack compared Diener's and TJ's plus/minus.

Unclebuck
03-20-2009, 09:36 PM
I hate to say it was just a matter of time, but I think it's probably true. Ford has never wanted to share time.

How do you have any idea that is what it is about


There was nothing about it on tv

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 09:38 PM
I have no idea what caused this particular incident, it doesn't change my belief that I doubt the relationship between Jack and Ford is sunshine and lollipops. We knew Ford didn't like sharing time when we acquired. Whether they mentioned it on tv or not, it must have created a big enough scene that Peck felt the need to post it right then and there from his phone.

Speed
03-20-2009, 09:40 PM
i'LL go back and look, I DVR'd it.... Nothing, at TO at 6:22 just like Peck says. Jack looks back at TJ says something empahtically on the way to the bench for the TO, TJ responds emphatically. You could see they were pissed, but what happen was it really like almost a FIST FIGHT or just verbal?????

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 09:40 PM
I also know they were both subbed out at that exact moment for Diener and Rush. Probably disagreed over something that occurred on court. Says a lot that Jack did not return. IMO, probably a symptom of a larger problem between the two.

Unclebuck
03-20-2009, 09:43 PM
Why would Ford be mad about Jack taking his time - because he isn't. Jack and Ford are both startng and Ford is finishing. Makes no sense

Lord Helmet
03-20-2009, 09:44 PM
Great.

Don't let the casuals see this.

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 09:46 PM
Why would Ford be mad about Jack taking his time - because he isn't. Jack and Ford are both startng and Ford is finishing. Makes no sense

It makes some sense if Ford wants to be THE point guard.

Maybe they were both mad Rush makes them both look pedestrian defensively already? I don't know. Could be anything. I'm just speculating. I doubt that it's just a one time thing though. One time disagreements between teammates happen a lot. When one guy has to leave the bench and go to the locker room over something like this it suggests that it has been brewing for a while.

Shade
03-20-2009, 10:05 PM
Awesome.

NapTonius Monk
03-20-2009, 10:15 PM
You know, I noticed some pedestrian tension (seemingly on Jack's part) at the Utah game. Ford had just taken a somewhat tough shot, and Jack came down the court with a look of disdain. Then he pursed his lips and looked over at the bench, shaking his head. I made a small mental note of it, but didn't think too much about it until now. For y'all that frequent the games, have you noticed this type of thing between these two more frequently than we've been hearing about?

Doug
03-20-2009, 10:28 PM
I thought Ford was pretty awful tonight. I know he hit that three, but the rest of his game was pretty poor. Out of control on offense, kept getting blown by on defense. Not sure if he was a little on edge because of his play or what. I didn't think Jack was much better.

imawhat
03-20-2009, 10:32 PM
You know, I noticed some pedestrian tension (seemingly on Jack's part) at the Utah game. Ford had just taken a somewhat tough shot, and Jack came down the court with a look of disdain. Then he pursed his lips and looked over at the bench, shaking his head. I made a small mental note of it, but didn't think too much about it until now. For y'all that frequent the games, have you noticed this type of thing between these two more frequently than we've been hearing about?

I noticed an incident during the Jazz game as well. It appears TJ has disconnected himself from the team. I noticed it in person when we played the Clippers.

But who knows what happened tonight?? Jack is extremely emotional, and he was the one "tossed", so he may have crossed the line.

Can anyone post a clip of the game from 8:00 to 6:22 in the third?

count55
03-20-2009, 10:33 PM
They mentioned this on the post-game show. Jack was "excused" from the game. Ford apologized in the locker (Jack was not in the vicinity) for "what they said, and how they acted." Kevin Lee didn't see it, but a caller described it as Jack getting angry, yelling at Ford, having to be restrained, then, IIRC, yelling at Lester Conner. Lee said that's how it had been described to him by several other people as well.

O'Brien was asked about it, and said didn't want it to linger, so he "excused" Jarrett for the rest of the game.

Peck, was it you who said something about Jack's body language in the Portland game.

TJ was largely horrible (again) tonight, and I had been worried about the third quarter, because that's when the last two games blew up...Ford had hit a three, but he had missed his three previous shots and had a turnover, and Dallas had pushed it to 10. IIRC, Ford had just thrown the ball to Roy in a double team with clock running down, resulting in a shot clock violation.

Obie replaced Roy, Ford, & Jack in that timeout, and, now that I think of it, Roy was expressing frustration when he came to the bench. At first, I thought he was reacting negatively to being taken out, but then it seemed (for some reason) that it was more a reaction to getting stuck with the ball in a bad situation. However, now I wonder if it was tangential to this.

The team responded and played relatively well the rest of the game, but this is troubling.

Doug
03-20-2009, 10:47 PM
This is going to seem like a really simplistic answer: They've lost 4 (now 5) in a row. They should be getting a little "chippy".

On the negative side, I heard a comment from the guy behind me tonight. Something like "the more I see Ford play, the more he reminds of Tinsley."

imawhat
03-20-2009, 10:51 PM
Lightning made a play, and then we had thunder.

count55
03-20-2009, 10:54 PM
This is going to seem like a really simplistic answer: They've lost 4 (now 5) in a row. They should be getting a little "chippy".

On the negative side, I heard a comment from the guy behind me tonight. Something like "the more I see Ford play, the more he reminds of Tinsley."

Well, I didn't see it myself, and I clearly don't know any specifics. I haven't been happy with TJ's play, but I haven't gotten the impression that he's been a problem in the locker room.

I like Jarrett a lot, and it seems to me that he may have done something possibly understandable, but over the line tonight. I understand the frustration, but, until I know details, I'm going to be a little troubled.

Kemo
03-20-2009, 10:57 PM
This is going to seem like a really simplistic answer: They've lost 4 (now 5) in a row. They should be getting a little "chippy".

On the negative side, I heard a comment from the guy behind me tonight. Something like "the more I see Ford play, the more he reminds of Tinsley."



I said that in the back court thread as well..
There is just something about TJ , that makes me think of all the boneheaded on-court things I didn't like Tinsley doing that he done ..

Can't quite put my finger on it though , if it's the sometimes being selfish ... wanting to be "the man" and take over a game.. and it end up being detrimental to the loss that subsequently happens... I dunno .. Maybe it's also the NONSTOP dribbling but doin a whole lot of nothin' a fraction of the time lol .. hard saying..

All I know is I am yelling at my TV screen at TJ for the same things I yelled at Tinsley for..



But I don't like it ..

I really really wanna like Ford , but his play is just making it harder and harder for me to not get frustrated... ESPECIALLY when I personally think Diener , IMHO , is 10x the "point guard" that TJ has shown himself to be thus far...

I dunno I'm bouts to bang my head on my desk a few more times...lolz

.
.:-o:-o

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 10:58 PM
Jack has been an extremely emotional player ever since his days at GA Tech. Ford has always seemed to me to be a bit quiet. Not a vocal guy, but someone who can let his emotions stew. Jack wears them on his sleeve. However, AFAIK, for as emotional as Jack is on the court I've never heard of or seen his emotions overflow off the court, including the bench. He's usually able to settle down as soon as he comes out.

Ford is a lot like Tinsley and has been for much of his career. They both have areas where they are incredible (Ford speed and quickness, Tinsley ball handling), but are largely average everywhere else. Both also have the fatal flaw of poor decision making at the end of the game. The area where you were hoping Ford would be an improvement was reliability (which so far he has been) and in the locker room (which now we have questions about). It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Doug
03-20-2009, 10:59 PM
Honestly, I doubt there was much to it.

Sounds like they had an issue in the heat of the game. Jack got overly upset. And them JOB just said "I'm not dealing with this. We've got a game to try and win. Jack, go to your room."

Makes sense to me.

Unclebuck
03-20-2009, 11:02 PM
Honestly, I doubt there was much to it.

Sounds like they had an issue in the heat of the game. Jack got overly upset. And them JOB just said "I'm not dealing with this. We've got a game to try and win. Jack, go to your room."

Makes sense to me.

Thank you and I agree

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 11:03 PM
Honestly, I doubt there was much to it.

Sounds like they had an issue in the heat of the game. Jack got overly upset. And them JOB just said "I'm not dealing with this. We've got a game to try and win. Jack, go to your room."

Makes sense to me.

How often does that happen though? Players have issues with their teammates and their coaches all the time, but the rarely get sent away in the middle of a game. I don't know, even if we get fed some fluff about this, I think it's something to keep an eye on. Even if it is largely an afterthought considering Jack only has 11 games left as a Pacer.

count55
03-20-2009, 11:08 PM
Honestly, I doubt there was much to it.

Sounds like they had an issue in the heat of the game. Jack got overly upset. And them JOB just said "I'm not dealing with this. We've got a game to try and win. Jack, go to your room."

Makes sense to me.


Thank you and I agree


How often does that happen though? Players have issues with their teammates and their coaches all the time, but the rarely get sent away in the middle of a game. I don't know, even if we get fed some fluff about this, I think it's something to keep an eye on. Even if it is largely an afterthought considering Jack only has 11 games left as a Pacer.

Well, the last time something like this happened, IIRC, was in Cleveland and it was Stephen Jackson being "sent to his room." Kicking a key player, one that is clearly one of the coach's and the GM's favorites, out of a game, seems to me to be a relatively sizable deal.

However, I'm about 85% sure we're going to re-sign Jack

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 11:10 PM
Really? I can't imagine we want to spend money on anyone at this point.

I agree with you about this being more than just a non-issue though.

Unclebuck
03-20-2009, 11:10 PM
Not that uncommon around the NBA to have some sort of heat of the oment blow-up on the bench.

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 11:11 PM
Not that uncommon around the NBA to have some sort of heat of the oment blow-up on the bench.

Right UB, but how often does it result in a player getting sent to the locker room? My feeling on this specifically is that this had to be a pretty sizable confrontation for Peck to feel he needed to post about it right then and there.

Kuq_e_Zi91
03-20-2009, 11:13 PM
I think it had to be a pretty big issue to send someone to the locker room. It just doesn't make sense to lose a player that can contribute like Jack over something insignificant. Especially when you're in a close game and fighting for the playoffs.

There's something going on... and I don't like it. I hope it doesn't impact our decision on Jack this summer.

count55
03-20-2009, 11:18 PM
Let me clarify, I don't think it's an end-of-the-world, earth shattering event, leading to a knife fight in the locker room while the rest of the team dances around them to the score of West Side Story.

I just think it's not a good thing at all, and I am anxious to see how the team responds.

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 11:19 PM
Let me clarify, I don't think it's an end-of-the-world, earth shattering event, leading to a knife fight in the locker room while the rest of the team dances around them to the score of West Side Story.

I just think it's not a good thing at all, and I am anxious to see how the team responds.

I was envisioning more of an Anchorman style alleyway brawl where Stanko shows up and kills Erazem Lorbek with a tridant.

Then we all learn to get along when Jack returns from exile to save TJ from a bear while Diener gets both of his arms ripped off.

count55
03-20-2009, 11:28 PM
I was envisioning more of an Anchorman style alleyway brawl where Stanko shows up and kills Erazem Lorbek with a tridant.

Then we all learn to get along when Jack returns from exile to save TJ from a bear while Diener gets both of his arms ripped off.

You have no idea how much it bothers me that you came up with that reference (from a movie I quote all the time), while I come up with something from '60's musical theatre.

You know, as I type, I realize I just have to do something with that window treatment. It is ghastly.

Peck
03-20-2009, 11:33 PM
This was pretty much what the bench looked like.:D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RfMVu-bfng&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RfMVu-bfng&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

count55
03-20-2009, 11:36 PM
This was pretty much what the bench looked like.:D

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RfMVu-bfng&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RfMVu-bfng&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You know, I always thought TJ looked a great deal like Randy Quaid.

Peck
03-20-2009, 11:38 PM
They mentioned this on the post-game show. Jack was "excused" from the game. Ford apologized in the locker (Jack was not in the vicinity) for "what they said, and how they acted." Kevin Lee didn't see it, but a caller described it as Jack getting angry, yelling at Ford, having to be restrained, then, IIRC, yelling at Lester Conner. Lee said that's how it had been described to him by several other people as well.

O'Brien was asked about it, and said didn't want it to linger, so he "excused" Jarrett for the rest of the game.

Peck, was it you who said something about Jack's body language in the Portland game.
TJ was largely horrible (again) tonight, and I had been worried about the third quarter, because that's when the last two games blew up...Ford had hit a three, but he had missed his three previous shots and had a turnover, and Dallas had pushed it to 10. IIRC, Ford had just thrown the ball to Roy in a double team with clock running down, resulting in a shot clock violation.

Obie replaced Roy, Ford, & Jack in that timeout, and, now that I think of it, Roy was expressing frustration when he came to the bench. At first, I thought he was reacting negatively to being taken out, but then it seemed (for some reason) that it was more a reaction to getting stuck with the ball in a bad situation. However, now I wonder if it was tangential to this.

The team responded and played relatively well the rest of the game, but this is troubling.

Post # 33

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=45541&page=2

Peck
03-20-2009, 11:56 PM
Ok, now that I am back home I will give you a little more detail of what we saw.

Actually I was looking at the stat board when it started, Diamond Dave said to me "Are you seeing Jack and Ford get into it". Well of course at the time I was not because I was looking at the stats. However I immediately zero'd in on them, about 3-4 seconds had elapsed since this started.

Each of them were talking very very animatedly to each other as they left the court. At first I didn't think much of it as I've seen players get into each others stuff before, but this started to get differant real fast.

As they walked to the bench they were getting closer and closer together with Jack's face making all types of contortions and you could just see he was getting physically angry. T.J. had his back to us so we could not see his face but his body language was calm (as far as we could tell) Jack on the other hand was not. He was waving off Ford during the conversation and then began pointing at him.

As they got to the bench the Pacers assistant coach who does the Stats on the post game show (I don't know his name) stepped between them and T.J. kept walking to the bench Jack on the other hand became more angry at this point and threw his towel in Fords direction, I wouldn't say directly at T.J. just in his general vacinity. He then turned and acted like he was going to walk away but made a quick turn and balled up his fist and drew back (Think Ron Artest when he was over that kid in Detroit) like he was going to strike at T.J. This lasted all of about 5-6 seconds and then he released his fist and walked away. By this time T.J. was away from the bench talking with Lester Conner. All the while T.J. seems calm and cool.

Jack then puts on his warmup shirt and stands behind the huddle for a few min. All the while looking like he had just sucked on the sourest lemon on the planet.

T.J. sets on the bench, Jack goes to the end of the bench and I thought that would be the end of it. However at this time Jack starts pointing on the floor and saying more stuff to Ford. The game restarts and frankly I started watching it again. The next thing I know I look down and see that Jack is missing from the bench and I can't see him in the tunnel.

I called Gnome and Hicks up to see if they could see Jack in the tunnel on the bike or something but I couldn't get them to see. By the time they answered the team was at another time out and by that time it was clear Jarret was no longer on the bench.

I found out after the game that Jim kicked him off of the bench.

I guess we are just really lucky that this hasn't happened before with the way the season has gone. When the team is losing like we are it is kind of understandable that people will be chippy.

Just from what I could see though, T.J. may have been saying stuff that was upsetting Jack, however all of the physical nature of this confrontation was all Jack.

duke dynamite
03-20-2009, 11:59 PM
I was hoping that you were not going to call in after the game.

You did.

:P

Trader Joe
03-20-2009, 11:59 PM
I doubt Ford was innocent. Like I said he just seems more of the type that lets his emotions stew. I don't think this sounds like your average run of the mill incident though. Regardless of how you slice it.

PacerGuy
03-21-2009, 12:13 AM
However, I'm about 85% sure we're going to re-sign Jack

Up 10% from yesterdays post in another thread!
Jack might be the only stock on the rise these day's! ;)

duke dynamite
03-21-2009, 12:17 AM
I doubt Ford was innocent. Like I said he just seems more of the type that lets his emotions stew. I don't think this sounds like your average run of the mill incident though. Regardless of how you slice it.
I understand where you are coming from, but I have to reserve myself of making a judgement of character at this time.

Trader Joe
03-21-2009, 12:17 AM
I understand where you are coming from, but I have to reserve myself of making a judgement of character at this time.

Who's character am I judging?

Roaming Gnome
03-21-2009, 12:19 AM
Maybe it's a blessing in disguise. I don't think our point guard situation is anywhere near being fixed with these guys.

BlueNGold
03-21-2009, 12:23 AM
Maybe it's a blessing in disguise. I don't think our point guard situation is anywhere near being fixed with these guys.

Yep. Bad and badder. The only concern I have is the money the team is spending on them. I have not found either to be a substantial upgrade (if at all) over Diener...and I find that a bit surprising.

duke dynamite
03-21-2009, 12:25 AM
Who's character am I judging?
TJ's.

I'm not saying you are being negative or anything. I just think that this was one of those situations where a game becomes frustrating, and in turn you become frustrated with your teammates.

GrangerRanger
03-21-2009, 12:58 AM
I doubt Ford was innocent. Like I said he just seems more of the type that lets his emotions stew. I don't think this sounds like your average run of the mill incident though. Regardless of how you slice it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q4ZN2KOaN30&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q4ZN2KOaN30&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Trader Joe
03-21-2009, 12:59 AM
TJ's.

I'm not saying you are being negative or anything. I just think that this was one of those situations where a game becomes frustrating, and in turn you become frustrated with your teammates.

I'm not judging his character, just how he reacts to frustration. This is an opinion I have had about him ever since his days at Texas. He is a quiet guy who doesn't show a lot of emotion. This means that while it may appear he was extremely clam, that might not be the case. If I were judging his character, I'd be talking about him being a bad teammate or someone who doesn't care about winning which clearly wasn't my point.

ChicagoJ
03-21-2009, 01:00 AM
Tinsley looks better and better with each passing day.

:devil:

duke dynamite
03-21-2009, 01:03 AM
I'm not judging his character, just how he reacts to frustration. This is an opinion I have had about him ever since his days at Texas. He is a quiet guy who doesn't show a lot of emotion. This means that while it may appear he was extremely clam, that might not be the case. If I were judging his character, I'd be talking about him being a bad teammate or someone who doesn't care about winning which clearly wasn't my point.
Thanks.

Tinsley looks better and better with each passing day.

:devil:
And hell no.

count55
03-21-2009, 01:04 AM
Tinsley looks better and better with each passing day.

:devil:

No.

Not really.

Trader Joe
03-21-2009, 01:05 AM
Tinsley looks better and better with each passing day.

:devil:

I hear amputation looks better and better each day you live with gang green too.

LG33
03-21-2009, 01:07 AM
I think you are confusing the New York Jets with something equally horrible.

Trader Joe
03-21-2009, 01:09 AM
I think you are confusing the New York Jets with something equally horrible.

Yeah, well there's a reason I'm not going into the medical field.

Los Angeles
03-21-2009, 01:19 AM
Ok, now that I am back home I will give you a little more detail of what we saw.

Actually I was looking at the stat board when it started, Diamond Dave said to me "Are you seeing Jack and Ford get into it". Well of course at the time I was not because I was looking at the stats. However I immediately zero'd in on them, about 3-4 seconds had elapsed since this started.

Each of them were talking very very animatedly to each other as they left the court. At first I didn't think much of it as I've seen players get into each others stuff before, but this started to get differant real fast.

As they walked to the bench they were getting closer and closer together with Jack's face making all types of contortions and you could just see he was getting physically angry. T.J. had his back to us so we could not see his face but his body language was calm (as far as we could tell) Jack on the other hand was not. He was waving off Ford during the conversation and then began pointing at him.

As they got to the bench the Pacers assistant coach who does the Stats on the post game show (I don't know his name) stepped between them and T.J. kept walking to the bench Jack on the other hand became more angry at this point and threw his towel in Fords direction, I wouldn't say directly at T.J. just in his general vacinity. He then turned and acted like he was going to walk away but made a quick turn and balled up his fist and drew back (Think Ron Artest when he was over that kid in Detroit) like he was going to strike at T.J. This lasted all of about 5-6 seconds and then he released his fist and walked away. By this time T.J. was away from the bench talking with Lester Conner. All the while T.J. seems calm and cool.

Jack then puts on his warmup shirt and stands behind the huddle for a few min. All the while looking like he had just sucked on the sourest lemon on the planet.

T.J. sets on the bench, Jack goes to the end of the bench and I thought that would be the end of it. However at this time Jack starts pointing on the floor and saying more stuff to Ford. The game restarts and frankly I started watching it again. The next thing I know I look down and see that Jack is missing from the bench and I can't see him in the tunnel.

I called Gnome and Hicks up to see if they could see Jack in the tunnel on the bike or something but I couldn't get them to see. By the time they answered the team was at another time out and by that time it was clear Jarret was no longer on the bench.

I found out after the game that Jim kicked him off of the bench.

I guess we are just really lucky that this hasn't happened before with the way the season has gone. When the team is losing like we are it is kind of understandable that people will be chippy.

Just from what I could see though, T.J. may have been saying stuff that was upsetting Jack, however all of the physical nature of this confrontation was all Jack.

We can criticize Ford's play all we want, but don't we want players who can keep their cool under duress?

And before someone fires in with "I'd rather have players with heart" I beg you to consider that players can have both. It's not an either/or thing.

PacersRule
03-21-2009, 01:35 AM
Wow, I was at the game tonight but didn't realize it. No wonder Jack wasn't on the court in the fourth....
While I was in line for nachos tonight, a lady and a man were chatting behind me. They were talking about the "Reggie Era" and how much they missed those times. I know it's hard, but the Pacers should try to maintain their positive attitudes. These kinds of arguments just adds to the uncertainties of the future...I just hope it's nothing big and they will talk it out and move on.

imawhat
03-21-2009, 01:41 AM
We can criticize Ford's play all we want, but don't we want players who can keep their cool under duress?

And before someone fires in with "I'd rather have players with heart" I beg you to consider that players can have both. It's not an either/or thing.

I wouldn't call botching 80% of 2-on-1 fast breaks "keeping it cool under duress".

I love that Jarrett plays with heart, but he definitely has a tendency to go overboard with his emotions. I can't remember the opponent, but we were up late and Jarrett had to be restrained from getting a technical that would've tied the game.

Either way, this was probably a long time coming.

imawhat
03-21-2009, 02:05 AM
According to Mike Wells' blog, this has been brewing for a while.

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/03/some_drama.html

cinotimz
03-21-2009, 02:16 AM
Well it only stands to reason there would be some personality conflicts with all the new players on the team. Cant expect everyone to get along peachy. Cant help but think this probably makes it pretty certain that at least one of the two wont be on the roster come the start of next season.

Which means should be another interesting off-season to see the continuing evolution of the team.

Kuq_e_Zi91
03-21-2009, 02:28 AM
According to Mike Wells' blog, this has been brewing for a while.

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2009/03/some_drama.html

Also from the blog:


The argument came after Ford was the only player to take a shot on three straight possessions.

Can't blame Jack. He's not the only one growing tired of seeing this all season. Especially now that you're 4 games behind the playoffs and fighting for your life every game. Jarrett's had enough.

Expressing yourself on the court in front of everyone was not smart to say the least. However, in the heat of the moment it's hard to control yourself.

pacerDU
03-21-2009, 02:49 AM
I'm kind of share Kemo's sentiment on this in that I really want to like TJ. I just don't think we'll ever really be a winner with him running the point though. Sometimes he can do amazing things, but other times he's just plain awful. His style of play is too out of control for my liking and he seems like more of a small shooting guard than a floor general.

Regardless of the situation that occurred last night, I think I'd prefer to keep Jarret next year. I'm a bit worried about that being that TJ is under contract whereas Jarret is a free-agent. I'd like Jarret as a combo-guard off the bench. Maybe our sixth-man. I like Jarret's heart and I think he'd be very valuable if he isn't asked to do too much, which he is right now.

I'd like to try someone different starting at point. Have Diener as the backup PG ad Jack as an energy guy off the bench, either at the 1 or 2 spot in a sixth-man role.

I like TJ in some ways, but I just don't see him as the man for the job.

flox
03-21-2009, 03:25 AM
Am I totally stupid or does this does this seem like it's mostly Jack's problem and Jack instigating?

As for Ford's play, I know who I want to initiate an offense, handle the ball in pressure situations, take a midrange shot, or just play PG in general.

kester99
03-21-2009, 04:35 AM
As for Ford's play, I know who I want to initiate an offense, handle the ball in pressure situations, take a midrange shot, or just play PG in general.

You mean TJ?

I know who I wish would realize he's not playing high school or college-level players anymore, and that his one-man fast break quickness is going to be matched or smothered by pro defenses. I know who I wish would learn to penetrate in a disciplined manner, and kick passes out under control. (He's as likely to pass to the ref as he is to an open teammate.) I know who I wish would be a floor general instead of a scoring PG.

And yes, I mean TJ.

I suspect (but of course don't know) that Jack was trying to give TJ a (much needed) dressing down, regarding one-man-show offense. It just got to the point that Jack had had enough. My opinion is that JOB should be the one doing the dressing down, but I don't think it would do any good anyway. Ford knows one style of play. He will never be a savvy distributor.

TJ is not the PG that is going to take our ball club forward into the playoffs. He can shine against a slow defender, or in a broken play situation, but I really really wish we'd find a real floor general to anchor us.

Just my opininion, based on seeing all the games except one or two this season, and knowing nothing about TJ Ford prior to him becoming a Pacer. I started the season with high hopes for TJ, based on some of the 'reviews'....quick, lots of heart, should fit into an up-tempo offense....and I don't want to demonize the guy, but I really don't think he's good for us, based on a season's observation.

I'll take Diener and Jack, in any combination, as PG 2 and 3....I'd even take either one as starting PG over TJ. But, instead of the much-cited need for a banger PF, I see a more pressing need for a PG that can see the floor like Diener and defend at least as well as Jack.

Unclebuck
03-21-2009, 07:52 AM
Tinsley looks better and better with each passing day.

:devil:

Oh, now that is hitting below the belt.

D-BONE
03-21-2009, 07:56 AM
Regardless of the situation that occurred last night, I think I'd prefer to keep Jarret next year. I'm a bit worried about that being that TJ is under contract whereas Jarret is a free-agent. I'd like Jarret as a combo-guard off the bench. Maybe our sixth-man. I like Jarret's heart and I think he'd be very valuable if he isn't asked to do too much, which he is right now.

I'd like to try someone different starting at point. Have Diener as the backup PG ad Jack as an energy guy off the bench, either at the 1 or 2 spot in a sixth-man role.

I like TJ in some ways, but I just don't see him as the man for the job.

Sums up my sentiments. Honestly, I expected more than what I've perceived of both Jack and TJ. Especially on D both have been underwhelming. Where Jack took longer to find a rhythm and get comfortable (1st 1/3-1/2 of year bonehead turnovers for example), I've been more pleased with his play in the remainder of the season up to now.

TJ to me should be better on D. I thought he'd be a better distributor and ballhandler. Guy's always on the verge of dribbling the ball away it seems and not recognizing when he should or should not penetrate and finish resulting in TOs, rejections, or wild shots. And for somebody who's been advertised as one of the quicker players in the league, I don't see it, or at least not taken advantage of regularly.

Neither one is the starting PG answer that I'd want. I'm fine with Deiner seeing more minutes, but he and Jack as our PG tandem is not ideal.

McKeyFan
03-21-2009, 09:07 AM
Yep. Bad and badder. The only concern I have is the money the team is spending on them. I have not found either to be a substantial upgrade (if at all) over Diener...and I find that a bit surprising.

We went 6-4 with Jack controlling the offensive side of the floor. He may not be great, but he's good, not bad.

McKeyFan
03-21-2009, 09:11 AM
We can criticize Ford's play all we want, but don't we want players who can keep their cool under duress?

And before someone fires in with "I'd rather have players with heart" I beg you to consider that players can have both. It's not an either/or thing.

Look, I'm taking Jack's side on this.

Tonight's game, and really a game or two ago, was our last chance to get something going for a playoff run. T.J. is out there being a one man band throwing up crap again and again without passing one time.

Jack knows that this behavior will cost them their last tiny chance at the playoffs and he knows somebody has to say something to Ford for it to change.

If Ford's answer was that he planned to keep on doing it, well . . . I'd be pi$$ed too.

vnzla81
03-21-2009, 09:21 AM
like I said in another threads, TJ and Jack are not the answer at point guard for the Pacers, I like Diener better than either one of this guys, he can shoot from almost anywhere and he pass the ball at the right time when somebody is open, I think the problem with Diener as everybody knows is his defense and the pacers defense. There is other really good point guards in the NBA that can't play D, the difference is that they have a better defensive team and teammates that help in defense when his men is not in front of him, just look at Steve Nash (not comparing Diener to Nash) two years ago, he had at least to other players close to him helping in defense, he had Marion and Bell, when in diener's case he has Danny and Marquis two decent defenders but not good enough defenders to help Diener and he also needs to compete with another two point guards for playing time.

able
03-21-2009, 09:39 AM
That quite a few ppl now express to prefer Diener over TJ says a lot, to much in fact.
Jack is not a pg, just like Daniels is not a pg, but if need be they can play the part a while.

As a ballplayer (*i refrain from discussing anything but basketball skills) Tinsley is at least twice if not 3 times the pg and ballhandler/passer TJ is or ever will be.

I must side with those that state that our pg situation is more important to address then our pf situation, ( i think somehow you can work the pf think out) certainly when we add the "problems" created now, TJ's selfish play has on several occasssions lost us games this year and more precisely several in the last few weeks. It is useless to have a pf that can play if the point aint pointing the ball in that direction but doing his own thing.

Maybe now it becomes clear why so many soured on him that soon ?

Justin Tyme
03-21-2009, 11:58 AM
Ramon Sessions looks better every passing day!

JB24
03-21-2009, 12:09 PM
I like some of the things TJ brings to the team, but it's easy to see why he's been labelled Me J in the past. I'd be interested to see if he was looking for his own shot in those 3 straight possessions or if there just weren't any other options.

That Ford-Felton offer is looking really good right about now.

HC
03-21-2009, 12:19 PM
Honestly, I doubt there was much to it.

Sounds like they had an issue in the heat of the game. Jack got overly upset. And them JOB just said "I'm not dealing with this. We've got a game to try and win. Jack, go to your room."

Makes sense to me.

I agree, but it did surprise me a little bit given the fact that it was reported that this team had great chemistry earlier in the season. Anything can happen in the heat of the moment. I fight with my wife all the time, but we are still married. For now, I am going to dismiss this. I do feel like Ford is playing badly, but Jack isn't playing much better. For my money, Diener should start.

Hicks
03-21-2009, 12:20 PM
No.

Not really.

Agreed.

Flawed person #1 got replaced by flawed person #2 and #3, but even to this moment of my posting this message, #1 still had more flaws on/off the floor (that we know about).

Hicks
03-21-2009, 12:21 PM
I wouldn't call botching 80% of 2-on-1 fast breaks "keeping it cool under duress".

2 + 2 does not equal pineapple.

idioteque
03-21-2009, 12:22 PM
I think I'm finished with TJ. This is the second locker room he seems to be screwing up. I don't know of any public disputes Jack has had with teammates, am I correct that he has not had any?

Bad back, bad distributor, bad locker room guy. I think he may be impossible to trade. Personality wise he is starting to remind me of beetlejuice with just more of an outward, likable personality that quickly evaporates.

Hicks
03-21-2009, 12:26 PM
I don't really see a clear villain in this incident from what I know right now. Neither was really right when you look at it all, and both did or said things they most likely should not have. It's a fairly neutral "blow up" encounter to me. They both could be doing certain things better (perhaps it's TJ and his decisions and Jack and his reactions [not to mention he too has decision issues]), and neither has totally fallen to the dark side here, either.

I do agree that TJ really isn't much of a point guard. He is where is he because he's a talented basketball player, but he's only the PG because of his size. Honestly I'm starting to feel the same way about Jack, too. When it comes to running a team on the floor, Diener runs circles around both of them.

I think we did a good job of bringing in some talent to play the PG spot, but the problem is we're now learning they really aren't PGs.

Justin Tyme
03-21-2009, 12:28 PM
However, I'm about 85% sure we're going to re-sign Jack


Only IF he wants to be re-signed by the Pacers. You aren't taking into account he's had a real nice year and other teams are aware of it too. Jack may not want to be here next year with Ford either.:eek: That's a real distinct possibility if problems exists between the 2. I know which one of the 2 I'd rather have, and it's definately not TJ Ford.

The problem with trading Ford is his contract, but if possible I'd like to see the Pacers trade him for a PF or 2 decent players that could contribute as nice rotational players. Plus it breaks down Ford's 8 mil contract into easier contracts for trading purposes.

D-BONE
03-21-2009, 12:29 PM
That Ford-Felton offer is looking really good right about now.

It looked pretty damn good then, too.

HC
03-21-2009, 12:31 PM
Only IF he wants to be re-signed by the Pacers. You aren't taking into account he's had a real nice year and other teams are aware of it too. Jack may not want to be here next year with Ford either.:eek: That's a real distinct possibility if there is problems between the 2. I know which one of the 2 I'd rather have, and it's definately not TJ Ford.

The problem with trading Ford is his contract, but if possible I'd like to see the Pacers trade him for a PF or 2 decent players that could contribute as nice rotational players. Plus it breaks down Ford's 8 mil contract into easier contracts for trading purposes.

I believe shipping Ford to Charlotte could be done relatively easily.

Putnam
03-21-2009, 12:35 PM
2 + 2 does not equal pineapple.


:confused: Can I get a little help?

count55
03-21-2009, 12:45 PM
2 + 2 does not equal pineapple.

Give me enough Tequila and a spreadsheet, and I can prove this statement false.


I don't really see a clear villain in this incident from what I know right now. Neither was really right when you look at it all, and both did or said things they most likely should not have. It's a fairly neutral "blow up" encounter to me. They both could be doing certain things better (perhaps it's TJ and his decisions and Jack and his reactions [not to mention he too has decision issues]), and neither has totally fallen to the dark side here, either.

I do agree that TJ really isn't much of a point guard. He is where is he because he's a talented basketball player, but he's only the PG because of his size. Honestly I'm starting to feel the same way about Jack, too. When it comes to running a team on the floor, Diener runs circles around both of them.

I think we did a good job of bringing in some talent to play the PG spot, but the problem is we're now learning they really aren't PGs.

I generally agree with this, particularly the villain part. I don't know specifics between Ford and Jack, but I can tell you I've been involved in some really ugly disputes at work, and the uglier ones were with people who I am still in contact with and good friends with, despite no longer working together.


Only IF he wants to be re-signed by the Pacers. You aren't taking into account he's had a real nice year and other teams are aware of it too. Jack may not want to be here next year with Ford either.:eek: That's a real distinct possibility if problems exists between the 2. I know which one of the 2 I'd rather have, and it's definately not TJ Ford.

The problem with trading Ford is his contract, but if possible I'd like to see the Pacers trade him for a PF or 2 decent players that could contribute as nice rotational players. Plus it breaks down Ford's 8 mil contract into easier contracts for trading purposes.

Yeah, I consider it an unlikelihood that anybody will offer him more than we will be willing to match, which is a contract starting at around $4. We will definitely tender a qualifying offer, which makes him restricted, leaving the decision largely up to us.

ReginaldWayne
03-21-2009, 01:10 PM
It looked pretty damn good then, too.

We would have had to give up Rush. **** that.

JB24
03-21-2009, 01:20 PM
We would have had to give up Rush. **** that.

Pretty sure that was the Tinsley rumor.

BillS
03-21-2009, 01:20 PM
I think we're all a little PTSD here. While this kind of spat can be a sign of something deeper, it is also sometimes just one of those things that comes up during stressful periods - and, for these guys, losing while looking at a contract next year that can't possibly be as big as it has been is pretty stressful.

I'm willing to give this one a pass considering we're getting no indications of anything deeper.

pristinecollector
03-21-2009, 01:33 PM
Wow, I was lower level during this game and completely missed that! I guess I was paying more attention to the wife than to the game (Yeah, she looked good).

Naptown_Seth
03-21-2009, 02:04 PM
Well, the last time something like this happened, IIRC, was in Cleveland and it was Stephen Jackson being "sent to his room." Kicking a key player, one that is clearly one of the coach's and the GM's favorites, out of a game, seems to me to be a relatively sizable deal.

However, I'm about 85% sure we're going to re-sign Jack
We all know how I felt about moving Jack 1, and IMO the main reason it came to that was his emotions paired with some pretty awful play from others. He was inconsistant himself, but I think emotional players like that also hold themselves accountable. It's their sense of accountability that helps keep a team from slipping off track.

Fans hate the emotions if guys go at it, and yet Jordan was the master of openly ripping on players not getting it done. Reggie wouldn't hold back either.

So I 100% stand by Jack 2 in this one. You keep him, you trade Ford and his dreadful PG skills. Let him go someplace where he can be the ball dominant short SG that he wants to be. I'll take Jack and Diener for now.


I didn't notice the bench fight, but all game long I was complaining to my wife (and anyone that would listen) that TJ was just dreadful. He often was crushed on defense, just blown by like a revolving door, and then kept dribbling into the lane and getting caught with NO PLAY AT ALL. I mean not even a terrible jump pass or something.

It must have happened 6-7 times at least. Diener killed TJ's game, it wasn't close or debatable. Sadly I thought JOB had finally figured that out, not that he had just had trouble with the players.

I saw him put Roy into a horrible spot on one of those plays in a clear case of desperate "here you go, help, I'm in trouble" that left Roy in no spot to make a play.

Between Graham's disgusting shooting and TJ's horrid PG play it was a miracle they stayed so close. If Jack was getting chippy about seeing TJ make yet another play like he was then more power to him. If JOB isn't going to yank Ford for that crap someone needs to step up and say it.


BTW, TJ last night not getting yanked for his play reminded me of something (PHX). Trying to think of where I saw it before (PHX) but I can't quite place it (Tins vs PHX). Oh, it's probably nothing, no trend there of letting a PG take over so much it kills the rest of the team.



In other news I honestly thought Murphy was brilliant last night, even though he was getting badly beat by Dirk on defense. His team play was top notch otherwise.

Naptown_Seth
03-21-2009, 02:14 PM
Jack vs Odom vid
Awesome. Seriously.

Remember when Dale ran down after a hard play and got his choke on? Remember how we all loved it?

That's because the guy cared and wasn't going to let someone put some intimidation crap on his team. Just another reason to like Jack IMO.



Tinsley looks better and better with each passing day.Yes, the witness protection program has helped him quite a bit. He's thinner, quicker, apparently shorter. His name is just as easy to turn into a knock on his health however: Tin-Man vs Fix Or Repair Daily. Seems like they would have done better with that last part.

Jose Slaughter
03-21-2009, 02:21 PM
For what its worth...

I don't think Ford is the type of point guard that makes his team mates better. That's not to say he's a bad point guard or a bad player just that his game seems to improve as the talent around him improves.

If we bring in more talent over the summer & allow Hibbert & Rush to grow, Ford will look better.

In short, we need more talent.

Naptown_Seth
03-21-2009, 02:26 PM
If Ford's answer was that he planned to keep on doing it, well . . . I'd be pi$$ed too.
And I think we all know how that final play for the tie went. Probably the single worst play of the night, nothing came about and it resulted in a miracle heave score by TJ. He screws the pooch and yet comes out as the "hero".

No freaking thanks. You've got a 45% 3pt guy out there in Troy, you've got Danny back.

One other rant on the game for those that say TJ is okay. HOW MANY PnRs in a row with JEFF FOSTER did I have to see? I love Jeff, I'm fine with him being out there at that point. Just don't use him for the high PnR when Troy is also out there being underused. It's not like I'm close to being a Troy fanboy here, most people think I hate him.

So think about that and think about the fact that I was super PO'd watching him left in the cold PnR after PnR when they needed a score. Maybe it was some of JOB but it was also TJ.

It's decisions like that which go unnoticed by the casual fan. They just see someone missing a shot with no idea how it got there or just how much better it could have gone with just the slightest of better choices made to start a play.

Naptown_Seth
03-21-2009, 02:37 PM
2 + 2 does not equal pineapple.
Yes, because critical decision making in the split second world of high octane sports should never be confused with "under duress".

Sorry to be chippy man, but come on already. You know that putting guys in tough game spots is very similar to how a guy will react when watching the first guy make terrible, individualistic choices over and over in those situations.

Troy knows better than to play that way on offense, Jeff does, Roy does, Rush does, Diener definitely does, and Jack seems to have felt it wasn't so hot too.

How in the world do we rip on Tinsley for PHX and not on TJ for doing his best imitation in multiple games? And why do we have a coach letting it continue throughout the game yet again?

I've been teammates with guys like that and I lose respect for the coach if he doesn't address it. Heck, forget sports, what about your workplace when everyone is pulling hard to keep the ship afloat while the boss lets one guy completely ruin the hard work everyone else is putting in?

We are going to blame the other employees for not "keeping it cool"? Sorry, but as I said a few posts ago, I believe in accountability. The only reason it went public is because the boss didn't address it in proper time himself. He let it go on and on unchecked.

JOB gets TJ under control 2 weeks ago and this doesn't happen. JOB yanks TJ after runs of this type of play and it this doesn't happen.

If they are setting a tone that winning is the only acceptable answer then shouldn't they also be setting a tone to the younger players that selfish play will not be tolerated?

Whoops.

D-BONE
03-21-2009, 03:41 PM
We would have had to give up Rush. **** that.

Thought it was Rush or Foster. Would gladly have given Foster, but not Rush.

Bball
03-21-2009, 03:45 PM
I've been too busy to catch the last few games but I will speak in general terms here. First, one sideline incident doesn't mean a lot in and of itself. It may not even speak of the participants of the incident all that much. This isn't the same as Tinsley's antics on the sidelines that happened game after game- Refusing to acknowledge teammates, refusing to acknowledge coaches, leaving game(s) early, pouting, being 'set down' by Person because he tried to ignore the coaches (I mean Chuck grabbing him and pushing him into a seat).... etc...

BUT it's clearly something to watch now to make sure it's not more than an isolated incident or becoming that.

After what Pacer fans have been through, and then the recent worries about the franchise's ability (or even desire) to remain in Indy, even as an isolated incident it is not what we need right now.

There has been praise about JOB's ability to keep this team together despite the losing. Well, if part of that ability has been thru just letting the main players play no matter what, then that is an unsustainable thing. It might delay the inevitable but that is all. So if Seth is right in his description, it does sound like Jack finally did what the coach should've already done. Of course the coach is in a better position to handle it but if he doesn't, it's likely someone will snap... eventually.

So you have the Tinsley incident in Phoenix. IMHO you also have O'Brien's lack of demanding defense. And do we now have a clear sign that he didn't try to rein in Ford when he should've?

This doesn't show a coach in charge IMO, it shows a coach just trying to get through this transition period by letting the main rotation players play.

It's looking to me like our recent success was because injuries forced him to actually 'coach' the team and play a traditional lineup. And it worked. But then we left it behind... I don't exactly get it but I've already said I'm done with O'Brien as the coach. He's not the answer and his effectiveness is pretty much over at this point. Next year will be more of the same. He can't suddenly handle the team differently next year and reinvent himself. ...IMHO... Not unless it comes with wholesale player changes.

-Bball

Justin Tyme
03-21-2009, 04:05 PM
Give me enough Tequila and a spreadsheet, and I can prove this statement false.



Yeah, I consider it an unlikelihood that anybody will offer him more than we will be willing to match, which is a contract starting at around $4. We will definitely tender a qualifying offer, which makes him restricted, leaving the decision largely up to us.


I'm going to have to disagree. If Jack doesn't want to play here, he won't be re-signed by the Pacers. All he has to do is make it known there is unresolvable bad blood between him and JT, and it would behoove the Pacers NOT to match any offer. The Simons can't afford a festering sore between players at this stage of the game.

I can see another team offering more than the 4 mil you think the Pacers can get him for, and the Pacers deciding not to match it. Hope I'm wrong, but it only takes 1 team needing a combo guard for it to happen.

Infinite MAN_force
03-21-2009, 06:15 PM
Put me in the "trade TJ for rotational players and resign jack" camp. We are gonna need some wing depth anyway with dunleavy possibly being out most of next year. TJ for Backup SF and PF or something like that.

I can live with a Jack/Diener PG rotation for a year. Jack wont wow you with his playmaking ability but he at least tries to run the offense.

Doug
03-21-2009, 07:34 PM
Well, TJ didn't start tonight. Jack did.

Did they say anything about it in the pregame?

speakout4
03-21-2009, 08:19 PM
We'll be having the same conversations next year if TJ is gone and Jack or Diener is starting. I'll take the status quo until someone steps in who clearly is better. Bring back Jack next season and let them keep each other accountable. Which player ever got in Tinsley's face? I am not at all upset with this little episode. Embarrass a guy when he plays selfish? Not a bad idea. There are a number of times when someone should tell Granger there are other guys on the floor.
I see JOB has no problem calling out the kids on the team for their poor play but haven't heard one negative from him about anyone else. This kind of coaching makes no sense.

Pacers
03-21-2009, 09:25 PM
Put me in the "It's not a big deal - yet" category. Peyton Manning has had his teammate spats on the sideline (Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday), and the team has been better. If TJ can come back to Jack and the two can talk about what is going on, the team can grow out of it. If TJ wants to be a dick about it, though, it won't be good news.

Naptown_Seth
03-21-2009, 11:02 PM
And do we now have a clear sign that he didn't try to rein in Ford when he should've?
It seemed like it, and now it seems like we got the delayed reaction. Better late than never. And if TJ would actually respond to that and improve his playmaking over his shotmaking we might get somewhere.

Speakout - I don't think it's a case of "I wish he was better". Jack and Diener both show limits, but I like how they play their limited game. Well, Jack has improved and still likes to shoot more than pass himself, but he does try to get after it on D and does try to run some offense.

Sure I want better, but I think if you have PG as the weak point because Diener is your #2 guy things aren't so bad. The problem is that PG isn't the only weakpoint. A spunky PG that's careful with the ball like Diener can have tons of success, just ask Steve Blake.

ChicagoJ
03-21-2009, 11:49 PM
I think we did a good job of bringing in some talent to play the PG spot, but the problem is we're now learning they really aren't PGs.

We? Now?

ahem.




We brought in some warm bodies to play PG on a consistent basis, without all the baggage. (but perphaps with baggage after all. Come on, who doesn't think 99% of NBA players are egomaniacs that hate to practice and get grouchy when they lose all the time. That's how they rose to the top of thier profession in the first place.) But we did not bring in players with top-tier PG skills. Yet we still pay a guy with PG skills and baggage to stay away.

Either way, with Tinsley or with Ford and Jack, our PG situation is still a mess. But now we're paying three guys that still don't add up to a full PG.

I've said for years that I wouldn't complain if the Pacers really tried to upgrade their PG situation from Jamaal. But that won't be easy - its a hard position to fill and bringing in a less-talented player to play more often won't be enough to fix the problem.

If we were playing cards, this would be "sending in a boy to do a man's job."

ChicagoJ
03-21-2009, 11:53 PM
How in the world do we rip on Tinsley for PHX and not on TJ for doing his best imitation in multiple games? And why do we have a coach letting it continue throughout the game yet again?


QFT.

Of course, that's so politically appalling that few people seem to be willing to think this all the way through.

imawhat
03-22-2009, 03:32 PM
You know what p*sses me off more than anything about this season? This:

"I'm playing guys that deserve to be on the court. That's the way I'm going about doing it," he said. "My job is to win basketball games, and I think the best message you can send anybody, young guys, is earn your minutes. Earn your minutes in practice and with what you do in the game and then you get on the court."

-Jim O'Brien

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090320/SPORTS04/903200362/1088/SPORTS04

By Mike Wells

:banghead:

The favoritism O'Brien has shown certain players is ridiculous. IF he wanted to send a good message, letting TJ pull a Mel Mel the Abuser didn't accomplish that. Jim O'Brien has the same sense of urgency as Apollo Creed's trainer in Rocky IV.

O'Brien has sent horrible messages to his team all season. Letting TJ stay on the floor like he does after months of poor play gives the impression that O'Brien doesn't care. THIS is why (imo) the team responded well to Jarrett (even TJ). He said "enough is enough", and the I think the team needed to see someone stand up.

The only problem is that it shouldn't take Jarrett's actions for TJ to play his best half of basketball in months. It doesn't send a good message to the rookies, who should have earned a LOT more minutes than they have throughout the season. I hope nobody was shocked that a starting lineup with Rush and Hibbert was very effective.

Bball
03-22-2009, 04:04 PM
QFT.

Of course, that's so politically appalling that few people seem to be willing to think this all the way through.

I don't see a lot of praise or defense of TJ in these past few game threads so I think you guys are making a bit of reach to think that a player on his 2nd or 3rd.. or 15th 'last chance' (Tinsley at PHO) is exactly comparable to the situation TJ is in right now with fans.

In fact, Tinsley STILL had some people willing to fall on their sword for him after the Phoenix debacle which IMHO was much more misguided than where the fanbase generally is in respect to TJ Ford (and O'Brien's apparent acceptance of his game of late).

If the first move made this off-season was to trade TJ Ford I don't think you'd hear many complaints. And that is based on where things are now.

Things do build tho... Hence why Tinsley got so much more noise here after the PHO game (and before it for that matter). You can't have incident after incident without somebody eventually noticing. ...And you better not continue to act in the same way once the majority notices... Tinsley showed no respect for his teammates, his coaches, the fans, the Pacer franchise, or ultimately even himself. TJ has a long way to go before he has the baggage that Tinsley carries around.

That's why the reaction is different.

-Bball

speakout4
03-22-2009, 05:28 PM
You know what p*sses me off more than anything about this season? This:

"I'm playing guys that deserve to be on the court. That's the way I'm going about doing it," he said. "My job is to win basketball games, and I think the best message you can send anybody, young guys, is earn your minutes. Earn your minutes in practice and with what you do in the game and then you get on the court."

-Jim O'Brien

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090320/SPORTS04/903200362/1088/SPORTS04

By Mike Wells

:banghead:

The favoritism O'Brien has shown certain players is ridiculous. IF he wanted to send a good message, letting TJ pull a Mel Mel the Abuser didn't accomplish that. Jim O'Brien has the same sense of urgency as Apollo Creed's trainer in Rocky IV.

O'Brien has sent horrible messages to his team all season. Letting TJ stay on the floor like he does after months of poor play gives the impression that O'Brien doesn't care. THIS is why (imo) the team responded well to Jarrett (even TJ). He said "enough is enough", and the I think the team needed to see someone stand up.

The only problem is that it shouldn't take Jarrett's actions for TJ to play his best half of basketball in months. It doesn't send a good message to the rookies, who should have earned a LOT more minutes than they have throughout the season. I hope nobody was shocked that a starting lineup with Rush and Hibbert was very effective.
There are a number of different ways to show leadership and if we are interpreting this correctly then Jack showed some of this trait. Additionally, a player stepping up on this team to take issue with selfish play shows fans what has been lacking all these years on this team. For all the talk of who was the leader on past teams it appears that no one really was --not JO, Cro, or Reggie. I am sure people will say there was leadership in the locker room but we have had too many players who did not put the team first on or off the floor so that argument isn't working for me.

If jack really was so miffed that he had to respond even inappropriately then he is the first guy on this team to show any leadership at all. We will wait and see if he is going to morph into a leader and if so he has to be resigned. I am certain the PTB did not appreciate Jack's outburst but I would really have enjoyed jack balling his fists at JT.

Carlisle was no better at this than JOB so it really is up to the player's to take the initiative.

ChicagoJ
03-22-2009, 10:11 PM
I don't see a lot of praise or defense of TJ in these past few game threads so I think you guys are making a bit of reach to think that a player on his 2nd or 3rd.. or 15th 'last chance' (Tinsley at PHO) is exactly comparable to the situation TJ is in right now with fans.

In fact, Tinsley STILL had some people willing to fall on their sword for him after the Phoenix debacle which IMHO was much more misguided than where the fanbase generally is in respect to TJ Ford (and O'Brien's apparent acceptance of his game of late).

If the first move made this off-season was to trade TJ Ford I don't think you'd hear many complaints. And that is based on where things are now.

Things do build tho... Hence why Tinsley got so much more noise here after the PHO game (and before it for that matter). You can't have incident after incident without somebody eventually noticing. ...And you better not continue to act in the same way once the majority notices... Tinsley showed no respect for his teammates, his coaches, the fans, the Pacer franchise, or ultimately even himself. TJ has a long way to go before he has the baggage that Tinsley carries around.

That's why the reaction is different.

-Bball

Except that what you call incidents and baggage is also referred to as "urban legend."

We all know that real reason Tinsley is in trouble for doing what Jack did - he tried to demonstrate leadership to his teammates and his ire was directed at Granger. You and Peck can keep demonizing him all you want, as I'm sure you believe everything you're saying.

I'm tired of the exaggerations and agenda. We've had Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest on this team this decade - complain about the selfish jerks that deserve it.

One of these days, I'll actually watch the legendary PHX game again. And I'm sue I'll see the same thing that drove me nuts about Tinsley ever since he led a short-handed team to some inspiring wins shortly after the brawl: the last thing we ever needed Tinsley or his coaches to figure out was that Tinsley CAN score, because now that's all that he does and its all that his coaches want him to do. He's better than that when he and his coaches allow him to be more complete.

But you know what... scoring is the only thing that TJ can do well. And apparently he's got a bit of an attitude about it to boot.

Bball
03-22-2009, 10:50 PM
Except that what you call incidents and baggage is also referred to as "urban legend."

I'm mainly speaking of things I personally witnessed while watching Tinsley. And mainly things I witnessed at the games, not on TV or read about after the fact.



-Bball

Peck
03-22-2009, 11:20 PM
Except that what you call incidents and baggage is also referred to as "urban legend."

We all know that real reason Tinsley is in trouble for doing what Jack did - he tried to demonstrate leadership to his teammates and his ire was directed at Granger. You and Peck can keep demonizing him all you want, as I'm sure you believe everything you're saying.

I'm tired of the exaggerations and agenda. We've had Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest on this team this decade - complain about the selfish jerks that deserve it.

One of these days, I'll actually watch the legendary PHX game again. And I'm sue I'll see the same thing that drove me nuts about Tinsley ever since he led a short-handed team to some inspiring wins shortly after the brawl: the last thing we ever needed Tinsley or his coaches to figure out was that Tinsley CAN score, because now that's all that he does and its all that his coaches want him to do. He's better than that when he and his coaches allow him to be more complete.

But you know what... scoring is the only thing that TJ can do well. And apparently he's got a bit of an attitude about it to boot.

What?????

Um, now if you were talking about your other hero (Jermaine O'Neal) then I would have no qualms about this statement. But I was a fan of Tinsley's his first few years here. I became disgusted with him as the seasons went on, not because of his off-court issues but because he would not play in the d@mn games. I don't mind a twisted ankle now and then or any other form of injury but when we are told he will miss a game due to sinisitis and then that would turn into 4 games. Then he would miss like 60 percent of the games he was eligable for that was just unacceptable.

He hated Carlsisle as coach, fine I can understand that Rick was somewhat overbearing, but he was given a coach who was going to give him a new life, a new outlook and rejuvinate his career.

Let me guess that is not Jamaal's fault either.

For a guy who holds some player accountable you sure have a strange way of looking the other way for others.

You do recall that your boy Person was traded for stuffing Dave Overpeck inside a trash can, right?

ChicagoJ
03-22-2009, 11:44 PM
I thought it was Conrad? Overpeck worked for The Star, didn't he?

Let's not forget the vicious article about Tank in The News that proceeded the trash can stuffing, along with the fact that Bo Hill had closed the lockerroom to the press and the reporter from The News wouldn't leave. If the reporter was really there to apologize, he would have had the common sense to wait outside of the closed lockerroom at NIFS.

Chuck was traded because George Irvine didn't like him, not the trashcan incident.

PS - I've got plenty of things I blame on Jamaal - failing to take advantage of his fresh opportunity under O'Brien is at the top of my list. I still think he's salvagable, unlike the other bums. This was a guy who took the steps to improve his life, get to college and the NBA when he had a deadend job on a garbage truck. Sure its bumpy, and its time for him to do it somewhere else, but I'm tired of unofficial justifactions (more from bball than you, admittedly) for the year-long suspension.

cinotimz
03-23-2009, 12:01 AM
All this drama around Tinsley.

I just dont get it.

At least with Artest and to a point Jackson they generally found a way to get on the court if not under suspension.

Tinsley is a waste of time. His availability is sketchy at best. His dependability is far worse.

He does look better and better now. No drama. No false hopes. No where near the team.

All this Tinsley talk is like all the Bender talk. With the exception that Bender had a wonderful attitude and was zero problems off the court.

Why in the world someone would even consider all the drama for a guy that physically cant stay on the court and is one headache right after another is beyond me.

Bball
03-23-2009, 12:11 AM
Sure its bumpy, and its time for him to do it somewhere else, but I'm tired of unofficial justifactions (more from bball than you, admittedly) for the year-long suspension.

I think the NBA is better off without him in it. It's just a shame that his contract has to be honored. If in fact his contract didn't have to be honored then you might be onto something about him finding a way to salvage his career.

Tinsley is exactly where he needs to be right now and he got there in a multitude of ways with on court actions, off court actions, in the court actions, and your urban myths. :p

-Bball

Peck
03-23-2009, 01:57 AM
I thought it was Conrad? Overpeck worked for The Star, didn't he?

Let's not forget the vicious article about Tank in The News that proceeded the trash can stuffing, along with the fact that Bo Hill had closed the lockerroom to the press and the reporter from The News wouldn't leave. If the reporter was really there to apologize, he would have had the common sense to wait outside of the closed lockerroom at NIFS.

Chuck was traded because George Irvine didn't like him, not the trashcan incident.

PS - I've got plenty of things I blame on Jamaal - failing to take advantage of his fresh opportunity under O'Brien is at the top of my list. I still think he's salvagable, unlike the other bums. This was a guy who took the steps to improve his life, get to college and the NBA when he had a deadend job on a garbage truck. Sure its bumpy, and its time for him to do it somewhere else, but I'm tired of unofficial justifactions (more from bball than you, admittedly) for the year-long suspension.

No, it was Overpeck. Had nothing to do with an apology from what I've heard. Chuck was upset about something he wrote and Overpeck would not retract it, at least that is the rumor (this is not from a source I trust implicitly so I won't say that I have a high trust in this). Either way though, for him to make Donnie Walsh move him it had to be something.

Which brings me back to Tinsley.

The fact that the Simons, who are claiming to be losing wads of money on the franchise, are willing to pay Jamaal to sit home and not play pretty much tells me what I need to know.

Naptown_Seth
03-23-2009, 12:03 PM
Carlisle was no better at this than JOB so it really is up to the player's to take the initiative.
A Rick criticism I 100% agree with. He and Jack got along which is why he put up with the yelling that fans hated, but you have to be careful about the unintended message it sends to other players. It's not as simple as "oh, I can yell too". It's much worse than that, it confuses what your merit system is, what your values are, and how you value those other non-confrontational players.

Just because you don't punish them doesn't mean they don't get a vibe of "hey, I don't yell so why don't you like me more". I don't think Rick needs to yank a guy like Jackson to fix that, but if he's not going to he needs to go above and beyond to make it clear to everyone why he isn't and what his values are. He needs to make sure the more timid players aren't feeling marginalized even if there is no direct interaction going on.

This is true for all coaches and many other coaches are good about this. But plenty aren't too.



Jay - the problem with Tinsley is that it wasn't just a case of not taking advantage of a 2nd chance, it was spitting in the face of it. It's one thing to continue to play poorly and another to be defiant about it.

You are really understating what Tins did to get himself in his current situation by suggesting he just didn't play well enough for the new coach or something (not taking advantage).

This isn't falling off the wagon, this is saying I'm not getting on your stupid wagon and you can shove it in your rear. There is a precipitous drop on sympathy when you get into that area.

OTOH TJ is just being who TJ is. I think that needs to be curbed too and I fault JOB for not doing it sooner given the PHX game, but TJ has yet to defy attempts to correct his game. For all we know he might spark off this to push his PG game up a notch over the summer.

Heck, I'd like to hope that JOB is learning is own lesson about giving a guy more rope than his teammates are comfortable with you letting him have.

Naptown_Seth
03-24-2009, 05:07 PM
OTOH TJ is just being who TJ is. I think that needs to be curbed too and I fault JOB for not doing it sooner given the PHX game, but TJ has yet to defy attempts to correct his game. For all we know he might spark off this to push his PG game up a notch over the summer.
And now we have today's article from Wells regarding TJ manning up to being benched. So basically the crux of this thread has been verified. TJ went off script, JOB let it continue till Jack got PO'd about it, then JOB adjusts finally before the next game.

TJ is saying the right things but it's hard to read his tone in his printed words. I can see reading them with a view that he's gritting his teeth while saying all the right things. I mean the concern is that he just came off an issue like this in Toronto.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the shorts to find out that while we were worried about injuries it was actually the same problem that got him shipped out that ends up biting the Pacers too?

Please note, I'm not saying he won't improve, and in fact I'm hoping it does click for him because that would be great for both himself and the team. Why go get a new PG if the one you have can learn to play the JOB system better?

I mean I'll give JOB credit on that, if he's ticked by TJ driving into the lane and getting trapped early in the clock then I'm in agreement. Perhaps he's a bit patient to a fault with players, and that still does bug me given the language of toughness and accountability for your own PT.

But whatever. If this is the fix and it works then awesome.

Los Angeles
03-24-2009, 05:24 PM
If I recall correctly, no matter where TJ has gone, he has never been regarded as a bad teammate. And he has never - and I mean NEVER been given the full-time drivers wheel. He's ALWAYS been forced to earn every minute, and always shared the minutes gracefully.

OakMoses
03-24-2009, 05:35 PM
"I'm not a person that asks questions or reasons why certain things happen. He's the coach and he has the right to make whatever adjustments he wants."

Does this quote from Ford worry anybody else? He's not going to question why he got benched? He's not going to go to the coach and ask what he needs to improve upon to get back into the starting lineup? This reeks of hippy-ish "gotta be true to yourself" logic. It's almost like he's saying, "I'm gonna play the way I play and if coach doesn't like it he can bench me."

I could be going way over the top with all this, but I'd be much more comfortable if he'd said, "I talked to Coach O'Brien about why I got benched. There's a couple of things he wants me to work on, so now I know what I need to do to get back in the starting lineup."

Los Angeles
03-24-2009, 05:38 PM
Isn't he saying that he won't question the coach's authority?

Under that interpretation, that's a good thing.

ChicagoJ
03-24-2009, 05:52 PM
If I recall correctly, no matter where TJ has gone, he has never been regarded as a bad teammate. And he has never - and I mean NEVER been given the full-time drivers wheel. He's ALWAYS been forced to earn every minute, and always shared the minutes gracefully.

Is there a distinction between "good teammate" and "coachable"? (Yes, it is a trick question.) One could argue that Stephen Jackson was "good teammate" with his loyalty ans willingness to fight anyone that diss'ed his teammates but appeared very difficult to coach given the number of incidents he had. Perhaps he and Rick would kiss and make up later, but one cannot deny that he gave Rick a lot of problems that required kissing and making up.

I don't think we know anything at all about whether TJ has been a good teammate or not. We do know he ultimately gets benched wherever he goes, for some reason.

I think Melli might be onto something - he might be in search of a coach that lets him do his own thing instead of melding his game into his team...

Los Angeles
03-24-2009, 06:25 PM
Is going down with a spine injury the same as being benched?

If so, then I guess being a PG that needs to improve his listening and game play is the same as being a bad teammate.

For crying out loud, Jay, repeating this "benched everywhere he goes" nonsense does not lend it truth.

OK, he's not the best PG ever, but spreading this fiction once again has me on the ledge.

:suicide3:

:)

ChicagoJ
03-25-2009, 11:19 AM
As I recall, he played at least one more season in Milwaukee, started the season as the starter (sending Mo Williams back to the bench), played in 72 games, and was traded because the team was giving the job to Mo Williams. His spine injury had little to do with why he was "on the outs" in Milwaukee. He was given his starting spot back and then, over the course of the season, was deemed to be redundant.

I guess he wasn't technically "benched". I thought Mo Williams started more than 12 games that season. TJ was merely traded away to make room for his backup to take his job. I guess that is better than "benched."

Happier now? Come back from ledge! We'll talk about why his teams trade him to make room for his backup instead of why they bench him for his backup.

Phree Refill
03-25-2009, 11:22 AM
We'll talk about why his teams trade him to make room for his backup instead of why they bench him for his backup.

I just realized that this could happen to him again. :laugh: I guess any team wanting thier backup to develope should want to trade for him. Jack is making him less and less important to us.

Bball
03-25-2009, 12:03 PM
But TJ is not singularly JO's massive cap-killing contract. As long as he's serviceable, he is serving a purpose this team needs. Just the fact he's part of a deal that let us break up JO's albatross monster contract is pretty good... everything is gravy after that.

ChicagoJ
03-25-2009, 12:13 PM
Sure. But it was time to think about moving him about nine months ago. He was an asset to take back to move a crazy salary. That's fine. I don't mind the Toronto trade, but I'm disappointed there wasn't a secondary trade to move him once the season started. He's nothing more than a bargaining chip - whenever there is a decent deal then he should be moved along because he's not the answer at PG. And his contract shouldn't be prohibitive to doing so.

I'm not opposed to a PG rotation next season of Jack, Deiner, and Draft Pick. You don't have to hit a homerun with every draft pick, but there should be serviceable guys to improve the team's depth at the position.

ChicagoJ
03-25-2009, 12:19 PM
I just realized that this could happen to him again. :laugh: I guess any team wanting thier backup to develope should want to trade for him. Jack is making him less and less important to us.

Jack is not a elite PG in terms of skills. But he's mentally tough, plays well under pressure, etc.

Think about our '94 team. Workman was awful in terms of NBA-caliber PG skills... could barely run the offense, period. But he was a tough-nosed defender and he minimized his mistakes. Yes, Mark Jackson was a HUUUGGEE upgrade, but Workman was a "just gets the job done" player. I see that in Jack, but with a higher skill level. We'd all love an all-pro at this position, but most importantly we need steady leadership from the PG position.

OakMoses
03-25-2009, 12:28 PM
But TJ is not singularly JO's massive cap-killing contract. As long as he's serviceable, he is serving a purpose this team needs. Just the fact he's part of a deal that let us break up JO's albatross monster contract is pretty good... everything is gravy after that.

And you're not even mentioning the fact that, at this point in their careers, TJ is likely the better player.

Bball
03-25-2009, 12:48 PM
Sure. But it was time to think about moving him about nine months ago. He was an asset to take back to move a crazy salary. That's fine. I don't mind the Toronto trade, but I'm disappointed there wasn't a secondary trade to move him once the season started. He's nothing more than a bargaining chip - whenever there is a decent deal then he should be moved along because he's not the answer at PG. And his contract shouldn't be prohibitive to doing so.

I'm not opposed to a PG rotation next season of Jack, Deiner, and Draft Pick. You don't have to hit a homerun with every draft pick, but there should be serviceable guys to improve the team's depth at the position.

But was it really a stretch to want to see how he performed in a Pacer uniform before moving him?

I agree he isn't the answer at PG that we ultimately need, but the question (to me) is more along the lines of whether he'll still be here this time next year, not whether we should've moved him immediately. Which is not to say he ever should've been deemed 'untradeable', just that I don't see why it would've been a priority early on. In hindsight, I think it would've been fine.... but not to the point you are saying. In fact, moving him now doesn't seem like it should be our biggest priority. But I wouldn't remove it from the list.

-Bball

count55
03-25-2009, 12:48 PM
Jack is not a elite PG in terms of skills. But he's mentally tough, plays well under pressure, etc.

Think about our '94 team. Workman was awful in terms of NBA-caliber PG skills... could barely run the offense, period. But he was a tough-nosed defender and he minimized his mistakes. Yes, Mark Jackson was a HUUUGGEE upgrade, but Workman was a "just gets the job done" player. I see that in Jack, but with a higher skill level. We'd all love an all-pro at this position, but most importantly we need steady leadership from the PG position.

Well, I wouldn't say Haywoode minimized his mistakes. It was that flaw that made him a poor backup. What he did was play through them. My take was that if you played him for 30-35 minutes, he would do enough good things to offset his screw ups. If you played him for 15, you only got the screw ups.

I do see similarities with Jack. Both are always trying to "do something" or "make something happen." Both struggle when they are asked to fade into the background. It's as if they only have one speed, and when they throttle down, they stall out.

I do also think Jack is a more skilled player than Workman, particulary offensively.

idioteque
03-25-2009, 01:27 PM
If I recall correctly, no matter where TJ has gone, he has never been regarded as a bad teammate. And he has never - and I mean NEVER been given the full-time drivers wheel. He's ALWAYS been forced to earn every minute, and always shared the minutes gracefully.

Wait a minute, wasn't TJ hated by a good portion of the fans in Toronto for being self-centered, and kicked out because he didn't want to share minutes with their other PG? Maybe I am wrong but I thought that this was the case.

count55
03-25-2009, 01:38 PM
Wait a minute, wasn't TJ hated by a good portion of the fans in Toronto for being self-centered, and kicked out because he didn't want to share minutes with their other PG? Maybe I am wrong but I thought that this was the case.

Well, from what I could tell, there was a pretty healthy split of pro-TJ guys and pro-Jose guys.

Also, it kind of looked like Calderon played a little "butter-wouldn't-melt" action by saying it was fine with him if TJ started, then telling media back in his home country that he wouldn't re-sign with Toronto unless he was guaranteed the starting job.

I may not have that entirely correct, but that's my impression from the Toronto mods I talked to from RealGM.

I don't think TJ was a saint, but I don't think he was an out-and-out villain, either.

Also, while it may not particularly help us, or make much of a case for TJ, it doesn't particularly appear that his former teams or his replacements followed an auspicious arc after his departure. Mo Williams and Calderon put up numbers, but Mo put his up on 28- and 26-win teams, and Jose appears headed towards a breakout season on a sub-30 win team.

Anthem
03-25-2009, 02:02 PM
I just realized that this could happen to him again.
Dude, some of us have been predicting that since the trade went down.

Anthem
03-25-2009, 02:06 PM
But was it really a stretch to want to see how he performed in a Pacer uniform before moving him?
Seriously? I thought the one thing you and I agreed on was that if a player clearly wasn't the right fit, we should move them immediately instead of waiting to see how the pieces fit together. That "give them a year to play together" was code for "not gonna do anything since I just bought myself another season."

At the very least, I'd have been fielding offers for him at the ASB.

ChicagoJ
03-25-2009, 02:30 PM
Fine. Let him play 15/20 games and confirm he's not a good fit.

I don't care when they move him and I'm not even disappointed that he hasn't been moved yet. But when he's moved, it should be because "now we have a deal we like" and not, "he was untouchable prior to now."

ChicagoJ
03-25-2009, 02:34 PM
Well, I wouldn't say Haywoode minimized his mistakes. It was that flaw that made him a poor backup. What he did was play through them. My take was that if you played him for 30-35 minutes, he would do enough good things to offset his screw ups. If you played him for 15, you only got the screw ups.

I do see similarities with Jack. Both are always trying to "do something" or "make something happen." Both struggle when they are asked to fade into the background. It's as if they only have one speed, and when they throttle down, they stall out.

That's astute. That's what I was trying to get at with my abbreviated description. He was still mistake-prone. But given enough time, he could also make contributions.

Los Angeles
03-25-2009, 02:48 PM
TJ did a great job the first 20 games of the season.

Bball
03-25-2009, 03:14 PM
I don't recall having a problem with TJ during the initial phase of the season.

I'm certainly not as down on him even right now as some of you are. Sure, I'd accept a trade... and sure I'd be making calls.... But I wouldn't be looking to have a fire sale or a dump him at all costs panicked war room meeting.

We could do worse... and we have.

-Bball

Bball
03-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Seriously? I thought the one thing you and I agreed on was that if a player clearly wasn't the right fit, we should move them immediately instead of waiting to see how the pieces fit together. That "give them a year to play together" was code for "not gonna do anything since I just bought myself another season."

At the very least, I'd have been fielding offers for him at the ASB.

Who says they were not? But I don't see the PG spot as a priority. You wanna make a difference on this team? Replace the coach.

-Bball

Los Angeles
03-25-2009, 03:24 PM
I looked it up: TJ played fantastically the first part of the season, then - here's a surprise - he was injured and missed game 25. From game 25 to game 38 (14 games) he missed 7 games and only logged 11 minutes in two others.

And that's when the time share began, which not many people noticed when Granger went out, because that left enough minutes for both TJ and Jack.

It's been all season long that we've known that a small linup featuring both TJ and Jack on the floor at the same time is a disaster. During the time that Granger was out, both guys got their stats so we didn't hear anything but when they were in the game together the team would drop a load of doo-doo (I'm using technical terminology here and backing up with stats, can't you tell? ;) )

Things don't blow up until the team is virtually eliminated from the playoffs.

So look it up: it was an injury (once again) and a inexplicable step up from his back up (once again) that has TJ on bench when the ball goes up.

Los Angeles
03-25-2009, 03:27 PM
Wait a minute, wasn't TJ hated by a good portion of the fans in Toronto for being self-centered, and kicked out because he didn't want to share minutes with their other PG? Maybe I am wrong but I thought that this was the case.

It was Jose Calderon that demanded either he or TJ be moved.

Naptown_Seth
03-25-2009, 03:57 PM
"I'm not a person that asks questions or reasons why certain things happen. He's the coach and he has the right to make whatever adjustments he wants."

Does this quote from Ford worry anybody else? He's not going to question why he got benched? He's not going to go to the coach and ask what he needs to improve upon to get back into the starting lineup? This reeks of hippy-ish "gotta be true to yourself" logic. It's almost like he's saying, "I'm gonna play the way I play and if coach doesn't like it he can bench me."

I could be going way over the top with all this, but I'd be much more comfortable if he'd said, "I talked to Coach O'Brien about why I got benched. There's a couple of things he wants me to work on, so now I know what I need to do to get back in the starting lineup."
Melli - that's exactly what I was getting at a few posts before yours, so you're not alone. Like you I don't want to take it too far, but at the same time it just reads weird, it sounds almost passive confrontational. Time will tell I guess.

imawhat
03-26-2009, 03:03 AM
I looked it up: TJ played fantastically the first part of the season, then - here's a surprise - he was injured and missed game 25. From game 25 to game 38 (14 games) he missed 7 games and only logged 11 minutes in two others.

And that's when the time share began, which not many people noticed when Granger went out, because that left enough minutes for both TJ and Jack.

It's been all season long that we've known that a small linup featuring both TJ and Jack on the floor at the same time is a disaster. During the time that Granger was out, both guys got their stats so we didn't hear anything but when they were in the game together the team would drop a load of doo-doo (I'm using technical terminology here and backing up with stats, can't you tell? ;) )

Things don't blow up until the team is virtually eliminated from the playoffs.

So look it up: it was an injury (once again) and a inexplicable step up from his back up (once again) that has TJ on bench when the ball goes up.


TJ started playing poorly in late November before his stats looked affected (and well before his injury). I wrote about it in my beginning of '09 assessment.

The reason TJ got benched (way too late, imo) is because of his consistently poor play. He's been healthy for the past 10 games in which he's looked his worst. Most importantly though is that he's progressively gotten worse at holding on to the ball, and by doing so has stalled our offense. And defensively, he gave up in the Toronto game. Since then, I would call his defense prior to the benching Tinsley-esque.

The good news is that TJ has played a LOT better since the incident. When he makes very small and completely do-able adjustments to his game he becomes very valuable. I'm dumbfounded as to why it isn't obvious to him.

ChicagoJ
03-26-2009, 10:53 AM
TJ's put-my-head-down-and-drive-into-the-lane-then-throw-up-a-prayer game was starting to rear its ugly head early on. At times, he has the speed and skill to have good stats in spite of that flaw.

I recall that posters were starting to question his game/ contributions pretty early on. Not everybody, but even during his "good stats" stretch there were certainly questions about his fit and playing style (and especially important, his utter inability to finish in traffic which is an adjustment that teams started making against us a few games into the season - having the defense sag/ collapse so that Ford did not get uncontested shots at the rim. An adjustement that left Ford "check-mate'ed" (somebody send Graham in here to correct this!!)

Anthem
03-26-2009, 11:07 AM
An adjustement that left Ford "check-mate'ed" (somebody send Graham in here to correct this!!)
I actually didn't even realize that Stephen played chess. I guess he's more cerebral than I thought.

Must be Obie rubbing off on him.

McKeyFan
03-26-2009, 07:59 PM
Sure. But it was time to think about moving him about nine months ago. He was an asset to take back to move a crazy salary. That's fine. I don't mind the Toronto trade, but I'm disappointed there wasn't a secondary trade to move him once the season started. He's nothing more than a bargaining chip - whenever there is a decent deal then he should be moved along because he's not the answer at PG. And his contract shouldn't be prohibitive to doing so.

I'm not opposed to a PG rotation next season of Jack, Deiner, and Draft Pick. You don't have to hit a homerun with every draft pick, but there should be serviceable guys to improve the team's depth at the position.

Be nice to have Chalmers about now, eh?

MrSparko
03-26-2009, 08:20 PM
Be nice to have Chalmers about now, eh?

You mean the guy who got caught with marijuana?