PDA

View Full Version : Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making



Erik
01-28-2010, 07:28 AM
http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2010/01/another_game_wh.html

by Mike Wells
Indianapolis Star


THE HOUSE - I had planned to use this space to talk about whether the Pacers made a mistake on passing on DeJuan Blair in the draft.

Blair, who slid all the way to the second round, was selected for the Rookie-Sophomore game Wednesday. Pacers rookie Tyler Hansbrough, well, he's still dealing with his inner ear infection.

I decided to push the Blair-Hansbrough debate to the side about a minute into the Pacers game when it was obvious that coach Jim O'Brien committed a blunder by starting Troy Murphy with four wing players.

Go with Roy Hibbert if you're going to start one big man. Hibbert not only matches up better with Andrew Bynum, but he also gives the Pacers more down low in the post.

O'Brien obviously didn't see it that way.

I'm not saying the Pacers would have won the game by starting Hibbert or going with Murphy and Hibbert together, but the tone was set when Bynum immediately started abusing Murphy. Bynum scored 12 of his team's first 20 points on 5-of-5 shooting. All 12 of those points were before Hibbert checked into the game.

Even Lakers coach Phil Jackson seemed puzzled by O'Brien going with that lineup.

"I don't know if Jim was baiting us by starting Murphy at center," Jackson said. "It was impossible for them to cover Pau (Gasol) and Andrew. We had to find a way to move our offense to get it into them."

O'Brien didn't like being questioned about his decision to start small against a team that has Bynum and Gasol in the frontcourt.

"It's a small lineup, we didn't have a small guy on him," O'Brien said after pausing for a couple of seconds when asked. "It had nothing to do with small lineups, it had to do that we had one of our two centers on Bynum."

Hibbert, meanwhile, came in the game and played like he was trying to prove his coach that belongs in the starting lineup every game.

The big fella had 21 points, six rebounds and two blocks in 28 minutes.

Of course, the Pacers went away from Hibbert because they thought jacking up 3-pointers - 7-of-28 - was more important.

"I was trying to go back at them and I wanted to be aggressive because sometimes I feel like we take a lot more outside shots," Hibbert said. "We need somebody on the inside that's going to put in some damage and put some pressure on the other team to sink in so I can find cutters and guys for open 3's."

Hibbert dropped more than a subtle hint about their love with the 3-point shot when he said "sometimes I feel like we take a lot more outside shots."

The first thing he said to me was that Bynum got the better of him a couple of times. He didn't like that Bynum blew by him for a left-handed dunk and the foul in the second half.

"He is a big guy and by playing against him I did learn," Hibbert said. "I can play against big or small lineups."

That's a player that definitely wants to get better.

I'm not just trying to get another anti-O'Brien thread going. It's just interesting to hear people other than us make comments about his decisions. I used to think that we're jumping the gun on the JOB "displeasure".....I'm not so sure anymore.

vnzla81
01-28-2010, 07:33 AM
Even Lakers coach Phil Jackson seemed puzzled by O'Brien going with that lineup.

"I don't know if Jim was baiting us by starting Murphy at center," Jackson said. "It was impossible for them to cover Pau (Gasol) and Andrew. We had to find a way to move our offense to get it into them."

O'Brien didn't like being questioned about his decision to start small against a team that has Bynum and Gasol in the frontcourt.

"It's a small lineup, we didn't have a small guy on him," O'Brien said after pausing for a couple of seconds when asked. "It had nothing to do with small lineups, it had to do that we had one of our two centers on Bynum."




is this guy stubborn or what?..............:confused:

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-28-2010, 07:41 AM
I don't know what's worse, O'Brien saying Murphy is a center, or O'Brien not realizing he made a bad decision.

Either way, he just doesn't get it and I don't think he ever will. Bird needs to take Murphy away from JOB if he's serious about improving this team.

Putnam
01-28-2010, 07:57 AM
in other words...


I don't think the problem was the team was off. I think the problem was there was a basketball lineup out there that was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf.
http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/s/Spinal%20Tap/sq-david_derek_majesty_vid.jpg

Major Cold
01-28-2010, 08:06 AM
I have hated having Murphy at Center for awhile. Sometimes Murph fights to front the post and sometimes he just looks like he is wondering when his next 3 is going to be and finds himself behind a Bynum, Howard, or Duncan about to get schooled.

As much as he got schooled you would think he could learn to develop a low post game, but alas that is not as sexy as chucking up the three.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 08:09 AM
He honest to God said Murphy is a center AND that there was nothing wrong with having him guard Bynum. Wow. This guy needs to coach some other team.

Mourning
01-28-2010, 08:18 AM
He honest to God said Murphy is a center AND that there was nothing wrong with having him guard Bynum. Wow. This guy needs to coach some other team.

:ding:

I told myself to waite until about the half of february before I make a final judgement on JOB and the team this year. But, I can tell you that I have allready made that judgement with regards to JOB a couple of weeks ago, unconciously.

It's indeed time for Jim to start packing his stuff at the end of this season.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 08:58 AM
Mike Wells, we welcome you as a member of Pacers Digest.

Applications are available by the door for the Five Game Win Streak Club.

mildlysane
01-28-2010, 08:59 AM
It almost seems like JOB is in the "tank the season" camp with some of his decisions.

Unclebuck
01-28-2010, 09:01 AM
He honest to God said Murphy is a center AND that there was nothing wrong with having him guard Bynum. Wow. This guy needs to coach some other team.

Honestly. What are his alternatives. Foster is out, Tyler is out. Obviously Jim doesn't have any confidence in Josh (neither do I). So Jim is left with trying to decide how best to defend Bynum and Pau with a combination of Granger, Roy and Troy. Do you scrap the small lineup and start Troy and Roy together? No, because Troy is going to have as much trouble guarding Pau at he did with Bynum and Pau is the better player. OK, so what do you do. Anyway you go it isn't going to be pretty. Jim decided to stick with the small lineup and see if maybe Troy could cause as much trouble on the other end of the court.

Probably what he should have done is start Roy and have him guard Bynum and sit Troy and have Danny guard Pau.

Honestly though it would have made much difference as the game was lost in the 3rd quarter and didn't Jim start Roy in the third quarter with Troy (I missed the start of the third, so I'm off to check the play-by-play)

Disclaimer: Not trying to stick up for O'Brien, just trying to move the discussion into a more productive route then Jim is horrible how could he be so dumb mode.

Exactly, - yeah Troy and Roy started the third quarter and that was when the pacers got beat. So this whole discussion is a straw man. No lineup the pacers have can defend the Lakers

Anthem
01-28-2010, 09:03 AM
Wow. When Phil Jackson's mocking your coaching in a press conference, that's not a good thing.

And UB, I'd have been fine with seeing either Solo or McRoberts on the court. Once. I mean, if you've decided out of the gate that neither of them is going to see PT, then yeah it's hard to have enough beef to match up. We got destroyed inside, yet neither of those guys even played.

mildlysane
01-28-2010, 09:08 AM
Honestly. What are his alternatives. Foster is out, Tyler is out. Obviously Jim doesn't have any confidence in Josh (neither do I). So Jim is left with trying to decide how best to defend Bynum and Pau with a combination of Granger, Roy and Troy. Do you scrap the small lineup and start Troy and Roy together? No, because Troy is going to have as much trouble guarding Pau at he did with Bynum and Pau is the better player. OK, so what do you do. Anyway you go it isn't going to be pretty. Jim decided to stick with the small lineup and see if maybe Troy could cause as much trouble on the other end of the court.

Probably what he should have done is start Roy and have him guard Bynum and sit Troy and have Danny guard Pau.

Honestly though it would have made much difference as the game was lost in the 3rd quarter and didn't Jim start Roy in the third quarter with Troy (I missed the start of the third, so I'm off to check the play-by-play)

Disclaimer: Not trying to stick up for O'Brien, just trying to move the discussion into a more productive route then Jim is horrible how could he be so dumb mode.

Exactly, - yeah Troy and Roy started the third quarter and that was when the pacers got beat. So this whole discussion is a straw man. No lineup the pacers have can defend the Lakers

I guess I understand about Josh, but what about Solo? Is he hurt? Why didn't he play at all? His D HAD to be better than Murphy's, right? I am not saying start him (maybe I am...), but he should at least play when we are down 2 big men and we are playing talented big men.

Unclebuck
01-28-2010, 09:12 AM
Wow. When Phil Jackson's mocking your coaching in a press conference, that's not a good thing.

And UB, I'd have been fine with seeing either Solo or McRoberts on the court. Once. I mean, if you've decided out of the gate that neither of them is going to see PT, then yeah it's hard to have enough beef to match up. We got destroyed inside, yet neither of those guys even played.

Oops I forgot about Solo - yeah he would have defended their bigs better, but then you give up a lot on the offensive end and the offense did keep it close for 24 minutes. Bottom line this roster is not built to beat the lakers

Speed
01-28-2010, 09:27 AM
Who starts against Shaq on Friday?

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 09:28 AM
Diener.

Unclebuck
01-28-2010, 09:44 AM
Who starts against Shaq on Friday?

I would start Roy, but that will mean he'll likely get into foul trouble. if you start Troy on Shaq obviously Troy will be abused, but Troy will get open shots on the other end. Once again I don't see an easy answer.

Personally I wish Jeff and Tyler were healthy (not to guard Shaq or Bynum per se) but I enjoy seeing those two guys play - I certainly enjoyed when they were on the court together

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-28-2010, 09:50 AM
Foul trouble shouldn't dictate Roy's minutes. He only plays 20 minutes anyways. I'd like to play him regardless of if he has 3 fouls in the first quarter. If he fouls out, then we can resort to the gimmicks, but it's important to remember he has 6 fouls to give.

However, I think we all know deep down inside that Murphy will get the start and the majority of the time at center.

jhondog28
01-28-2010, 10:15 AM
He called Murphy a Center and everybody and their mother knew he would get abused by the Lakers lineup. Hibbert is a center Murphy is a PF. JOB is bringing this all on himself.

Major Cold
01-28-2010, 10:27 AM
Buck I understand you saying that having Murphy guarding Gasol is not ideal. And having him in on Bynum is not ideal either. But the point is why not bring him off the bench and start Granger and Hibbert in the frontcourt?

At some point you have to come to reality. JOB does make coaching mistakes with the limited roster he has. He is not a downright horrible coach, but the dude is not making improvements either.

It is time for a change after this season.

Unclebuck
01-28-2010, 10:31 AM
Buck I understand you saying that having Murphy guarding Gasol is not ideal. And having him in on Bynum is not ideal either. But the point is why not bring him off the bench and start Granger and Hibbert in the frontcourt?

At some point you have to come to reality. JOB does make coaching mistakes with the limited roster he has. He is not a downright horrible coach, but the dude is not making improvements either.

It is time for a change after this season.

I would have done that myself. Although I can understand why Jim went the way he did. And really it didn't cost us the game as the third quarter when Roy and Troy were in together. (bottonline it didn't matter who was in in the third as the Lakers decided to put the game away)

Brad8888
01-28-2010, 10:34 AM
Welcome to our ghastly world, Mr. Wells, all filled with angst and disgust regarding our strategy, as well as lineup and rotational choices that probably has the name "Jim O'Brien" being considered for terrorist watch lists due to the horror he inflicts on innocent basketball fans nightly who no longer feel safe despite enhanced security measures at Conseco.

I'm kidding (?).

It does seem that there is an additional shift towards the Dark Side regarding O'B, though. Please, everyone, proceed cautiously. There are those of us who have been here for some time now, and we don't want you tripping over us due to not being accustomed to the lack of illumination. There is an adjustment period, so please be patient.

Putnam
01-28-2010, 10:34 AM
He called Murphy a Center and everybody and their mother knew he would get abused by the Lakers lineup. Hibbert is a center Murphy is a stretch forward. JOB is bringing this all on himself.


fixed.

Murphy is vulnerable to a lot of criticism, but we'll all be happier if we give up the idea that he's a bad power forward. He isn't a power forward at all. Even if he's listed in the lineup as the "4" doesn't make him a power forward. Even if O'Brien or Bird or Mark Boyle or the printed program call him a power forward -- he isn't one. And, as jhondog28 implies, Murphy's not a center either. He's a prototypical stretch forward.

With Foster and Hansbrough wounded and McRoberts sitting, the Pacers are playing most of their minutes without a power forward on the floor.

O'Brien is certainly susceptible to criticism for the way this season is going. But I think his fault is thinking the power forward role is dispensable -- not thinking that Troy is a good power forward.


.

BillS
01-28-2010, 10:48 AM
Please note Hibbert got abused by Bynum as well, so it isn't like starting Roy would have put us in the lead. Honestly, don't you think that being within 3 at the half against the Lakers would be a positive thing?

Everyone screams "defense sucks, defense sucks" when we lose a game like this, but the turning point was when the OFFENSE went back to its old habits of bricking long 2s and 3s as if that was the only way to score. The small lineup was actually working offensively when people were worming their way into the lane or at least into mid-range.

My disclaimer - I want Roy on the floor for his offense. I want the team to stop thinking the way to win is to throw up a long-range shot. Both of these things can certainly be placed at the feet of the coach. BUT the focus everyone has that somehow we were destined to lose the game because of the starting lineup makes me wonder if they really watched the first 2-1/2 quarters of the game.

Kegboy
01-28-2010, 10:52 AM
The only rational reason I can think of for Obie's behavior is this:

Gee, I know Kegboy hasn't been watching Pacer games, he's busy with all his video games and TV shows and what not. And then he's got the Boilers too. I'd hate for him to feel guilty about not making time for us, so I'm just going do the stupidest **** I can, so tomorrow morning he can say to himself, "Thank god I didn't watch that game."

Speed
01-28-2010, 10:57 AM
Let me say this, I was giving us (PD) props last night watching the game. Cuz we said a long time ago Murphy and Roy can't play together and be as effective. I think that is what Obie needs to say and quit talking about small ball.

Whether he knows it or not, I think Obie is right to not necessarily play small ball, but do two components of it.

1.) not play Roy and Troy together.
2.) Get Granger some minutes at PF when match ups dictate.

Getting Granger mins at PF allows you to compensate for missing Jeff and Hansbrough and play D Jones and Dunleavy more.

So maybe not small ball, but adjustment ball.

I agree last night should have called for Starting Roy on Bynum and Danny on Gasol, bringing Troy off the bench. Obie won't do this though, I guess it's a veteran respect thing for Troy, which still doesn't make sense. So who knows.

Brad8888
01-28-2010, 10:58 AM
The only rational reason I can think of for Obie's behavior is this:

Gee, I know Kegboy hasn't been watching Pacer games, he's busy with all his video games and TV shows and what not. And then he's got the Boilers too. I'd hate for him to feel guilty about not making time for us, so I'm just going do the stupidest **** I can, so tomorrow morning he can say to himself, "Thank god I didn't watch that game."

Hey, I've been meaning to ask you for quite a while now. I have been a proud member of the Dark Side like you recommended long ago, and this question has been eating away at me for nearly as long as I have been here.

Where are the freakin' cookies, man? I have looked and looked, and I just can't find them. YOU PROMISED! :mad:

nerveghost
01-28-2010, 11:09 AM
It is hard to disagree with any of the criticisms, but in the interest of equal time, getting 3 All-Stars on the Celtics squad made Doc Rivers look like a great coach.

No matter how you slice it, it is still bologna.

Sparhawk
01-28-2010, 11:18 AM
Who are we kidding ourselves. The more JOB loses games, the higher pick we'll more than likely get. Isn't that the point. Also, the more JOB loses and looks like a complete idiot, the more I think Bird will tell JOB to go away for awhile before eventually buying him out too.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 11:26 AM
I agree last night should have called for Starting Roy on Bynum and Danny on Gasol, bringing Troy off the bench. Obie won't do this though, I guess it's a veteran respect thing for Troy, which still doesn't make sense. So who knows.

There you go again, trying to make simple sense out of JOS's actions.

What about veteran respect for Dunleavy? He doesn't start.

What about veteran respect for TJ? He was exiled.

What about veteran respect for Dahntay? He's been in/out of the doghouse.

Nope. The veteran respect thing does not hold water. JOS has a strange obscession for Murphy as a basketball player. HE REALLY THINKS MURPH NEEDS TO BE ON THE FLOOR MOST OF THE GAME. It does NOT make sense. JOS is a mystery.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 11:29 AM
Let me say this, I was giving us (PD) props last night watching the game. Cuz we said a long time ago Murphy and Roy can't play together and be as effective. I think that is what Obie needs to say and quit talking about small ball.

Whether he knows it or not, I think Obie is right to not necessarily play small ball, but do two components of it.

1.) not play Roy and Troy together.
2.) Get Granger some minutes at PF when match ups dictate.

Getting Granger mins at PF allows you to compensate for missing Jeff and Hansbrough and play D Jones and Dunleavy more.

So maybe not small ball, but adjustment ball.


Regarding the rest of your excellent post . . .

Yes. JOS is slowly getting around, through the back door, of making the right adjustments.

I would like to have seen Roy and Solo on the floor together last night. Why do we NEVER see that combination? For that matter, why not Roy and McBob?

I know the answer, but I guess what we are all saying is that the evidence is in that we need to experiment with two big men line ups other than Roy and Troy. JOS has certainly tried every other combination.

It's amazing how stubborn he is. You know, if Foster was around, we'd be thinking that Solo and McBob sit because Foster is available.

But that ain't it, folks.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 11:54 AM
Solo is more of a center than Murphy is.

McRoberts is more of a center than Murphy is.

Hell, I'm staring to think Danny Granger is more of a center than Murphy is. I'd wager Danny is stronger, more willing to fight, and has a longer wingspan than Troy. I know he guards the post better on PFs than Troy.

*edit*

And I surely start Roy Hibbert over Troy Murphy 10 times out of 10. One is blatantly a center, and one is blatantly not. It's not about Roy stopping or not stopping Bynum.

By the logic of "no one would stop him, so what does it matter", why not start an even smaller player if it "doesn't matter"? If you've decided you're defensively screwed, why not start a swingman since you're only concern is the offensive mismatch?

Which, by the way, isn't as much of one as you'd think when you consider that Troy is an extremely low threat to drive on anybody.

And as for "Roy would just get in foul trouble", he played his usual minutes in the first half, and had exactly one foul, as I recall. This isn't last season; Roy isn't a guaranteed quick two fouls anymore. He's gotten a lot better at that.

Speed
01-28-2010, 12:10 PM
Regarding the rest of your excellent post . . .

Yes. JOS is slowly getting around, through the back door, of making the right adjustments.

I would like to have seen Roy and Solo on the floor together last night. Why do we NEVER see that combination? For that matter, why not Roy and McBob?

I know the answer, but I guess what we are all saying is that the evidence is in that we need to experiment with two big men line ups other than Roy and Troy. JOS has certainly tried every other combination.

It's amazing how stubborn he is. You know, if Foster was around, we'd be thinking that Solo and McBob sit because Foster is available.

But that ain't it, folks.

I have no idea. Solo and Roy would seem to compliment each other, to me. They both can have bouts of bad bad plays, but also offer a nice compliment of defense/offense.

The rim would be protected better too.

Solo can hit the 15 footer, ala, Udonis Haslem.

Obie has said basically that Solo isn't really a Center but a PF.

I don't understand really what the downside is that is so bad to not have EVER tried it.

If you played Bosh/Bargnani every night, I'd guess it's not doable, but otherwise against most match ups you have to be better defensively.

I think the current school of thought is one BIG and 4 shooters, which I guess the flaw to me is that Murphy isn't a BIG, he should be in that shooter category. I'm rambling....

In short, I don't know, but why not try it.

Justin Tyme
01-28-2010, 12:10 PM
is this guy stubborn or what?..............:confused:


How could you be confused about O'Brien being stubborn? There is a reason for the coined name Janes O'Stubborn. His stubbornness to be right about his coaching philosophy causes a horrible case of tunnel vision.

Speed
01-28-2010, 12:12 PM
Stubborn? I don't disagree, but where does 18 starting line ups fit into the stubborn persona?

BornReady
01-28-2010, 12:16 PM
Stubborn? I don't disagree, but where does 18 starting line ups fit into the stubborn persona?

his stubbornness over the efficacy of troy murphy.

BornReady
01-28-2010, 12:17 PM
I have no idea. Solo and Roy would seem to compliment each other, to me. They both can have bouts of bad bad plays, but also offer a nice compliment of defense/offense.

The rim would be protected better too.

Solo can hit the 15 footer, ala, Udonis Haslem.

Obie has said basically that Solo isn't really a Center but a PF.

I don't understand really what the downside is that is so bad to not have EVER tried it.

If you played Bosh/Bargnani every night, I'd guess it's not doable, but otherwise against most match ups you have to be better defensively.

I think the current school of thought is one BIG and 4 shooters, which I guess the flaw to me is that Murphy isn't a BIG, he should be in that shooter category. I'm rambling....

In short, I don't know, but why not try it.

i asked conrad brunner about this at some point
something about we'd be too slow or something. i dont quite remember.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 12:19 PM
Stubborn? I don't disagree, but where does 18 starting line ups fit into the stubborn persona?

He's never not started Murph, except due to injury.

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 12:23 PM
Solo is more of a center than Murphy is.

McRoberts is more of a center than Murphy is.

Hell, I'm staring to think Danny Granger is more of a center than Murphy is. I'd wager Danny is stronger, more willing to fight, and has a longer wingspan than Troy. I know he guards the post better on PFs than Troy.

*edit*

And I surely start Roy Hibbert over Troy Murphy 10 times out of 10. One is blatantly a center, and one is blatantly not. It's not about Roy stopping or not stopping Bynum.

By the logic of "no one would stop him, so what does it matter", why not start an even smaller player if it "doesn't matter"? If you've decided you're defensively screwed, why not start a swingman since you're only concern is the offensive mismatch?

Which, by the way, isn't as much of one as you'd think when you consider that Troy is an extremely low threat to drive on anybody.

And as for "Roy would just get in foul trouble", he played his usual minutes in the first half, and had exactly one foul, as I recall. This isn't last season; Roy isn't a guaranteed quick two fouls anymore. He's gotten a lot better at that.

You are acting like Troy played the whole game. Troy played 27 minutes and Roy actually played more minutes with 28. The game was not lost in the first half, btw. Do you actually believe the Pacers would have beaten the Lakers if Roy had started? How many minutes do you think Roy is capable of playing? You act like he is getting 5 minutes a game.

BobbyMac
01-28-2010, 12:26 PM
Please note Hibbert got abused by Bynum as well, so it isn't like starting Roy would have put us in the lead. Honestly, don't you think that being within 3 at the half against the Lakers would be a positive thing?

Everyone screams "defense sucks, defense sucks" when we lose a game like this, but the turning point was when the OFFENSE went back to its old habits of bricking long 2s and 3s as if that was the only way to score. The small lineup was actually working offensively when people were worming their way into the lane or at least into mid-range.

My disclaimer - I want Roy on the floor for his offense. I want the team to stop thinking the way to win is to throw up a long-range shot. Both of these things can certainly be placed at the feet of the coach. BUT the focus everyone has that somehow we were destined to lose the game because of the starting lineup makes me wonder if they really watched the first 2-1/2 quarters of the game.

I agree 100%

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 12:27 PM
There you go again, trying to make simple sense out of JOS's actions.

What about veteran respect for Dunleavy? He doesn't start.

What about veteran respect for TJ? He was exiled.

What about veteran respect for Dahntay? He's been in/out of the doghouse.

Nope. The veteran respect thing does not hold water. JOS has a strange obscession for Murphy as a basketball player. HE REALLY THINKS MURPH NEEDS TO BE ON THE FLOOR MOST OF THE GAME. It does NOT make sense. JOS is a mystery.

Plain or salted crackers?

You might actualy want to watch the game before throwing out the same parrotting bs. I guess you did not know or understand that Roy actually played 28 minutes to Troy's 27. So saying JOB plays Troy the whole game is plain old bs.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 12:32 PM
You might actualy want to watch the game before throwing out the same parrotting bs. I guess you did not know or understand that Roy actually played 28 minutes to Troy's 27. So saying JOB plays Troy the whole game is plain old bs.

It's generally true.

Last night, Roy did not play during important stretches in the second half. He played the garbage time in the last 3.5 minutes. Troy got more real minutes.

Speed
01-28-2010, 12:33 PM
I guess I'd say this, I do see Murphy's offensive value. I actually think he's played well and is a distinct weapon. I mean I can see why Murphy is liked by the coach. He's essentially been the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team this year.

Now with that said, he is a liability guarding starting caliber PFs and starting caliber Cs. The combo of him and Roy, who is not a defensive stopper either, is well, frontcourt defensive poison.

So, what do you do? Well you start Roy with a defensive minded true PF. This isn't an epiphany we've talked about the next Davis for years now.

So, what can you do right now? Well do we like Murphy as a gunner on offense and a back up PF/C guarding the other teams back up PF/C's?

I'd like to see Roy with Jeff (out), with Tyler (out), that leaves you Danny. I'd be perfectly fine with Danny and Roy starting PF/C. With Murphy and Solo coming off the bench, if it's a smaller PF I'd put McBob with Murphy, since McBob is more athletic and more likely to guard a perimeter type PF.

This allows you to put Murphy with a player who absolutely doesn't need shots, allows him to guard a back up player or at the least a tired starting player.

It allows Danny to be encouraged to drive to the basket against a bigger player instead of jacking up 3s.

It allows Roy to grow and get minutes against front line centers or even teach him how to deal with exploiting PFs posing as Centers in today's NBA.

It allows Solo to get on the court or McBob for that matter and focus on defense and rebounding or if not those things it let's them be role players, which is really what they are right now.

When/if Tyler and Jeff come back you plug them right into that McBob/ Solo rotation slot and you are even better.

So, what now with the second unit with the Dunleavy/Murphy defensive history. They'll be okay actually, they'll be playing against back ups or starters who have been playing several mins already.

I'm not pretending to have the answers here, but I think this makes sense, except Obie wont' bring Murphy off the bench...

Where is the downside?

Kegboy
01-28-2010, 12:33 PM
Hey, I've been meaning to ask you for quite a while now. I have been a proud member of the Dark Side like you recommended long ago, and this question has been eating away at me for nearly as long as I have been here.

Where are the freakin' cookies, man? I have looked and looked, and I just can't find them. YOU PROMISED! :mad:

Cookies? I don't know what you're talking about.

:fatbanana

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 12:34 PM
It's generally true.

Last night, Roy did not play during important stretches in the second half. He played the garbage time in the last 3.5 minutes. Troy got more real minutes.

Oh come on, you are better than this. One of these days you are going to run out of straws to grasp.;)

Brad8888
01-28-2010, 12:42 PM
Cookies? I don't know what you're talking about.

:fatbanana

I also did not sign a release for you to use real life images of me on here, either, o' bearer of all lesser-illuminated wisdom and truth. Where are your hidden cameras located here on the Dark Side? I swear, that "banana" looks just like me :-o.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 12:44 PM
You are acting like Troy played the whole game. Troy played 27 minutes and Roy actually played more minutes with 28. The game was not lost in the first half, btw. Do you actually believe the Pacers would have beaten the Lakers if Roy had started? How many minutes do you think Roy is capable of playing? You act like he is getting 5 minutes a game.

First of all, this isn't about "could we have beaten the Lakers."

Secondly, I believe Troy at the center is a stupid decision 99.9% of the time if not 100% of the time, so it offends me as a fan of the game to see him get the starting role when we have a perfectly legitimate center on the team who is going to do at least as good of a job, if not a better one. Put your best foot forward. That's not Troy. That's Roy.

Why not start Dunleavy over Granger as long as Danny gets his 36 minutes per game, right? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Justin Tyme
01-28-2010, 12:44 PM
Oops I forgot about Solo - yeah he would have defended their bigs better, but then you give up a lot on the offensive end and the offense did keep it close for 24 minutes. Bottom line this roster is not built to beat the lakers


Bottom line is this roster isn't built to beat very many teams, period!

In defense of Jimmy :eek:, the Lakers have 3 big men who average 8 or more rebounds per game. That's hard for any team to compete with let alone with the players the Pacers have available. The Pacers need more athletic players with length overall and one with power to go along with those attributes. Hopefully, Bird sees the samething and will look for players that fit that as description in the draft and thru trades. Otherwise, next season will be just another re-run of the last 3 seasons.

Anthem
01-28-2010, 12:50 PM
I have no idea. Solo and Roy would seem to compliment each other, to me. They both can have bouts of bad bad plays, but also offer a nice compliment of defense/offense.
I've liked the Roy/Mac combo every time they've been on the floor together.

UB's not wrong when he says this team just isn't going to beat the Lakers very often if at all, no matter who's in the starting lineup. Still, it's hard to believe the game would have gone any worse.

It's not really about O'Brien any more. At this point, it's on Bird to trade Murphy and remove the temptation.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 12:53 PM
It's not really about O'Brien any more. At this point, it's on Bird to trade Murphy and remove the temptation.

If your coach can't resist such temptations, it is time to remove the coach as well.

Justin Tyme
01-28-2010, 01:01 PM
There you go again, trying to make simple sense out of JOS's actions.

What about veteran respect for Dunleavy? He doesn't start.

What about veteran respect for TJ? He was exiled.

What about veteran respect for Dahntay? He's been in/out of the doghouse.

Nope. The veteran respect thing does not hold water. JOS has a strange obscession for Murphy as a basketball player. HE REALLY THINKS MURPH NEEDS TO BE ON THE FLOOR MOST OF THE GAME. It does NOT make sense. JOS is a mystery.


Does O'Brien have a son? If not, maybe Murphy is the son he never had.

Have you ever known someone who is so stubborn they would cut off their nose to spite their face? Jimmy's stubborness about his style of play will be the reason he never will be a NBA head coach again after he leaves the Pacers. His tunnel vision about his system will be his downfall.

vnzla81
01-28-2010, 01:08 PM
why not try Roy and Mcbob together, what is he going to lose, another game?:confused:

Sparhawk
01-28-2010, 01:10 PM
If your coach can't resist such temptations, it is time to remove the coach as well.

Completely agree with both.

I can't believe this team just can't seem to shake off the brawl. And all the strange moves lately. I know Ford hasn't been great, but I don't think he's been bad even to ban. We did that with Tinsley and we couldn't trade him and eventually had to buy him out (even after Bird vehemently said he wouldn't). So we just ban players and then buy them out if we can't trade them? That's a terrible philosophy and I can see even less people wanting to play here.

Bird has put himself in a bad situation with extending JOB, drafting Hans, really mind boggling moves with Tinsley and Ford, etc. If Bird's 3 year plan doesn't work, and it's not looking too good, he's probably going to be out. Not that I wouldn't mind that. Great players doesn't mean they'll be great GMs/Coaches. It just makes me frustrated and sad as a Pacer fan to see our once proud organization seemingly fallen apart all around us.

It's not easy seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, but hopefully this organization can turn things around. Even if that means getting rid of a legend in Larry Bird.

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 01:21 PM
First of all, this isn't about "could we have beaten the Lakers."

Secondly, I believe Troy at the center is a stupid decision 99.9% of the time if not 100% of the time, so it offends me as a fan of the game to see him get the starting role when we have a perfectly legitimate center on the team who is going to do at least as good of a job, if not a better one. Put your best foot forward. That's not Troy. That's Roy.

Why not start Dunleavy over Granger as long as Danny gets his 36 minutes per game, right? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

In the big scheme of things, OB may well be trying to put Roy in the best possible position to succeed. Your opinion is to throw Roy out there as a starter and hope for the best. Now OB feels that throwing Roy to the wolfes is the wrong approach. No matter how you feel about OB he is a qualified NBA coach and is closer to the player situation than someone on the outside looking in. I think everyone should be more concerned about Danny and is sulking attitude. Your Danny, Dun analogy doesn't hold water so I will not comment on that one.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 01:29 PM
Wait, so after starting Roy how many dozens of games last year and this year, NOW suddenly he's benching him to somehow protect him or to not "throw him out there"? What?

Come on. You know damn well he's doing it because he wants a big who shoots 3's.

Jonathan
01-28-2010, 01:36 PM
The shot selection was not bad at all last night. I was more upset about the turnovers. The ball was not taken care of @ all.

Dunleavy Jr had another bad game. I am not upset with a starting any starting line up @ all. Not like we were down by 20 early ie Hawks & Heat game. The third quater was a bad quater for the team and Hibbert was out there. I just want to know why JOB sticks with Dunleavy over D Jones in the fourth quater of that game?

Call In show is going to be very good this week.

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 01:37 PM
Wait, so after starting Roy how many dozens of games last year and this year, NOW suddenly he's benching him to somehow protect him or to not "throw him out there"? What?

Come on. You know damn well he's doing it because he wants a big who shoots 3's.

I could say gottcha, but I won't. I thought according to most here on this forum, Roy never starts.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 01:41 PM
I could say gottcha, but I won't. I thought according to most here on this forum, Roy never starts.

I'm not held to whatever "everyone else" says.

Say gotcha and be incorrect, or don't; I don't really care.

CableKC
01-28-2010, 02:45 PM
Oops I forgot about Solo - yeah he would have defended their bigs better, but then you give up a lot on the offensive end and the offense did keep it close for 24 minutes. Bottom line this roster is not built for how JO'B wants to run the Offense/Defense.
Fixed.

BillS
01-28-2010, 03:04 PM
Wait, so after starting Roy how many dozens of games last year and this year, NOW suddenly he's benching him to somehow protect him or to not "throw him out there"? What?

Come on. You know damn well he's doing it because he wants a big who shoots 3's.

It seems to me that Roy is doing a lot better when he comes off the bench, he isn't getting huge numbers of fouls and his game usually gets going before he ends up matched against a starting center. When he has started and gotten into early trouble he has gone back into his frustrated ways.

Now, some people would say that is all because Roy is great and would be great no matter what. I think he has improved, sure, but some of it is the changed circumstances.

Bball
01-28-2010, 03:09 PM
Here's a scary thought...
If our team didn't have a coach at all I think our offense would actually look better... certainly no worse. There's no structure now. I actually think amongst themselves they'd create something that would at least resemble structure.

..And that would help the defense...

LG33
01-28-2010, 03:13 PM
Let's not blame Troy Murphy for being Troy Murphy. He has his limitations and we all know them. Troy knows them too. He still plays as hard as he can and does what he's asked. We may not want him (or T.J., for that matter) on the team anymore, but let's just make sure it's clear that it's a basketball decision, not a personal one.

Blaming Murphy is like blaming me for my pee wee baseball coach's decision to put me in at third base, even though I've never played third base before and it's the 9th inning and we're up by only one run in the last game of the season against the cross-town rivals and there's a pretty decent crowd for the game which is weird because the weather's not that great and most of the kids' parents should still be at work, only to watch me Bill Buckner the ground ball for what would have been the last out of an otherwise glorious season.

Dr. Awesome
01-28-2010, 03:17 PM
Oh come on, you are better than this. One of these days you are going to run out of straws to grasp.;)

Anyone who supports Jim O'Brien ran out of straws two years ago in my opinion, but that hasn't stopped you or the others in defending him.

Unclebuck
01-28-2010, 03:28 PM
Anyone who supports Jim O'Brien ran out of straws two years ago in my opinion, but that hasn't stopped you or the others in defending him.

O'Brien did a real nice job with the Pacers last season. Getting them to win 36 games, having them be in most of the games, getting them to play hard, play together and get better as the season went along - as they were .500 after January 1st - that was a nice coaching job.

pwee31
01-28-2010, 03:30 PM
I think J'Ob is why Murphy gets all the hate around here. Murphy has been the same guy his whole career in my eyes. At Notre Dame he could shoot the 3 and less then competitive rebounds. At Golden St. he banged underneath a little more but still was the same guy. After the broken nose issues in Golden St he backed away from the inside contact, and fit right into J'Ob wants of a 3pt shooting PF (see Antonie Walker)

The problem with O'Brien is that he tries to fix the team's issue around Murphy. He wants to play Murphy... that's his guy, and Murphy unfortunately puts up the stats to justify what Jim is doing.

All the rules and concepts apply to everyone but Murphy (and perhaps Granger). Like you have to play solid defense, and don't get me wrong, I think Murphy does TRY to play defense once in awhile, but he's just not good at it, yet he still gets minutes.

We all know the +/- stats, but we don't see Murphy benched for that like other players have been.

Turnovers over off shooting nights... Murphy still stays on the floor even though shooting is the main thing he brings to the table.. not benched (see Brandon Rush)

We have guys who have earned playing time when given the opportunity in McRoberts, Solo, and even Hansbrough at times, but their efforts are rewarded by limited minutes or DNP-CD b/c Murphy is O'Brien's guy

And don't get me wrong Murphy is a talented player, but his talents are limited, and what he brings to the table is what the Pacers need to be successful, but it's what O'Brien thinks we need to be successful..

So until O'Brien is relieved of his coaching duties, or his crutch Murphy is traded away, there's really no way of telling what this team can be or become.

You can't wait half the season to put out the team's success of the small ball lineup, quoting the team is 7-4 when starting a small ball, lineup, refusing to point out that small lineup was 5-0 or 5-1 without Murphy, and then try to put Murphy into the center position when he wasn't there when that lineup was successful.

It just doesn't make sense, and I know Bird or O'Brien has to be aware of this. Something has got to change, b/c otherwise Troy Murphy will become the next hated Pacer on the list, when he hasn't done anything wrong but follow the coaches orders.

Tj is already turning into the next Tinsley, let's not let this coach set us back another 3 years

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 03:33 PM
I'm not held to whatever "everyone else" says.

Say gotcha and be incorrect, or don't; I don't really care.

I don't have the time or inclination to go back through threads and pull many of your posts where you indeed hyperventilate on OB not starting Roy, so no I am not incorrect.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 03:42 PM
I appreciate your use of the word hyperventilate. It shows me nothing but respect on a personal level.

My complaints about Roy starting or not starting have always been about my belief that he's our best choice for the role and that it's what's best for him. It was not "Oh Roy never starts" it was "Roy should start, and when he doesn't I'm usually pissed".

Dr. Awesome
01-28-2010, 03:42 PM
O'Brien did a real nice job with the Pacers last season. Getting them to win 36 games, having them be in most of the games, getting them to play hard, play together and get better as the season went along - as they were .500 after January 1st - that was a nice coaching job.

Actually I did say last year he did a good job of getting players to play hard(I mean, most of them had that mentality anyway, but I'll try and give him some of the credit) and he actually coached fairly well at the end of the season. I will say that. But he made horrible decisions throughout the season. Jim O'Brien did not get us those 36 wins though, the fact that we had players with more passion than the other teams players did.

That passion is gone now and Jim O'Brien has nothing else to hide behind. Like I've said many times, some guys here from another board might remember, afted his 3rd game coaching the Pacers I said he was a bad coach.

I usually feel like coaches should be given a fair chance. I hate when someone is given a bad team, then fired after one season for not succeeding. Jim O'Brien is just a bad coach though. He really is.

I posted this in the thread you deleted as well: Ever since coming to Indiana, the only thing O'Brien brought to the team is a bag full of excuses. He has not once(that I've seen) man up to any of the problems the team has faced. Instead, he has blamed everyone around him. He's put blame on rookies, he's put it on veterans who can't spread the floor, ect. He asked for defensive players, so Bird went a got defensive players, yet our defense hardly improved. Injuries have sucked, but other coaches have gotten away with it. Heck, Rick Carlisle took this team to the playoffs with Artest out the whole season and JO and Jackson gone for a long period of time. We had more NBDL players than the Warriors could ever dream of. What happened? We made the playoffs.

Rick Carlisle had his best players suspended and I still don't remember him using a bag full of excuses. I'm sure he mentioned it somewhere, he was constantly questioned about it all season, but I don't remember him ever finding a way to blame everyone else. He had a crap situation and dealt with it.

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 04:01 PM
I appreciate your use of the word hyperventilate. It shows me nothing but respect on a personal level.

My complaints about Roy starting or not starting have always been about my belief that he's our best choice for the role and that it's what's best for him. It was not "Oh Roy never starts" it was "Roy should start, and when he doesn't I'm usually pissed".

Well hyperventilate may have been a poor choice of words to use, however you do seem to get worked up on the topic. I don't agree that "Roy should start", way too many variables to make that statement.

jhondog28
01-28-2010, 04:03 PM
i was thinking are we the only team who seriously has ever player playing out of position except hibbert. I mean Watson really is not a PG, Jones plays almost a 3, granger is playing a 4, dun is playing a 2, murphy is playing a 3 or 5. If i gave you someone who excels in math and said no lets make him an English teacher does that make any damn sense?

90'sNBARocked
01-28-2010, 04:08 PM
Don't Give In To Cynicism

:blush:

As a newbie I probably have no right.........

But what is going on here with all the petty back and forth , I thought this board was more respectful of peoples rights to agree to disagree

Hicks
01-28-2010, 04:16 PM
:blush:

As a newbie I probably have no right.........

But what is going on here with all the petty back and forth , I thought this board was more respectful of peoples rights to agree to disagree

I don't understand what cynicism has to do with me and anyone else disagreeing about whether Roy or Troy should start at the center position.

I also don't see what's so petty about it. We're disagreeing. So what. It seems like you're specifically calling me out, and I don't really see why. Is it my frequency of posts on the subject? Is it somehow better if I just make a few really long posts instead? I don't know why you made this post, and I don't know what you think you'll gain out of it.

Dr. Awesome
01-28-2010, 04:20 PM
Well hyperventilate may have been a poor choice of words to use, however you do seem to get worked up on the topic. I don't agree that "Roy should start", way too many variables to make that statement.

Roy should always start. Every single game.

Hibbert is the only player on the Pacers roster capable at starting at the 5. Murphy isn't a 5. Foster hasn't been good for 2 years now. Hansbrough is a PF. Solomon Jones isn't better than Hibbert, though if someone other than Hibbert had to start at 5 it should be him. McRoberts isn't a Center.

So, who would you suggest start at Center?

90'sNBARocked
01-28-2010, 04:25 PM
I don't understand what cynicism has to do with me and anyone else disagreeing about whether Roy or Troy should start at the center position.

I also don't see what's so petty about it. We're disagreeing. So what. It seems like you're specifically calling me out, and I don't really see why. Is it my frequency of posts on the subject? Is it somehow better if I just make a few really long posts instead? I don't know why you made this post.


Truthfully,

I think you can (at times) be quick to flex your muscle on here and berate people who differ in opinion than yours.

I know awhile ago I got screamed on for chosing the wrong green for scarastic post, and I thought you were a little out of line then

I do not, nor have ever had a personal problem with you. I know myself that I can overlook things or be insensitive at times

I also know that I made a post where I made a point to thank the staff for all their hardwork, an in particular yourself as I know this is done out of genoristy , with no revenue generated( I believe)

So I just wanted to comment and express my opininon in hopes that it is looked at another way

I enjoy this forum immensely and , things I enjoy and RESPECT I comment on

Hope thats ok, as I dont have a problem with anyone

Thanks

Justin Tyme
01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
O'Brien did a real nice job with the Pacers last season. Getting them to win 36 games, having them be in most of the games, getting them to play hard, play together and get better as the season went along - as they were .500 after January 1st - that was a nice coaching job.


Same record as the year b4 too with that nice coaching job. (Comment should be in GREEN.)

Right now a really nice coaching job would be having a 36 win season this year!

Unclebuck
01-28-2010, 04:37 PM
Actually I did say last year he did a good job of getting players to play hard(I mean, most of them had that mentality anyway, but I'll try and give him some of the credit) and he actually coached fairly well at the end of the season. I will say that. But he made horrible decisions throughout the season. Jim O'Brien did not get us those 36 wins though, the fact that we had players with more passion than the other teams players did.



Either you give the coach some credit for the wins and losses or you don't give him credit for either. You can't say mix and match. Blame him for everything this season and give him almost no credit for last season. If you want to say he didn't get us the 36 wins last season then you can't being fair give him all the blame for only 25 wins this season.

As far as who should start at center right now. Neither. A healthy Jeff Foster would give us the best chance of winning

Hicks
01-28-2010, 04:42 PM
Truthfully,

I think you can (at times) be quick to flex your muscle on here and berate people who differ in opinion than yours.

I know awhile ago I got screamed on for chosing the wrong green for scarastic post, and I thought you were a little out of line then

I do not, nor have ever had a personal problem with you. I know myself that I can overlook things or be insensitive at times

I also know that I made a post where I made a point to thank the staff for all their hardwork, an in particular yourself as I know this is done out of genoristy , with no revenue generated( I believe)

So I just wanted to comment and express my opininon in hopes that it is looked at another way

I enjoy this forum immensely and , things I enjoy and RESPECT I comment on

Hope thats ok, as I dont have a problem with anyone

Thanks

You should have PMed me instead of doing this here.

Putnam
01-28-2010, 04:57 PM
Blaming Murphy is like blaming me for my pee wee baseball coach's decision to put me in at third base, even though I've never played third base before and it's the 9th inning and we're up by only one run in the last game of the season against the cross-town rivals and there's a pretty decent crowd for the game which is weird because the weather's not that great and most of the kids' parents should still be at work, only to watch me Bill Buckner the ground ball for what would have been the last out of an otherwise glorious season.

That was you? Ha, ha, ha! I've never laughed so hard as I did that day at you.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1590614/2/istockphoto_1590614_error.jpg



But, yeah. You make a very correct, decent, human point here. I applaud you! I'm only sorry I didn't post it first.

"I should have thought of it for you."

Or "I should have felt it in my heart."



.

Naptown_Seth
01-28-2010, 05:00 PM
in other words...


http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/s/Spinal%20Tap/sq-david_derek_majesty_vid.jpg
I needed that laugh in a massive way.

Things aren't going well for JOB. There is no 2 ways about it. He's got very little fan support at this point, tons of outsiders are questioning what is going on, players are obviously frustrated (per Roy's comments as just the latest), and bottom line the team is losing a ton of games.

Forget JOB, let's call this Coach X of NotThePacers. Look at the 3 years. Find me a coach with those 3 straight win totals that kept his job even without taking any of the current/ongoing criticism into the equation.

What kind of coach survives this for a 4th year?

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 05:00 PM
Truthfully,

I think you can (at times) be quick to flex your muscle on here and berate people who differ in opinion than yours.


I completely disagree with this.

If anything, it's the opposite.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 05:04 PM
O'Brien did a real nice job with the Pacers last season. Getting them to win 36 games, having them be in most of the games, getting them to play hard, play together and get better as the season went along - as they were .500 after January 1st - that was a nice coaching job.

I agree.

There have been a couple threads about this. Why the change?

My best guess is that last year, he was consistent with his philosophy and milked it as far as it could possibly go. The players believed in what he was trying to do and worked hard to get the maximum result.

This year, he made it public that he needed more defense. He got defensive players. They started playing, and even winning (fgws). Then he about faced and went to his previous philsophy, then back to defense, then back to previous.

This year he has no consistency, has confused, then lost the players, and now we are left with chaos.

90'sNBARocked
01-28-2010, 05:05 PM
You should have PMed me instead of doing this here.

You are 100% correct on that

Please accept my apologies

Dr. Awesome
01-28-2010, 05:07 PM
Either you give the coach some credit for the wins and losses or you don't give him credit for either. You can't say mix and match. Blame him for everything this season and give him almost no credit for last season. If you want to say he didn't get us the 36 wins last season then you can't being fair give him all the blame for only 25 wins this season.

As far as who should start at center right now. Neither. A healthy Jeff Foster would give us the best chance of winning


Wait, maybe I'm misreading what your saying, but it sounds like your saying its impossible for him to coach good games and bad games. That is a pretty ridiculous statement if I read that right, or if thats what you meant by saying its either one or the other.

Now, I gave him credit for the last 10 games or so of last season. Thats it. I have even admitted he coached a few good games this year in those threads that it happened. However, if you have a coach, who at best coaches 10 good games a year, you have one terrible coach.

I'm not someone who gave up on him this year. Like I said, I've been saying he's a terrible coach since the 1st quarter of the 1st season he was with us. I don't think he understands the game at all. I also even said repeatedly last year that he did a great job of making sure everyone played with effort, that doesn't make him smart basketball wise though and again, most of those players had the 110% attitude anyway, in which case, credit should go to Bird for getting them here.

I don't think there is a single game where he literally outcoached the other teams coach. Whether it be from mismatches, strategy, last second plays, or w/e, its impossible to say that he won a single game for us by outcoaching the other teams coach.

The weird thing for me is, each year, he improves on one side of his bad coaching, and becomes terrible in another area. Now, they've been problems we've seen anyway, but one area gets progressively worse, while others get a little better. Its just weird that it happens that way but it does.

Year 1: It seemed like every time a player would heat up and get hot, O'Brien would sub them out. Like, if Granger scored 8 points in the first 5 minutes of the game, he would be benched until the second. I understand he was trying to save a players energy, but he did this constantly and it took many guys out of their rythm.

Year 2: He started letting players stay in the game when hot, but he was extremely stubborn and would stick with a lineup even when his strategy was failing. Refused to make ingame adjustments.

Year 3: He started to make ingame adjustments, but started making all the wrong adjustments.

Those are just the examples, there are many, many flaws with his coaching strategy, I don't want to get into all that though - it would be longer than my other post and no one wants that. 0_0

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 05:07 PM
[COLOR="Green"]
My complaints about Roy starting or not starting have always been about my belief that he's our best choice for the role and that it's what's best for him. It was not "Oh Roy never starts" it was "Roy should start, and when he doesn't I'm usually pissed".

Ultimately it doesn't matter who starts.

It matters how many minutes you play and who finishes.

Consistently, JOB monitors Roy's minutes and often keeps him on the bench at crunch time. Murph usually the opposite.

"Starting" matters because it is a metaphor. It is symbolic of what JOB is going to do the rest of the game.

If Roy didn't start but played the entire fourth quarter, you wouldn't hear much out of me.

Hicks
01-28-2010, 05:10 PM
I think starting matters at least a little bit. You don't see many teams take one of their best players out of the starting lineup.

The only great example I can think of is Manu Ginobili in San Antonio.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 05:11 PM
As far as who should start at center right now. Neither. A healthy Jeff Foster would give us the best chance of winning

For the record, I disagree.

Hibbert is our second best player, if given the chance to make a mistake for every four good things he does on the court.

McKeyFan
01-28-2010, 05:14 PM
I think starting matters at least a little bit. You don't see many teams take one of their best players out of the starting lineup.

The only great example I can think of is Manu Ginobili in San Antonio.

It's common sense to start your five best players.

Ginobli, Jason Terry, even back to Larry Toney. They can handle it. No big deal.

What hurts the most about not starting Roy is what it communicates: JOB doesn't think he's one of our better players.

Dr. Awesome
01-28-2010, 05:28 PM
As far as who should start at center right now. Neither. A healthy Jeff Foster would give us the best chance of winning

See, its stuff like this that makes me think you just like to play devils advocate.

Jeff Foster in his prime, I would agree, but he has not been a very good player for two years now. Now, Foster is slow on defense and still a black hole on offense. In fact, he averages 8.5 fouls per 48 to Hibbert's 7.1. Foster has taken many steps back over the last two seasons. If Foster was still a good defender, he would be more effective, but he really isn't even that anymore.

Naptown_Seth
01-28-2010, 05:56 PM
I guess I understand about Josh, but what about Solo? Is he hurt? Why didn't he play at all? His D HAD to be better than Murphy's, right? I am not saying start him (maybe I am...), but he should at least play when we are down 2 big men and we are playing talented big men.
I DON'T understand about Josh, not in the least. Teams facing twin towers or even just one massive star will line up the foul patrol to help deal with it. It's been going on for decades and Buck you are insulting me by trying to pretend otherwise.

The problem is you keep saying "what other choice" as if the current choice was doing okay. Price at center is another choice that wouldn't have been much worse. If you are just getting killed then WHY NOT try one of these "scrubs".

Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?

You are already losing, there are only 2 outcomes here - Josh also gets killed or Josh does better to some degree. IMO it's almost like both you and JOB are scared to find out that McBob is capable of getting it done because it would force people to face up to it.

In fact you should WANT him to play and get destroyed just so you can say "see". That's exactly what you did in this thread when you brought up the Roy-Troy to start the 3rd comment.

I don't get where you are coming from at all, it's not the least bit logical.

Teams avoid playing guys like Josh when they have something to lose by doing so. What have the Pacers lost this year by playing him so far?

He's played 10+ minutes SEVEN times this year. In those 7 games he shot 53%, 4.6 rebounds, 1.1 ast, 0.6 stl, 0.6 blk, 1.0 TOs. Oh no, it's 2012 all over again!

BTW, Hans has gotten 10+ minutes 26 times this year, and he's been out hurt half the time. Is it his 4.8 rebounds or 36% FG that make that so much more useful, or the fact that he's 1.5 years older than Josh and therefore has more time to develop?

Greg Dreiling got more PT for better teams than Josh is getting (fact).

Bball
01-28-2010, 05:58 PM
See, its stuff like this that makes me think you just like to play devils advocate.



No, he likes to play JOB's advocate.

I haven't exactly figured out why unless he's decided defense doesn't matter and offensive possessions are a dime a dozen and the quicker you shoot the more shots you'll get...

JohnnyBGoode
01-28-2010, 05:58 PM
For the record, I disagree.

Hibbert is our second best player, if given the chance to make a mistake for every four good things he does on the court.

Potential does not always equate into being best.:)

Naptown_Seth
01-28-2010, 06:05 PM
Bill - it's not a defensive thing so much because as you say Bynum gave Roy problems too. But Roy gave the Lakers problems inside right back. Who else does that?

And once you are getting rolled in the 3rd you bring in McBob and Solo so you can keep playing a physical game and perhaps wear them down a bit. It's not rocket science, it's standard strategy and it works.


I hate dismissing a massive wreck because we weren't going to win the race anyway. Let's find the limits on Josh and let's get he and Solo some work in against real challenges in the hopes that we can develop them.

Right now they are on the same development plan I am - we all sit and watch the game.

BillS
01-28-2010, 06:10 PM
Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?

When are you talking about? When we are down by 3 and what we are doing seems to be having a chance at working? When we are down by 10 and need someone to try to spur a comeback? Or when we are down by 15 or 20?

At what point is going deep into the bench "trying something different that just might work" and at what point is it "give up and start garbage time"?

I understand that every time Josh isn't used it's an opportunity to claim we could have still lost with him on the floor, but some people actually don't count the game as lost until it gets to those last few minutes.

I think you have to get Josh into the rotation somehow before you just toss him in. I don't know how you do that without convincing O'Brien he's worth playing. If you haven't convinced JOB of that, then he isn't just going to throw Josh into the game when we might still have the gas to keep it close and win. One follows the other, no matter what fans think.

Bball
01-28-2010, 06:18 PM
Either you give the coach some credit for the wins and losses or you don't give him credit for either. You can't say mix and match. Blame him for everything this season and give him almost no credit for last season. If you want to say he didn't get us the 36 wins last season then you can't being fair give him all the blame for only 25 wins this season.



I'm not sure how excited I should be over 36 wins last season.... or in any season. O'Brien's flaws were clearly evident last season. Last year several times it seemed he was about to lose the team and yet somehow they came back around. That may have had more to do with Jarret Jack than it did O'Brien though... at least looking back in retrospect.

But the hope was there was a method to the madness and getting a few defenders in here he'd put some discipline in his system and bring things around. Instead, as far as I am concerned, he proved what people like Since 86 have been saying all along.

The first year I thought he was allowing the players to get some confidence in themselves again. I probably deluded myself into that line of thinking. Last season I started to become skeptical because he wasn't fixing 'problems'.... he was continuing down the same stubborn path.

Bad basketball is bad basketball and Jim O'Brien preaches bad basketball. I don't care what he says , I can see how he coaches the team on the floor.

He's a horrible, horrible coach and the quicker he's gone the better for myself... and the franchise.

No, he's not 'bad' in the same way Isiah Thomas was bad. I think O'Brien could scrap his experiment in a system that tries to turn basketball fundamentals on their azz and he actually has the knowledge to do things right and maximize the players and team he does have. But he doesn't have the desire to do that and completely refuses to do that. I don't think Isiah could be anything but a bad coach. But really, that makes him and Isiah both mad scientists in the final analysis and it means both were bad basketball coaches with this franchise. Sorry... I got ahead of myself there... O'Brien is STILL a bad basketball coach for this franchise. A horrible, horrible coach...

Sookie
01-28-2010, 06:23 PM
At what point is going deep into the bench "trying something different that just might work" and at what point is it "give up and start garbage time"?

I understand that every time Josh isn't used it's an opportunity to claim we could have still lost with him on the floor, but some people actually don't count the game as lost until it gets to those last few minutes.



The difference is easy. When you take out ALL of the rotation players, and put all of the guys that play the least back on the court..then it's garbage time.

I would have thought playing Josh might have been a good idea when we were down ten, and CLEARLY getting beat on the inside.

Shade
01-28-2010, 06:37 PM
Note to Jim: When everyone keeps telling you that you have a tail, maybe you should turn around and take a look.

Bball
01-28-2010, 07:21 PM
Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?

You are already losing, there are only 2 outcomes here - Josh also gets killed or Josh does better to some degree. IMO it's almost like both you and JOB are scared to find out that McBob is capable of getting it done because it would force people to face up to it.



Maybe O'Brien is trying to avoid the dreaded QB controversy... He doesn't want to be asked to change his philosophy if a bench guy would show fans (or owners or management) a better look or better basketball with the team than what he (O'Brien) is presenting using his method.

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 09:44 AM
See, its stuff like this that makes me think you just like to play devils advocate.

Jeff Foster in his prime, I would agree, but he has not been a very good player for two years now. Now, Foster is slow on defense and still a black hole on offense. In fact, he averages 8.5 fouls per 48 to Hibbert's 7.1. Foster has taken many steps back over the last two seasons. If Foster was still a good defender, he would be more effective, but he really isn't even that anymore.

I did say a healthy Jeff Foster

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 09:55 AM
.

Buck, I want this direct answer - how would it have been worse to let Josh go out and get beat by Bynum?

You are already losing, there are only 2 outcomes here - Josh also gets killed or Josh does better to some degree. IMO it's almost like both you and JOB are scared to find out that McBob is capable of getting it done because it would force people to face up to it.



I believe Josh doesn't have NBA talent or skill. He won't be in the NBA in a year or two - he'll join Eddie Gill and John Anderson. I know you disagree with me, but I firmly believe what I believe so yes he'd do horribly against Bynum and he'll give us nothing at the offensive end. Murphy is a threat offensively, he did and does draw Bynum way from the basket - Josh would not do that. So why waste your time giving Josh any minutes.

I'm not scared of what Josh is capable of doing, I just don't see an NBA player when I see him play real minutes - garbage time I don't consider.

Your approach of it can't get any worse is something I don't ever want the pacers to take approach.

Seth you asked an earlier question about what coach would with this record last (you said -
Forget JOB, let's call this Coach X of NotThePacers. Look at the 3 years. Find me a coach with those 3 straight win totals that kept his job even without taking any of the current/ongoing criticism into the equation.What kind of coach survives this for a 4th year?

First we are a year and a half away from Jim surviving his 4th year. He hasn't survived his 3rd year yet. But a lot of coaches have survuved 2.5 years and have had a worse record than Jim - it is going to take me a little time to research this, but I'm not sure it is worth my time. Before I take the time please let me know this is worth my time, otherwise I'll just leave it at that..

Seth do you completely discount what the coaches see from Josh in practice - does that have zero value. The pacers right now have the worst bigs in the NBA as a group and you seem to think that Josh is some diamond in the rough - all he needs is time and he'll blosson into a decent rotation player - wel, we need all the help we can possibly get at the big position, I am 100% convinced that if the coaches saw something in Josh during practice that he would be getting some regular minutes. (Obviously most of the people in this forum believe that JOB is just a terrible coach, so they don't trust him to see a player play in practice. Interesting when you consider that is exactly how Price started getting time)

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 10:05 AM
I'm not sure how excited I should be over 36 wins last season.... or in any season. O'Brien's flaws were clearly evident last season. Last year several times it seemed he was about to lose the team and yet somehow they came back around. That may have had more to do with Jarret Jack than it did O'Brien though... at least looking back in retrospect.



So how many wins should the Pacers have won last season? Bball no I am never excited about 36 wins - but looking at the talent last season and the overall play of the team, I thought and still think that the Pacers were well coached. I'm repeating myself now. Sorry

PaceBalls
01-29-2010, 10:25 AM
So how many wins should the Pacers have won last season? Bball no I am never excited about 36 wins - but looking at the talent last season and the overall play of the team, I thought and still think that the Pacers were well coached. I'm repeating myself now. Sorry

Just think of how many games they could've won with a healthy Jeff Foster playing alongside Hibbert or even Granger at the 4 instead of Murph with JJack leading the team... Alas, we will never know because our coach would never try that lineup. We need to stretch the defense, and Hibbert or your boy, Jeff doesn't do that.

I will say it, they would've made the playoffs with Rick coaching that team. Hell, they might've made it to the 2nd round.

A defense first attitude wins games. I know you dig that philosophy, you were one of the last Artest supporters along with me and I know you loved that 03-04 team as much as I did.

Brad8888
01-29-2010, 10:29 AM
So how many wins should the Pacers have won last season? Bball no I am never excited about 36 wins - but looking at the talent last season and the overall play of the team, I thought and still think that the Pacers were well coached. I'm repeating myself now. Sorry

You will likely dismiss this as nutty, which is OK and understandable at this point, but I really felt, as I watched the games last year, that O'B caused us to lose about 10 more games than we should have with all things being equal due to his reliance on TJ down the stretch, or his insistence on continuing to shoot threes in games where we had leads early in the 4th when the guys plainly had lost their legs and their shots were coming up short, or taking healthy players who were playing well and actually improving team play on the floor out of games at whatever his prescribed interval was during his pregame plan without regard to what was going on in front of his eyes on the floor, as well as his maddening tendency to not call timeouts to stop either our poor play or to disrupt the rhythm of opposing teams who got hot against us offensively.

Yes, that would have been 46 wins (no green required on this number), and 6th seed in the East, which seems ludicrous at this point since we supposedly have such an "improved" roster :rolleyes:. At times it almost appeared to be blatant sandbagging in my opinion, but if so even that was mismanaged. Who would want to end up where we did in the standings? 36 W's is no man's land.

JohnnyBGoode
01-29-2010, 10:33 AM
I believe Josh doesn't have NBA talent or skill. He won't be in the NBA in a year or two - he'll join Eddie Gill and John Anderson. I know you disagree with me, but I firmly believe what I believe so yes he'd do horribly against Bynum and he'll give us nothing at the offensive end. Murphy is a threat offensively, he did and does draw Bynum way from the basket - Josh would not do that. So why waste your time giving Josh any minutes.

I'm not scared of what Josh is capable of doing, I just don't see an NBA player when I see him play real minutes - garbage time I don't consider.

Your approach of it can't get any worse is something I don't ever want the pacers to take approach.

Seth you asked an earlier question about what coach would with this record last (you said -

First we are a year and a half away from Jim surviving his 4th year. He hasn't survived his 3rd year yet. But a lot of coaches have survuved 2.5 years and have had a worse record than Jim - it is going to take me a little time to research this, but I'm not sure it is worth my time. Before I take the time please let me know this is worth my time, otherwise I'll just leave it at that..

Seth do you completely discount what the coaches see from Josh in practice - does that have zero value. The pacers right now have the worst bigs in the NBA as a group and you seem to think that Josh is some diamond in the rough - all he needs is time and he'll blosson into a decent rotation player - wel, we need all the help we can possibly get at the big position, I am 100% convinced that if the coaches saw something in Josh during practice that he would be getting some regular minutes. (Obviously most of the people in this forum believe that JOB is just a terrible coach, so they don't trust him to see a player play in practice. Interesting when you consider that is exactly how Price started getting time)

UB, great points.

Of course message board coaches know more about the players because they actually see them in practice.;)

The Pacers are doing Josh a huge favor by having him on the team as no other NBA seemed to want him.

PaceBalls
01-29-2010, 10:36 AM
UB, great points.

Of course message board coaches know more about the players because they actually see them in practice.;)

The Pacers are doing Josh a huge favor by having him on the team as no other NBA seemed to want him.

Your analysis could be thrown right back at you.

What have we seen of Josh? Everytime he is on the floor he contributes. He plays well enough to be in the NBA.

Are you one of the coaching staff? Do you get to see these practices where Josh stinks it up so bad on a regular basis that you conclude he does not belong in the NBA?

BillS
01-29-2010, 10:47 AM
Your analysis could be thrown right back at you.

What have we seen of Josh? Everytime he is on the floor he contributes. He plays well enough to be in the NBA.

Are you one of the coaching staff? Do you get to see these practices where Josh stinks it up so bad on a regular basis that you conclude he does not belong in the NBA?

So, as has been said, it all comes down to opinion. Does the coaching staff suck so bad that they have The Answer on the bench and can't see it? Or is the spot performance in games a short-term thing that can't be considered sustainable due to performance in practice? Or, is AI right and practice doesn't matter?

The thing is I think we have no one who has observed both practice and games. You do have the conspiracy theories about Bird forcing JOB to play people the fordits (forum pundits) think he wouldn't play otherwise, so you have to include Bird in the list of people who are blind to Josh's superior abilities.

And yes, Seth, I know you can give stat after stat of how Josh affects games and how good he is on the floor. But until we understand why he isn't playing those stats aren't going to change anything, so they aren't the point here.

Brad8888
01-29-2010, 11:03 AM
So, as has been said, it all comes down to opinion. Does the coaching staff suck so bad that they have The Answer on the bench and can't see it? Or is the spot performance in games a short-term thing that can't be considered sustainable due to performance in practice? Or, is AI right and practice doesn't matter?

The thing is I think we have no one who has observed both practice and games. You do have the conspiracy theories about Bird forcing JOB to play people the fordits (forum pundits) think he wouldn't play otherwise, so you have to include Bird in the list of people who are blind to Josh's superior abilities.

And yes, Seth, I know you can give stat after stat of how Josh affects games and how good he is on the floor. But until we understand why he isn't playing those stats aren't going to change anything, so they aren't the point here.

Add to this the fact that Bird had come out several times during the offseason, if I recall correctly, saying what a big part of the future that Josh McRoberts was going to be, and I believe he actually mentioned him more than most of our young players. Why would Bird have done that unless he actually thought it to be true? He DOES see him practice, and he does see him outside of games.

In my opinion, Josh doesn't play because he cannot be like Troy Murphy and hit 40%+ from the arc, whether it be during games or practices.

BillS
01-29-2010, 11:13 AM
Add to this the fact that Bird had come out several times during the offseason, if I recall correctly, saying what a big part of the future that Josh McRoberts was going to be, and I believe he actually mentioned him more than most of our young players. Why would Bird have done that unless he actually thought it to be true? He DOES see him practice, and he does see him outside of games.

In my opinion, Josh doesn't play because he cannot be like Troy Murphy and hit 40%+ from the arc, whether it be during games or practices.

A big part of the future does not necessarily equal a current contributor. In fact, the emphasis on future could mean that he isn't ready for some reason NOW but he's cheap enough to keep. He could be getting mentioned more because he's a local guy that gets asked about a lot.

As you say, these are just opinions. We don't know, we each pick the reason that fits our own reconstruction of the crime.

ChicagoJ
01-29-2010, 11:21 AM
If he's not given a chance to contribute now (even if he blows it), he won't be ready to be a contributor later.

We're still a team with two directions, do we play our mediocre vets to get to 36 wins and say, "DRATS!! We almost made the playoffs with 36 wins in a weak Eastern Conference. We need one more mediocre vet to get over the hump next season"? Or do we play our not-yet-mediocre young players who have the potential to solid players on playoff teams or maybe they don't.

I could understand the "veteran presence to teach these guys how to win, practice, prepare, etc." if our veterans were Reggie, Rik, Dale, Mark and Jalen.

But they aren't. Its Murphy, Dunleavy, Foster, TJ Ford, Watson, Jones, etc.

I'm not on the Josh McRoberts bandwagon. I think he's taken over the latest incarnation of the Jamison Brewer bandwagon. But if the other choice is more Troy Murphy on the perimeter, I'll take Josh.

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Maybe the coaches have seen all they need to see in practice from Josh and know that he just isn't good enough for the NBA. That is a possibility that is within the realm of reasonableness. Lets assume for a second that is the case - then why should they waste any time actually playing him in a real game.

Speed
01-29-2010, 11:41 AM
I don't look at McBob and say there is a future guy this team can possibly build with or around.

I never have.

I hope he can develop into that, but I don't see it.

Reasons why?

Many other NBA talent evaluators and coaches haven't deemed him capable of playing consistent minutes. I mean he dropped to the second round, has never gotten consistent burn on the two teams he's played for, one good, one bad. You could say Obie doesn't like him, you could say he had too many good players in front of him in Portlans, you could say teams who didn't draft him underestimated him. I mean at some point, ALL of these professional NBA people can't be wrong?

Then you have the "not anything negative" argument or what has he done to NOT get to play. I used that for AJ Price. I guess it applies, but don't you want a guy to be at a point that he clearly earns minutes. Some would say he has "earned" those minutes, well I'd say that's subjective and by not doing anything wrong, doesn't mean you've earned minutes.

So why give Hansbrough the same leeway, but not McBob. Because you could say Hansbrough does bring one thing thats proactively good, not just "not bad". He's a physical presence on a marshmellow soft team of nice guys. Ya, Tyler has warts, I understand, but the one thing he does do, is something desperately needed on the current team. McBob doesn't have that one special thing he does, to merit this. Also, I know the chronological ages of these guys, but McBob is what in his 3rd year? I've seen some progression, but not Roy Hibbert like improvement.

So ya, maybe Bird sees him as the future. I know I've heard him also talk about the future and not mention Josh at all, specifically.

Look I'm all for playing him and seeing if he can expedite his development, just to see if he merits keeping. What do you have to lose. But to pretend he's anything close to a rotation guy even on a bad team, just because he doesn't do anything "bad" is wrong, to me.

I personnally hope he becomes a well rounded solid back up power forward who can knock a shot, defend his positions, and pass very well for that position. Right now, I think there's more of a chance he's a guy who isn't around in two years (like UB said) if he doesn't start cashing in on some of those abilities.

You can only play the potential card for so long and you can only blame external things for so long.

It's the old saying, one person calls you duck, you might not be a duck, two people call you a duck, you might not be a duck, three people call you a duck, well you probably want to lay low during duck hunting season.

In summary,

I don't think McBob is close to being an NBA contributor.

I'm all for playing him to give him a chance to develop and to determine if he is worth a roster spot going forward. What do you have to lose?

I think unless there is a dramatic progression that McBob is more likely out of the league than a rotation guy on any team in two years.

Anthem
01-29-2010, 11:46 AM
Lets assume for a second that is the case - then why should they waste any time actually playing him in a real game.
Sure, if we assume that's the case then you have a point. But I don't think anyone shares your assumption. I think most of us assume that, unless absolutely forced, Obie won't put a player on the court who can't shoot the three. And since Josh isn't a 3-point threat, he doesn't get PT.

McKeyFan
01-29-2010, 11:56 AM
So, as has been said, it all comes down to opinion. Does the coaching staff suck so bad that they have The Answer on the bench and can't see it? Or is the spot performance in games a short-term thing that can't be considered sustainable due to performance in practice? Or, is AI right and practice doesn't matter?

The thing is I think we have no one who has observed both practice and games. You do have the conspiracy theories about Bird forcing JOB to play people the fordits (forum pundits) think he wouldn't play otherwise, so you have to include Bird in the list of people who are blind to Josh's superior abilities.


I hear ya.

Funny thing is, guys on this board have been calling for AJ instead of TJ for months. Then it happens. I guess PD saw things the coaching staff didn't.

Then, JOB decided small ball (i.e. Five game win streak with Granger at 4) is our best lineup. PD members have been calling for that for months. I guess PD saw things the coaching staff didn't.

Sookie
01-29-2010, 12:01 PM
Maybe the coaches have seen all they need to see in practice from Josh and know that he just isn't good enough for the NBA. That is a possibility that is within the realm of reasonableness. Lets assume for a second that is the case - then why should they waste any time actually playing him in a real game.

Like two months ago..when we thought that was the reason Price wasn't getting any minutes. Then, oh crap, JOB said apparently he does outplay the vets in practice..and then it was "well..practice to the guys that don't play are the games..so that doesn't count."

Then finally JOB played him. And most would agree the team's offense looks better under him, and if not..they'd at least agree he's better than T.J. and there was no reason to not be playing him before. And no, JOB shouldn't be given credit for making the change..and putting two and two together. If a player stinks..and another player is outperforming him in practice..there's a simple math there.

So with McBob. Honestly, the first few times I saw him, in preseason..I was like "what's the big deal." And then he got playing time a while back, and almost everything the guy did was positive.

Truth is, JOB wants him to be Murphy-lite *shoot threes* ..since he can't do that, he's not playing. Tyler plays because he's the first round pick, and as said..he does bring a physical presence. But also, I'm quite sure Bird would fire JOB on the spot if Tyler *when healthy* was rotting on the bench.

McBob looks very raw to me, but as I said..when he's played..it's been positive. I don't think anyone is advocating he starts, or plays 30 minutes. But, I am advocating that when things are going south, give him a couple of minutes, see what he can do. His skills fill a hole we desperatly need to fill.

IndyPacer
01-29-2010, 12:33 PM
I don't know what's worse, O'Brien saying Murphy is a center, or O'Brien not realizing he made a bad decision.

Either way, he just doesn't get it and I don't think he ever will. Bird needs to take Murphy away from JOB if he's serious about improving this team.

The key problem is not that Murphy is on the team, although admittedly I'd like to get rid of Murphy, his contract, and his el matador defense.

The real problem is that O'Brien is in charge of this team and just seems clueless. He's just not seeing what just about everyone else can see. He's lost the team and is doing no favors for our young players. In a year or so (although I hope much sooner), JOB will be gone and Hibbert will still be here. Hibbert needs to get experience RIGHT NOW, especially while we have the luxury to give him some playing time given that there's no chance of a championship run at this point in time.

Speed
01-29-2010, 12:39 PM
I'm fine with the minutes Roy has gotten this year. He's in year two and exceeded my expectations in how he's performing and in what I've seen as his ceiling. I would start him in every situation as a learning experience, but his minutes have been perfect, I think.

I think if you played him more minutes in year two, you can see him get fatigued and start to be out of position.

Also, more important is Roy is getting low post looks (his strength) in those minutes now. That's as big a deal to me as the minutes. Let the big fella work down there and do what he's good at now as he's learning to improve on the things he needs to work on.

BillS
01-29-2010, 12:49 PM
I hear ya.

Funny thing is, guys on this board have been calling for AJ instead of TJ for months. Then it happens. I guess PD saw things the coaching staff didn't.

Then, JOB decided small ball (i.e. Five game win streak with Granger at 4) is our best lineup. PD members have been calling for that for months. I guess PD saw things the coaching staff didn't.

I don't think it was a matter of AJ playing himself on, it was a matter of TJ playing himself off. Many, many coaches have a tyendency to stick with the guys already in the lineup unless specific bad things happen - remember Larry Brown's "no starter loses his position due to injury" that bit us a few times when a returning player really wasn't doing quite as well as a bench player?

And small ball if it includes Murphy is what people are screaming expletives about. I think folks are confusing "small ball" with "Murphyless ball" and using whichever definition fits their "it works" or "it sucks" agenda.

In general, I think most fans are quicker to demand a change than coaches are. Whether you think JOB is arbitrary/stubborn or not determines how you view his moves, but in general coaches need to make sure every avenue with a player has been explored before making major changes.

That said, I've seen colonoscopy results that leave more unexplored than Murphy's possibilities...

vnzla81
01-29-2010, 12:53 PM
Maybe the coaches have seen all they need to see in practice from Josh and know that he just isn't good enough for the NBA. That is a possibility that is within the realm of reasonableness. Lets assume for a second that is the case - then why should they waste any time actually playing him in a real game.

The coaches have seen Roy killing the other team inside and he gets bench the game after that, what makes you think that is any different with Mcbob?:confused:

BillS
01-29-2010, 01:03 PM
The coaches have seen Roy killing the other team inside and he gets bench the game after that, what makes you think that is any different with Mcbob?:confused:

The coaches also saw Roy get killed by the other team inside from time to time. Let's stop pretending there's no gray area here. If there weren't, Bird would have teams lined up 16 deep to trade for these amazing players that our FO and coaching staff are too stupid to use.

Bball
01-29-2010, 01:06 PM
Maybe the coaches have seen all they need to see in practice from Josh and know that he just isn't good enough for the NBA. That is a possibility that is within the realm of reasonableness. Lets assume for a second that is the case - then why should they waste any time actually playing him in a real game.


Maybe the coach is just a horrible coach with no ability or desire to adjust his fundamentally flawed and unsound system into something more resembling real basketball and lacks a better understanding or ability to utilize and maximize the players he does have?

UB... I don't know how long you can continue to apologize for this man's bad decisions or fundamentally flawed coaching. It is bad basketball and it's led to the team tuning him out (and rightfully so). Spray and pray will win no championships.

He's a horrible, horrible coach....

vnzla81
01-29-2010, 01:12 PM
The coaches also saw Roy get killed by the other team inside from time to time. Let's stop pretending there's no gray area here. If there weren't, Bird would have teams lined up 16 deep to trade for these amazing players that our FO and coaching staff are too stupid to use.

what I don't get from you and Buck is that why you keep saying that Roy's defense is bad and for that you justify see him seating on the bench, when everybody here knows that Murphy is the worst defender on the team and he keeps starting and playing most of the minutes and now this amazing coaching stuff or coach decided that he is just a better center than Roy.

Peck
01-29-2010, 01:20 PM
The coaches also saw Roy get killed by the other team inside from time to time. Let's stop pretending there's no gray area here. If there weren't, Bird would have teams lined up 16 deep to trade for these amazing players that our FO and coaching staff are too stupid to use.

Indeed.

Now explain why Troy Murphy never gets benched when he get's burned "from time to time" on defense. (time to time being very generous)

BTW, the answer to that question I think has a lot more to do with why McRoberts gets zero min. than his overall talent/ability.

JohnnyBGoode
01-29-2010, 01:26 PM
what I don't get from you and Buck is that why you keep saying that Roy's defense is bad and for that you justify see him seating on the bench, when everybody here knows that Murphy is the worst defender on the team and he keeps starting and playing most of the minutes and now this amazing coaching stuff or coach decided that he is just a better center than Roy.

Another parrot pops up his head.

Troy 1121 minutes played
Roy 1091 minutes played

So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.

BillS
01-29-2010, 01:29 PM
I'm not defending JOB's actions in regards to Murphy, I still think there is some kind of Sith Mind Control going on. All I'm saying is that there are other reasons besides "JOB is an idiot" to sit Roy at times.

Just because a coach is an idiot in one way does not automatically mean he's a complete idiot. It makes the chances higher, but there are still other reasons.

I really hate arguments that turn entirely on the concept that "everyone who doesn't see <argued point of view> is stupid."

JohnnyBGoode
01-29-2010, 01:31 PM
The key problem is not that Murphy is on the team, although admittedly I'd like to get rid of Murphy, his contract, and his el matador defense.

The real problem is that O'Brien is in charge of this team and just seems clueless. He's just not seeing what just about everyone else can see. He's lost the team and is doing no favors for our young players. In a year or so (although I hope much sooner), JOB will be gone and Hibbert will still be here. Hibbert needs to get experience RIGHT NOW, especially while we have the luxury to give him some playing time given that there's no chance of a championship run at this point in

time.


Damn the parrots keep popping their heads up.

How many minutes do you think Roy has played this year?

Repeating the same wrong stats doesn't suddenly make it true.

BillS
01-29-2010, 01:31 PM
Another parrot pops up his head.

Troy 1121 minutes played
Roy 1091 minutes played

So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.

Well, considering the number of games Troy was out for, that probably averages to a significant number of minutes more PER GAME. I don't have time for the math right now, but this number doesn't impress me in isolation. Got a minutes per game stat? I would GUESS it shows Murph playing 6-8 minutes more per game.

Bball
01-29-2010, 01:31 PM
Another parrot pops up his head.

Troy 1121 minutes played
Roy 1091 minutes played

So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.


For accuracy's sake, Murphy was not available for several games this season. So even though their numbers are tight, I'd think they wouldn't be that tight if you removed games from the equation where Murphy was out (and instead only compared their minutes when Murphy was available).

Considering Murphy missed several games, and still has a lead in minutes, that would tend to support the idea that Murphy gets a lot of minutes over Hibbert. But without the actual minute breakdown from games where both were available it would be hard to say for certain.

Speed
01-29-2010, 01:34 PM
Hibby 23.7
Murphy 31.1

Minutes per game. The one game Murph got hurt he played like 6 mins if I remember right. Probably not enough to sway the numbers, I'm sure.

JohnnyBGoode
01-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Hibby 23.7
Murphy 31.1

Minutes per game. The one game Murph got hurt he played like 6 mins if I remember right. Probably not enough to sway the numbers, I'm sure.

True, but the point I was making is Roy has played almost as many total minutes as Troy and yet many posters continue to parrot the same old misinformation that Troy plays and Roy sits. The truth of the matter is Roy is playing and progressing and to play him more minutes may result in a regression in his game. Sounds illogical, just think on it for awhile.

Peck
01-29-2010, 01:58 PM
True, but the point I was making is Roy has played almost as many total minutes as Troy and yet many posters continue to parrot the same old misinformation that Troy plays and Roy sits. The truth of the matter is Roy is playing and progressing and to play him more minutes may result in a regression in his game. Sounds illogical, just think on it for awhile.

You see the part I have highlighted from you is a good solid logical statement. I disagree with it but that is just purley opinion and I don't dispute the fact that you may be right.

Brad8888
01-29-2010, 02:09 PM
True, but the point I was making is Roy has played almost as many total minutes as Troy and yet many posters continue to parrot the same old misinformation that Troy plays and Roy sits. The truth of the matter is Roy is playing and progressing and to play him more minutes may result in a regression in his game. Sounds illogical, just think on it for awhile.

I have thought at length on this, and so have most of the rest of us since last year.

More accurately, Troy often plays when his legs are plainly gone and both his three point shooting and rebounding have ceased in some games while Roy continues to sit which is painfully obvious to many of us here.

This is where the McBob argument kicks in for those of us who value him at all. If he were used to give Murphy a break, it would do two things. First, if nothing else it would ensure that Murphy has more available energy to do what he does most effectively for about 15 or 20 minutes per game. Second, it would provide an entirely unexpected and unplanned for look from our team that would cause disruptions for our opponents both offensively and defensively. They would have to respect his passing skills and aggressiveness defensively while not really knowing what to expect from him on offense which playing time would probably reveal that he can hit baseline jumpers and make moves to the rim due to his being quicker than a lot of 4's probably are.

Troy could get virtually the same positive stats he does in about 60% as much time as he currently plays, maximizing his positive impact on the game while also maximizing his trade value at the same time. And, the added experience that both Roy and McRoberts (and Hansbrough when he regains his health) can only help the franchise going forward. It is a win-win-win situation during a season that virtually all but the very most optimistic have given up hope on anyway.

Hicks
01-29-2010, 02:16 PM
Another parrot pops up his head.

Troy 1121 minutes played
Roy 1091 minutes played

So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.

Had Murphy not sat down for injury reasons, he would have an additional 310 minutes (31 per game x 10 games missed), and that's not counting the time he would have had in the two games where he got injured and had to leave those games early (vs. WAS and @ CHI).

Now even with the generiously lower addition of minutes, he's sitting at 1431 to Roy's 1091.

Troy averages 8 more minutes each game than Roy.

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 02:19 PM
what I don't get from you and Buck is that why you keep saying that Roy's defense is bad and for that you justify see him seating on the bench, when everybody here knows that Murphy is the worst defender on the team and he keeps starting and playing most of the minutes and now this amazing coaching stuff or coach decided that he is just a better center than Roy.

I can't speak for BillS, but I dare anyone to find a post from either BillS or myself where we claimed that Roy's defense was worse than Troy's or even equal.

Actually I take that back, there have been times when certain aspects of Murphy's "team defense" has been better than certain aspects of Roy's team defense - that is primarily just based upon experience though. Please note I am using the qualifier "certain aspects"

But yes Troy's one-on-one defense is beyond horrible

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Had Murphy not sat down for injury reasons, he would have an additional 310 minutes (31 per game x 10 games missed), and that's not counting the time he would have had in the two games where he got injured and had to leave those games early (vs. WAS and @ CHI).

Now even with the generiously lower addition of minutes, he's sitting at 1431 to Roy's 1091.

Troy averages 8 more minutes each game than Roy.

Ok so what do you and others want as far as minutes go. For Roy and Troy - and please be realistic. if Roy played 28 and Troy played 27 - would you be satisfied

Dr. Awesome
01-29-2010, 02:36 PM
I did say a healthy Jeff Foster

A healthy Jeff Foster is still not as good as he used to be. This is ignoring the fact that he is never healthy, but even if he was, he is still slow on defense and a black hole on offense.

Foster is not the same player he used to be and likely never will be again. If you think otherwise, your stuck in the past.

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 02:41 PM
A healthy Jeff Foster is still not as good as he used to be. This is ignoring the fact that he is never healthy, but even if he was, he is still slow on defense and a black hole on offense.



What? slow on defense and a black hole on offense. Either your definition of those terms is different from mine or I completely disagree with you. It doesn't really matter as he likely won't play again in a pacers uniform. But Jeff is fast, quick on defense and on offense how can he be a black hole when he rarely if ever shoots. OK, I'm confused

JohnnyBGoode
01-29-2010, 02:44 PM
Had Murphy not sat down for injury reasons, he would have an additional 310 minutes (31 per game x 10 games missed), and that's not counting the time he would have had in the two games where he got injured and had to leave those games early (vs. WAS and @ CHI).

Now even with the generiously lower addition of minutes, he's sitting at 1431 to Roy's 1091.

Troy averages 8 more minutes each game than Roy.

True, you could make that deduction, however that is not the point that I was making. The fact is Roy has played only 30 less minutes for the season than Troy. That doesn't jive with the common theme around here that Roy sits and Troy plays.

Since86
01-29-2010, 02:47 PM
True, you could make that deduction, however that is not the point that I was making. The fact is Roy has played only 30 less minutes for the season than Troy. That doesn't jive with the common theme around here that Roy sits and Troy plays.

Talk about semantics.....

Troy plays 8mins per game more than Roy. End of story.

Unclebuck
01-29-2010, 02:52 PM
True, you could make that deduction, however that is not the point that I was making. The fact is Roy has played only 30 less minutes for the season than Troy. That doesn't jive with the common theme around here that Roy sits and Troy plays.

I agree. - we are responding to the notion that Murphy plays and Roy sits. Most of you aren't arguing a few minutes here or there. I think with a few rare exceptions, Roy has been playing about as many minutes as he can handle playing. Roy gets very winded and tired after playing 5 or 6 minutes straight. This is common for big guys. Look at Yao it took him 3 or 4 seasons to build up to be able to play 35 minutes per game. I remember Jeff Van Gundy when he was the coach often complaining because Yao just couldn't play for alot of minutes consecutively - and I see the same thing from Roy

Naptown_Seth
01-29-2010, 03:02 PM
Anyone who supports Jim O'Brien ran out of straws two years ago in my opinion, but that hasn't stopped you or the others in defending him.
Wait, I thought EVERYONE defended him. Gotcha.

:D

I mean I'm pretty sure the new rule is if anyone ever said something here it means everyone else agreed to it.*




*none of this is directed at you DrA, just used your post for the jump off point

d_c
01-29-2010, 03:07 PM
I agree. - we are responding to the notion that Murphy plays and Roy sits. Most of you aren't arguing a few minutes here or there. I think with a few rare exceptions, Roy has been playing about as many minutes as he can handle playing. Roy gets very winded and tired after playing 5 or 6 minutes straight. This is common for big guys. Look at Yao it took him 3 or 4 seasons to build up to be able to play 35 minutes per game. I remember Jeff Van Gundy when he was the coach often complaining because Yao just couldn't play for alot of minutes consecutively - and I see the same thing from Roy

Yep. Should be noted he never averaged more than 26 minutes a game in any of his seasons at Georgetown: Not even during his senior season when he was the best player on the team.

Also should be noted: Roy is 2nd in the league in fouls per 48 minutes for anyone playing more than 20 minutes a game.

Edit: Additional fact. Among the 20 most foul prone players in the league, Roy averages the 3rd most minutes (Ersan Ilyasova and Taj Gibson are barely ahead of him).

Putnam
01-29-2010, 04:22 PM
Talk about semantics.....

Troy plays 8mins per game more than Roy. End of story.


A single, blunt number, unless it is the final score, is never the end of the story.

Roy has more games than Troy playing between 25 minutes and 35 minutes. Yes, this is owing to Troy's missed games but is is a fact. 35 is the most minutes Roy has ever played. Troy has 10 games playing over 35 minutes.

The Pacers' record is better when Roy plays 20-30 minutes (9-9) than when he plays more than 30 (4-6).

Troy gets far more minutes than he deserves and his output wanes late in games. I just think it is possible that while O'Brien might be crazy when it comes to Troy, he might still be doing a decen't job of managing Roy's development on most nights.

Tom White
01-29-2010, 04:39 PM
Another parrot pops up his head.

Troy 1121 minutes played
Roy 1091 minutes played

So we have Troy playing just 30 more minutes for the season and yet you and others keep spouting about Troy getting most of the minutes. How about thinking before posting the same wrong bs.

You've got to remember that Murphy missed a number of games with injury. Perhaps it would be better to compare the minutes per game, or minutes played versus minutes the players were available (healthy).

Edit: Sorry. Did not intend to pile on. I did not see the posts from others stating the same thing, before I posted.

Bball
01-29-2010, 04:39 PM
I just think it is possible that O'Brien might be crazy.

Fixed. It's more concise and to the point this way! ;)

Hicks
01-29-2010, 04:52 PM
True, you could make that deduction, however that is not the point that I was making. The fact is Roy has played only 30 less minutes for the season than Troy. That doesn't jive with the common theme around here that Roy sits and Troy plays.

The common theme is Roy should start at the 5 spot as opposed to Troy Murphy.

Anthem
01-29-2010, 05:25 PM
The common theme is Roy should start at the 5 spot as opposed to Troy Murphy.
Yeah. I think we can all agree that no matter how many minutes are involved, nobody wants to see Troy Murphy starting at the 5.

Sookie
01-29-2010, 05:45 PM
Yeah. I think we can all agree that no matter how many minutes are involved, nobody wants to see Troy Murphy starting at the 5.

I'd rather see him at the five and Granger at the four, than Murphy at the Four and Roy at the five.

I'll take just about any combo before Troy and Roy are together.

ksuttonjr76
01-29-2010, 11:17 PM
Wow...this discussion has really become heated. My 2 cents...get rid of Murphy and JOB. If not, stop playing Murphy at the 5, and give McBob some PT give Murphy some rest. IMHO, it's not too common to hear people (media, other coaches, etc) outside of the team, so openly question a coach's decision. Phil Jackson was GENUINELY surprised to see Murphy at the 5 AND Granger at the 4. That was a defensive entree for Jackson.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-30-2010, 06:32 AM
A single, blunt number, unless it is the final score, is never the end of the story.

Roy has more games than Troy playing between 25 minutes and 35 minutes. Yes, this is owing to Troy's missed games but is is a fact. 35 is the most minutes Roy has ever played. Troy has 10 games playing over 35 minutes.

The Pacers' record is better when Roy plays 20-30 minutes (9-9) than when he plays more than 30 (4-6).

Troy gets far more minutes than he deserves and his output wanes late in games. I just think it is possible that while O'Brien might be crazy when it comes to Troy, he might still be doing a decen't job of managing Roy's development on most nights.

Good post.

Just to add to that, the Pacers are 3-14 when Roy plays less than 20 minutes.

PaceBalls
03-02-2010, 06:18 PM
Seeing how we play the Lakers tonight, I thought it would be interesting to revisit some of the fallout from the last Lakers game.

Hilarious quotes by Phil Jackson as he ponders WTF Jim was trying to do.

"I don't know if Jim was baiting us by starting Murphy at center," Jackson said. "It was impossible for them to cover Pau (Gasol) and Andrew. We had to find a way to move our offense to get it into them."

O'Brien didn't like being questioned about his decision to start small against a team that has Bynum and Gasol in the frontcourt.

"It's a small lineup, we didn't have a small guy on him," O'Brien said after pausing for a couple of seconds (as a lightbulb appeared above his head, turned on and then off again) when asked. "It had nothing to do with small lineups, it had to do that we had one of our two centers on Bynum."

Will Jim switch up the lineups again? Or bait the Lakers with starting Murph at center? :laugh:

Sookie
03-02-2010, 06:20 PM
Seeing how we play the Lakers tonight, I thought it would be interesting to revisit some of the fallout from the last Lakers game.

Hilarious quotes by Phil Jackson as he ponders WTF Jim was trying to do.

"I don't know if Jim was baiting us by starting Murphy at center," Jackson said. "It was impossible for them to cover Pau (Gasol) and Andrew. We had to find a way to move our offense to get it into them."

O'Brien didn't like being questioned about his decision to start small against a team that has Bynum and Gasol in the frontcourt.

"It's a small lineup, we didn't have a small guy on him," O'Brien said after pausing for a couple of seconds (as a lightbulb appeared above his head, turned on and then off again) when asked. "It had nothing to do with small lineups, it had to do that we had one of our two centers on Bynum."

Will Jim switch up the lineups again? Or bait the Lakers with starting Murph at center? :laugh:

Gonna be interesting to hear what Phil has to say about TJ guarding Kobe or Artest..

PaceBalls
03-02-2010, 06:29 PM
The Lakers are probably the biggest team in the NBA. Ron is like 270lbs at SF. He might just squash Dunleavy like a bug.
Jim should go deep to the bench and bring Solo and McBob off the bench for big mins in this one... oh wait Solo is suspended..

I hope we see some McBob tonight, we have to right? We have Hibbert, McBob and that is it really for the bigs. Some think Troy is a big, but he isn't..

Either the team overcomes incredible obstacles tonight and shocks the world shooting 25 for 30 from 3pt. land, or we are going to get completely annihilated, more than the usual annihilation. Like a 50 point blowout dunkathon.

rexnom
03-02-2010, 06:49 PM
I don't know what's worse, O'Brien saying Murphy is a center, or O'Brien not realizing he made a bad decision.

Either way, he just doesn't get it and I don't think he ever will. Bird needs to take Murphy away from JOB if he's serious about improving this team.
Not saying we're tanking but I am saying that this is a fact and that Bird and Morway are not idiots who can't see what's going on.

BlueNGold
03-02-2010, 07:39 PM
The Lakers are probably the biggest team in the NBA. Ron is like 270lbs at SF. He might just squash Dunleavy like a bug.
Jim should go deep to the bench and bring Solo and McBob off the bench for big mins in this one... oh wait Solo is suspended..

I hope we see some McBob tonight, we have to right? We have Hibbert, McBob and that is it really for the bigs. Some think Troy is a big, but he isn't..

Either the team overcomes incredible obstacles tonight and shocks the world shooting 25 for 30 from 3pt. land, or we are going to get completely annihilated, more than the usual annihilation. Like a 50 point blowout dunkathon.

This is one game where I think we probably should roll the dice and shoot a three every time down the court. I think Hibbert should even get on with it.

We are far too out-classed and short on bodies to win this game by playing traditional basketball.

Who really cares anyway.

BlueNGold
03-02-2010, 07:41 PM
Not saying we're tanking but I am saying that this is a fact and that Bird and Morway are not idiots who can't see what's going on.

This is why I am convinced that Murphy's contract is the reason he is out there. Prior to losing nearly our entire front court, there was no excuse for playing him those minutes.

McKeyFan
03-02-2010, 08:01 PM
This is why I am convinced that Murphy's contract is the reason he is out there. Prior to losing nearly our entire front court, there was no excuse for playing him those minutes.

Don't believe it. Don't believe it.

They could have very amply showcased him with 20 to 25 minutes a game.

JOB loves Murph, thinks he's key to winning for this team. I know you don't want to believe it, because the truth is excruciating. (You can't HANDLE the truth!) ;)

rexnom
03-02-2010, 08:18 PM
This is why I am convinced that Murphy's contract is the reason he is out there. Prior to losing nearly our entire front court, there was no excuse for playing him those minutes.
From Obie's perspective but not from Bird/Morway's perspective.

Brad8888
03-02-2010, 09:44 PM
Gonna be interesting to hear what Phil has to say about TJ guarding Kobe or Artest..

Artest will be Murphy's job because O'B wants to be unpredictable in the face of Phil's insults. TJ will take Fisher, leaving Watson to handle Kobe as our best defending guard, leaving Rush to take Gasol, and Granger obviously to take Bynum as our best defender at the 4 or 5.

Take THAT Phil :hmm::eek::laugh::angel:

vnzla81
03-02-2010, 09:57 PM
Artest will be Murphy's job because O'B wants to be unpredictable in the face of Phil's insults. TJ will take Fisher, leaving Watson to handle Kobe as our best defending guard, leaving Rush to take Gasol, and Granger obviously to take Bynum as our best defender at the 4 or 5.

Take THAT Phil :hmm::eek::laugh::angel:

why is that green?:confused:

Naptown_Seth
03-02-2010, 10:26 PM
Not saying we're tanking but I am saying that this is a fact and that Bird and Morway are not idiots who can't see what's going on.
I want to agree with you, especially where Morway's concerned, but from the outside looking in this whole thing jumped the shark around Dec 15th or so. Actually I think we've had some weird stuff since the comments prior to the Diener and K Rush signings, as well as that last second pick up of Luther Head with AJ itching to get some PT after a strong summer.

I feel like one of these people is trying to get the other one back somehow, be it Bird or JOB.

It doesn't feel like any of this stuff is on the same page at all.






I'm with McKeyFan, it seems very clear that when the going gets tough, JOB runs to Murph. He loves his game. He does not care about his defense or ignores it somehow.

He TOLERATES Roy and Rush, but he doesn't want to play them if he can avoid it. At times it feels like the FO is pushing for them to get in, but at other times it feels hands off.

BTW, enough with the "showcasing" angle. Cleveland wanted no part of Troy after seeing him in action in Conseco while all the buzz was going on. He didn't have a good showing there, so why would they pay attention to box score stats from other games where he got 35 minutes instead of 25.

And the joke is on JOB because there is no way Troy is here after next summer, so if JOB thinks that he will be then he better get familiar with lineups that don't feature him.

I mean we all think JOB is toast sooner or later, but let's say he isn't. It's in his OWN INTEREST to play Roy, Price, DJones, McRoberts, Solo and Rush as much as possible now so they will be better later when he needs to lean on them more.

Sookie
03-02-2010, 10:35 PM
I want to agree with you, especially where Morway's concerned, but from the outside looking in this whole thing jumped the shark around Dec 15th or so. Actually I think we've had some weird stuff since the comments prior to the Diener and K Rush signings, as well as that last second pick up of Luther Head with AJ itching to get some PT after a strong summer.

I feel like one of these people is trying to get the other one back somehow, be it Bird or JOB.

It doesn't feel like any of this stuff is on the same page at all.






I'm with McKeyFan, it seems very clear that when the going gets tough, JOB runs to Murph. He loves his game. He does not care about his defense or ignores it somehow.

He TOLERATES Roy and Rush, but he doesn't want to play them if he can avoid it. At times it feels like the FO is pushing for them to get in, but at other times it feels hands off.

BTW, enough with the "showcasing" angle. Cleveland wanted no part of Troy after seeing him in action in Conseco while all the buzz was going on. He didn't have a good showing there, so why would they pay attention to box score stats from other games where he got 35 minutes instead of 25.

And the joke is on JOB because there is no way Troy is here after next summer, so if JOB thinks that he will be then he better get familiar with lineups that don't feature him.

I mean we all think JOB is toast sooner or later, but let's say he isn't. It's in his OWN INTEREST to play Roy, Price, DJones, McRoberts, Solo and Rush as much as possible now so they will be better later when he needs to lean on them more.

well, it's not in his best interest really.

If JOB really thinks that the vets are going to get him the most wins, and also really thinks that he won't be with the Pacers much longer, I guess it does make sense for him to try and get the best record. He'll be looking for a job soon.

Granted, he's wrong..and playing the younger guys would win more..but still..now that I think about it, in terms of JOB's own interests..if he incorrectly believes his lineups would win more..it makes sense for JOB to be trying to win.

Thesterovic
03-02-2010, 10:38 PM
Keep in mind that Bird is a firm believer that a coach is only good for 3 years for one team. So Jim should be done after this year. Just read Larry's books.

BlueNGold
03-02-2010, 11:39 PM
Don't believe it. Don't believe it.

They could have very amply showcased him with 20 to 25 minutes a game.

JOB loves Murph, thinks he's key to winning for this team. I know you don't want to believe it, because the truth is excruciating. (You can't HANDLE the truth!) ;)

You could be right. Murphy does usually rack up all his numbers in the first 20 to 25 minutes. Yes, I think you have it.

EDIT: I was silly to think Murphy's stats would be even more inflated with an additional 15 minutes a game...

d_c
03-03-2010, 03:51 AM
Keep in mind that Bird is a firm believer that a coach is only good for 3 years for one team. So Jim should be done after this year. Just read Larry's books.

Well, Bird picked up JOB's 4th year option, so evidently he really likes JOB or he has trouble following his own advice.

Tom White
03-03-2010, 11:11 AM
BTW, enough with the "showcasing" angle. Cleveland wanted no part of Troy after seeing him in action in Conseco while all the buzz was going on. He didn't have a good showing there, so why would they pay attention to box score stats from other games where he got 35 minutes instead of 25.


Allow me to take this a step further. I don't believe Cleveland was EVER actually interested in Murphy. I do think they feigned some interest in him as a ploy in their negotiations with Washington for Jamison, a smoke screen if you will, but I don't think they were really interested in Murphy.

Tom White
03-03-2010, 11:15 AM
Well, Bird picked up JOB's 4th year option, so evidently he really likes JOB or he has trouble following his own advice.

He did the same with Carlisle.

Naptown_Seth
03-03-2010, 03:54 PM
He did the same with Carlisle.
61 wins, top 5 COY 4 times IIRC including 1 win, made 2 ECF, 2 2nd rounds, 1 first round in his first 5 seasons of coaching, got the Pacers post-brawl to the 2nd round with a gimpy Tins and JO and no Ron.

I'd say you cut a guy some slack. He was .500 in his final year until the GSW trade went down.

The only time Rick's teams have played really losing ball were the 3 months of Troy/Dun Pacers. And now he's got Dirk playing in a way that most people are surprised by, like Dirk's been reborn and the Mavs are rolling toward 60 wins this year and currently the 4th best overall record in the league.

So you fired a guy for 3 bad post trade months balanced against 5 YEARS of great coaching with all sorts of adversity. Where are the 4-5 years of COY caliber work for JOB, the 60 wins, the 70-80% rate of getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs?

JOB has a resume right now that is worse than Bob Hill's or Isiah's.

Extending Rick and extending JOB aren't even close to the same ballpark.

Hicks
03-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Well, Bird picked up JOB's 4th year option, so evidently he really likes JOB or he has trouble following his own advice.

Or, and I think this is the case, he did it to try to prevent the players from giving up on JOB.

I think that's probably happened anyway, so it didn't work, but since it's not a big deal to fire him this summer should he choose to, I don't find it to be a problem.

I don't blame him for the extension if that's truly why he did it. It didn't work, but he can still fire him at any time he chooses with little consequence, so I'm fine with it.

Anthem
03-03-2010, 05:32 PM
I think that's probably happened anyway, so it didn't work, but since it's not a big deal to fire him this summer should he choose to, I don't find it to be a problem.

I don't blame him for the extension if that's truly why he did it. It didn't work, but he can still fire him at any time he chooses with little consequence, so I'm fine with it.
Yeah, as long as Bird lets him go this summer I don't care. But if he says "Well, we had a lot of injuries last year, so we're going to let him finish out his contract" then I'll go PFFL.

Hicks
03-03-2010, 05:41 PM
Yeah, as long as Bird lets him go this summer I don't care. But if he says "Well, we had a lot of injuries last year, so we're going to let him finish out his contract" then I'll go PFFL.

I honestly don't know if I'll "go PFFL" or not. I'd be close, if I don't.

Naptown_Seth
03-03-2010, 06:02 PM
I honestly don't know if I'll "go PFFL" or not. I'd be close, if I don't.
I sincerely have toyed with the idea of ripping up my remaining tickets along with my renewal package and mailing it all in to Morway because of this situation. That would be a pretty expensive statement and it feels a bit foolish, and yet....

Is that PFFL? Not quite, but only because I'd hang with you guys here as we rode out this era.



As for the extension and it's impact on the roster, I think it says quite a bit about your coach if you have to use that gimmick to keep the players involved with him, as I posted in response to Duke already today.

You can't leverage the players with "he's here so you better get used to it" anymore than the big boss could make you like working for your jerk manager by doing the same thing.

All that does is make the employee lose faith in the big boss too, and look to get out ASAP.

It's up to JOB's coaching and attitude to make players want to work hard for him. That's his job, to manage players. If you are trying to trick them into being managed then he's having an epic fail at his work.

d_c
03-03-2010, 07:13 PM
I don't blame him for the extension if that's truly why he did it. It didn't work, but he can still fire him at any time he chooses with little consequence, so I'm fine with it.

The consequence is that it's going to make a cash strapped franchise pay for 2 coaches at once.

I suppose another consequence is JOB getting fired midway through next season and naming someone already on the staff as the interim.

CableKC
03-03-2010, 07:20 PM
BTW, enough with the "showcasing" angle. Cleveland wanted no part of Troy after seeing him in action in Conseco while all the buzz was going on. He didn't have a good showing there, so why would they pay attention to box score stats from other games where he got 35 minutes instead of 25.
IMHO....the Cavs used the Pacers/Murphy the same way that they used the Suns/Amare....both red herrings to pressure the Wizards into folding on Hickson and giving up Jamison for what boils down to the 30th draft pick and Savings. You really have to wonder what his trade value is or even if the Pacers overvalued him too much.

Given Morway's recent comments about the # of discussions that they were in and not making a move that would improve the team long/short term while worsen the Team's financial situation for the immediate future....I really wonder if the Pacers really got any deals that involved Expiring Contracts and if all the deals were to dump long-term contracts on us.

d_c
03-03-2010, 07:25 PM
I really wonder if the Pacers really got any deals that involved Expiring Contracts and if all the deals were to dump long-term contracts on us.

Probably the latter.

For instance, most likely Sac showed interest in Murphy because they were hoping to dump Beno Udrih's contract on the Pacers. What other reason would they have to talk to the Pacers? Certainly not because they wanted to dump Thompson or Greene. They could talk to anyone in the league if they wanted to do that.

If they offered Thomas' expiring deal along with one of those young guys for Murphy, I don't see the Pacers as the ones to turn that down.

CableKC
03-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Probably the latter.

For instance, most likely Sac showed interest in Murphy because they were hoping to dump Beno Udrih's contract on the Pacers. What other reason would they have to talk to the Pacers? Certainly not because they wanted to dump Thompson or Greene. They could talk to anyone in the league if they wanted to do that.

If they offered Thomas' expiring deal along with one of those young guys for Murphy, I don't see the Pacers as the ones to turn that down.
Sort of related...but listening to one of the SacTown radio shows when the Murphy SacTown rumor started....the SportGuy said that Murphy is the prototypical type of Big Man that Geoff Petrie likes to have on his team. Think Vlade, Miller and Spencer Hawes. I doubt that any legit talks went beyond offering Kenny Thomas for Murphy....cuz ( as you suggest ) if it was more...the Pacers SHOULD have been all over that deal in a second. More then likely.....it was some deal including Beno....which is a no-no.

Just pure speculation....but with the apparent rift between Hawes and Wesphalt that occured recently....I'd hope that the Pacers FO revisits sending Murphy to SacTown in the summer...possibly to swap down in the draft while sending Murphy for a Trade Exception and maybe Hawes.

Hicks
03-03-2010, 07:37 PM
The consequence is that it's going to make a cash strapped franchise pay for 2 coaches at once.

I suppose another consequence is JOB getting fired midway through next season and naming someone already on the staff as the interim.

This team was losing money even when it was winning, and we're assuming Jim's money is fully guaranteed anyway. Even if it is, it's small fry for one year. We paid Rick more and longer after he was fired.

If Jim's going to get fired, it's almost certainly going to be during an off-season, not mid-way through.

If Lester Conner takes over, I don't think he's the Jim clone people think he is, either. I have to be cryptic on that last point, but I'm "fairly confident" about that.

If Larry really thinks Jim needs to go, but doesn't want to shell out big bucks on a replacement, he should give Lester the 2011 season to see what he can do with it.

d_c
03-03-2010, 07:39 PM
Just pure speculation....but with the apparent rift between Hawes and Wesphalt that occured recently....I'd hope that the Pacers FO revisits sending Murphy to SacTown in the summer...possibly to swap down in the draft while sending Murphy for a Trade Exception and maybe Hawes.

I seriously doubt a coach like Westphal is going to dictate any kinds of moves the Kings make. He was more or less brought in to be a throwaway coach.

aceace
03-04-2010, 02:16 AM
We did not pay Carlisle after he was fired, he did Bird a favor by having Assistant Vice president added to his name. After he was fired Carlisle did not stay on as A.V.P.

This team has no chemistry.

JO'B has lost the team. I'm not sure he could get the Lakers above .500

The only games we will win the rest of the year are against teams below .500 and maybe a few above .500 (barely) if we are at home.

We suck, truly the only player on this team to make progress this year is Hibbert. McBob has not been given enough minutes.

Play the starters on the road one qtr., 24 minutes maximum. Play them more at home to appease the fans. It's not tanking it's giving young guys a chance to prove themselves.

Sookie
03-04-2010, 02:39 AM
We did not pay Carlisle after he was fired, he did Bird a favor by having Assistant Vice president added to his name. After he was fired Carlisle did not stay on as A.V.P.

This team has no chemistry.

JO'B has lost the team. I'm not sure he could get the Lakers above .500

The only games we will win the rest of the year are against teams below .500 and maybe a few above .500 (barely) if we are at home.

We suck, truly the only player on this team to make progress this year is Hibbert. McBob has not been given enough minutes.

Play the starters on the road one qtr., 24 minutes maximum. Play them more at home to appease the fans. It's not tanking it's giving young guys a chance to prove themselves.

I think the fans WANT to see the younger guys.

Bball
03-04-2010, 03:22 AM
The only games we will win the rest of the year are against teams below .500 and maybe a few above .500 (barely) if we are at home.


I've not examined the remaining schedule closely but typically we'll meet some teams tanking at the end trying to improve their own draft position. So that could be a real battle royale seeing which team wants to lose more. Or we could try and beat a team that's not trying to win and claim it's for 'momentum' for next season.. to end the season on a positive note. :puke:

And then there will be the teams with nothing to play for resting vets in a meaningless game against the Pacers down the stretch. Once again, we'd have the option of trying to beat a team that's not really trying to win and claiming it's for pride or momentum next season.

But considering the coaching and state of the franchise right now I have faith we can run the table.... and lose to everyone.... ;)

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2010, 04:06 AM
We couldn't beat the Washington Generals with the rotation that played tonight.

Peck
03-04-2010, 04:18 AM
Does anybody else find it funny that Denari and Kellogg both were saying that the Blazers had to go out and get Camby because they need another big.

I kept thinking to myself, well why? I mean couldn't they just play Aldridge at center and then play Webster and Fernandez at the 4? Then I realized I had seen Jim O'Brien coached teams for so long that I had actually forgotten that getting size and an inside presence is actually part of winning.

d_c
03-04-2010, 04:30 AM
Does anybody else find it funny that Denari and Kellogg both were saying that the Blazers had to go out and get Camby because they need another big.

I kept thinking to myself, well why?

Mainly because it's more worthwhile for a playoff bound team to get some depth up front.

If they were tanking it, then yeah, you'd probably be seeing Webster or whatever else they had playing the 4. Notice that most tanking teams don't use the trade deadline to address needs that might actually help them win games in the current season.

rexnom
03-04-2010, 04:35 AM
Does anybody else find it funny that Denari and Kellogg both were saying that the Blazers had to go out and get Camby because they need another big.

I kept thinking to myself, well why? I mean couldn't they just play Aldridge at center and then play Webster and Fernandez at the 4? Then I realized I had seen Jim O'Brien coached teams for so long that I had actually forgotten that getting size and an inside presence is actually part of winning.


Mainly because it's more worthwhile for a playoff bound team to get some depth up front.

If they were tanking it, then yeah, you'd probably be seeing Webster or whatever else they had playing the 4. Notice that most tanking teams don't use the trade deadline to address needs that might actually help them win games in the current season.
Peck, you need to think about this differently. No team can win with Troy Murphy at center. That's a good thing. If we won tonight, we would have had the 6th worst record with only half a game between us and the 9th worst record. Could you imagine going through this entire season and then getting the 9th best pick? Instead, we lost, stayed at #4 and retained about 20% chance at either Evan Turner or John Wall. Disgusting? Yes. Practical? Yes.

Sparhawk
03-04-2010, 08:30 AM
Peck, you need to think about this differently. No team can win with Troy Murphy at center. That's a good thing. If we won tonight, we would have had the 6th worst record with only half a game between us and the 9th worst record. Could you imagine going through this entire season and then getting the 9th best pick? Instead, we lost, stayed at #4 and retained about 20% chance at either Evan Turner or John Wall. Disgusting? Yes. Practical? Yes.

I'm not getting mad anymore by the losses. I just hate that the young guys don't get more minutes. I'm sure the JOB is trying to lose games with his lineups, and he is stupid cause he's being quite obvious about it.

I don't like purposely losing and I'm sure that's why the players have lost all respect for JOB. They'd probably still lose the games anyhow without trying to lose. Bird truly does need to fire him in the off season and get a coach and develops young guys.

BillS
03-04-2010, 10:09 AM
Peck, you need to think about this differently. No team can win with Troy Murphy at center. That's a good thing. If we won tonight, we would have had the 6th worst record with only half a game between us and the 9th worst record. Could you imagine going through this entire season and then getting the 9th best pick? Instead, we lost, stayed at #4 and retained about 20% chance at either Evan Turner or John Wall. Disgusting? Yes. Practical? Yes.

I'll say this slowly and carefully.

If anyone is hinging their future on us getting a top 3 pick, they are setting themselves up for failure.

We'll finish no better than 4th with the 7th pick, as other teams get the lottery balls to fall.

McKeyFan
03-04-2010, 10:22 AM
I'm not getting mad anymore by the losses. I just hate that the young guys don't get more minutes. I'm sure the JOB is trying to lose games with his lineups, and he is stupid cause he's being quite obvious about it.

I don't like purposely losing and I'm sure that's why the players have lost all respect for JOB. They'd probably still lose the games anyhow without trying to lose. Bird truly does need to fire him in the off season and get a coach and develops young guys.

JOB is not trying to lose. He's trying to win.

He was using the same weird lineups in the first half of the season.

Justin Tyme
03-04-2010, 10:49 AM
I've not examined the remaining schedule closely but typically we'll meet some teams tanking at the end trying to improve their own draft position. So that could be a real battle royale seeing which team wants to lose more. Or we could try and beat a team that's not trying to win and claim it's for 'momentum' for next season.. to end the season on a positive note. :puke:

And then there will be the teams with nothing to play for resting vets in a meaningless game against the Pacers down the stretch. Once again, we'd have the option of trying to beat a team that's not really trying to win and claiming it's for pride or momentum next season.

But considering the coaching and state of the franchise right now I have faith we can run the table.... and lose to everyone.... ;)


The last game is against Washington, and it could turnout to be a game that the winner loses a draft position with the win. Deja vu Milwaukee last year.

Justin Tyme
03-04-2010, 11:06 AM
Sort of related...but listening to one of the SacTown radio shows when the Murphy SacTown rumor started....the SportGuy said that Murphy is the prototypical type of Big Man that Geoff Petrie likes to have on his team. Think Vlade, Miller and Spencer Hawes. I doubt that any legit talks went beyond offering Kenny Thomas for Murphy....cuz ( as you suggest ) if it was more...the Pacers SHOULD have been all over that deal in a second. More then likely.....it was some deal including Beno....which is a no-no.

Just pure speculation....but with the apparent rift between Hawes and Wesphalt that occured recently....I'd hope that the Pacers FO revisits sending Murphy to SacTown in the summer...possibly to swap down in the draft while sending Murphy for a Trade Exception and maybe Hawes.


I would love the Pacers to revisit that trade, but I want GREENE!

My guess Nocioni is someone they would love to unload more than Udrih, b/c Beno plays where Nocioni seldom does. Their contracts are the same length and money wise.

odeez
03-04-2010, 12:16 PM
I don't know what else can be added to this thread...

I will start with Hibbert, he should be starting, period. I know foul trouble is a problem with him, but he is going to have to learn to play without fouling. He has gotten much better at this over the last two seasons. So let him play and take even 10 of those outside shots the team chucks and feed the big man, let him put some pressure on the opposing teams' bigs. He needs more touches!

JOB decision making, especially surrounding starting Troy at the 5... I have nothing to say... it has been well covered here that it makes no sense, so I will leave it at that.

All that can be said is that losing is the best thing for us, so keep on make those decisions JOB!

Anthem
03-04-2010, 11:09 PM
I know foul trouble is a problem with [Hibbert], but he is going to have to learn to play without fouling.
He's already learned it.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/roy_hibbert/game_by_game_stats.html

He's had five games with four or more fouls since January, and not fouled out once.

He could get better at post defense, sure, but fouls are no longer keeping him off the court.

I Love P
03-04-2010, 11:22 PM
I'm obviously a bit confused. Hibbert did start against the Lakers on Tuesday. Murphy started at the 4 and Hibbert at the 5. Right? I don't get this

Sookie
03-04-2010, 11:37 PM
I'm obviously a bit confused. Hibbert did start against the Lakers on Tuesday. Murphy started at the 4 and Hibbert at the 5. Right? I don't get this

He's started once out of the past four games, and only started against the Lakers because the Lakers are so big.

Jimmy's going with small ball. Earl, TJ, Rush, Danny, Troy...good chance only one of those players will be here next season.

McKeyFan
03-05-2010, 12:21 AM
fouls are no longer keeping him off the court.

You're wrong about that.

2 fouls keeps him off the court in the first quarter. 3 fouls in the second quarter and 4 fouls the rest of the game.

BillS
03-05-2010, 12:45 PM
You're wrong about that.

2 fouls keeps him off the court in the first quarter. 3 fouls in the second quarter and 4 fouls the rest of the game.

The first two of those are pretty much the standard for any other team in the league. I'm not sure there's any advantage in saying someone we think is the top big guy on the team should be playing in the first quarter with 2 fouls or the second quarter with 3 fouls.

The last, I don't think it is the fouls that sit him now because he doesn't get pulled as soon as he makes a 4th foul any more. He is being inserted and pulled based on who is on the floor in most recent games (I can't speak for Lakers or Portland, can't stay up that late).

McKeyFan
03-05-2010, 01:11 PM
The first two of those are pretty much the standard for any other team in the league. I'm not sure there's any advantage in saying someone we think is the top big guy on the team should be playing in the first quarter with 2 fouls or the second quarter with 3 fouls.

The last, I don't think it is the fouls that sit him now because he doesn't get pulled as soon as he makes a 4th foul any more. He is being inserted and pulled based on who is on the floor in most recent games (I can't speak for Lakers or Portland, can't stay up that late).

I can't prove it, but I think JOB jumps up and down with glee in his innards when Roy gets that second and third foul.

Anthem
03-05-2010, 01:43 PM
2 fouls keeps him off the court in the first quarter. 3 fouls in the second quarter and 4 fouls the rest of the game.
Dude, follow the link. Since January, he's had 8 games where he had 3 fouls or fewer for the entire game. One game with 4 fouls, four games with five, and none with 6.

I agree that you sit the kid if he picks up 2 fouls in the first quarter, but overall it's not his high foul numbers that are holding him back.

Peck
03-05-2010, 01:55 PM
Dude, follow the link. Since January, he's had 8 games where he had 3 fouls or fewer for the entire game. One game with 4 fouls, four games with five, and none with 6.

I agree that you sit the kid if he picks up 2 fouls in the first quarter, but overall it's not his high foul numbers that are holding him back.

Your missing his point.

He is claiming that JOB is using any excuse to keep Roy off of the floor.

Anthem
03-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Your missing his point.

He is claiming that JOB is using any excuse to keep Roy off of the floor.
Ah.

Well regardless of whose excuse it is, it's a stupid excuse. It's reading last year's script. Roy has not really had many foul problems this year. Certainly nothing beyond the norm for a second-year player.