PDA

View Full Version : Ok, it's on Bird now....



Peck
02-02-2010, 02:50 AM
Over the past couple of days I have seen things I have NEVER EVER seen, read or heard from this franchise before.

I have seen employee's of the Pacers organization (both P.R. people and players) openly question the direction of a coach.

I mean I've set through George Irvin for God's sake and never heard one player or radio or TV person make a comment about the way the team is being coached on the floor.

Don't get me wrong nobody is saying that Jim O'Brien is an idiot or anything like that but it certainly contrast with what we have seen over the years from the P.R. staff who would be the first to jump on a hand grenade for the franchise.

If you watch Pacers crate this week with Stacy Paetz as guest you will see the topic of going small be brought up and not a single one of them came close to endorsing it. My opinion of their tone is that none of them supported it for anything other than a temporary fix to an emergency situation. Mark Boyle even goes on to point out that this is NOT a formula for winning with any significance (ie. title) to which Brunner say's we are a couple steps away from that. (Award for understatement of the year for 2010 is already over with btw).

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/crate.html

I have heard Clark Kellogg all but beg the team to play from the inside out not outside in when he is doing the games. I have even heard Dennari make comments about this.

This is all on style of coaching btw, fast exterior shots may not be what he wants but his history dictates that is what he gets.

Then in today's star Danny Granger has just given me the reason for why he has sucked so bad the past few games and to be honest with you I thought it was on him at first but after reading this, he is right.

Here is the link, with some snippets from the article

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100202/SPORTS04/2020329/1088/SPORTS04/Pacers-plan-to-rely-on-small-lineup

Forward Danny Granger isn't necessarily a fan of that approach full time because it forces him to defend bigger players.

"It takes its toll," the 6-8 Granger said after struggling to defend Toronto All-Star forward Chris Bosh and Los Angeles 7-footer Pau Gasol. "I like it in stretches because it's been effective for us. I trust our coaches know what's been effective for us. I just have to compensate where we lack when we go small."
Guarding bigger, stronger players also has affected Granger's offense. He is 13-of-44 from the field in the past three games.
"It's a different look I get because I'm dealing with heavier guys and they're leaning on you," said Granger, a small forward. "It's one of those things I have to get accustomed to. It takes a toll on your legs and you're trying to push with your arms. You're taking hits. It's hard enough to box them out."

There is much more to that article so please read it and no I am not making any claim that Danny is rebelling or anything of the like.

However I want to focus on the part I have highlighted here.

Listen to what he is saying, now think back to your recent Pacers history and think about if Jeff Foster's back is in the shape it is in now because of the relentless pounding by players much larger than him and the Pacers constantly asking him to do what he should never have been asked to do.

Think about Jermaine O'Neal bulking up to try and compensate for the fact that the Pacers never got anyone to help muscle players around and then ask yourself if maybe this didn't hurt his time on the floor here.

People this is no longer about meaningless wins the rest of this season, we are now talking about the long term health of a player who right now is our franchise player.

Do any of us think getting a few more wins (like that is even happening) this season is worth the risk of asking Danny to play out of position in a season where he is already trying to compensate for another injury?

To me from this day forward this is no longer on O’Brien’s shoulders, this is on Bird's.

Just like you can't ask a caterpillar to be a condor, you can not expect a coach who is so ingrained into one way of doing things to just change on his own.

According to O'Brien they talk everyday to make sure that they are on the same page. Well it's time for Larry to tell Jim that his job is safe, he doesn't have to risk the future of the franchise for some short term meaningless gain.

This season is lost. I'm sorry but it is. It has been really since November but it without a doubt it went down the crapper with that first 8 game losing streak.

The rest of the east has started to move on and now the 7th & 8th seeds are either at or above .500% a figure that we are not going to obtain this season.

I do NOT want Danny Granger shortening his career just so Jim can milk out 3-5 more wins this season. I say shortening his career not in the sense that this year or even in the next couple of years he will have problems, but I don't want to get 4-5 years down the road and all of a sudden he has no lift and has to miss several games and can't play back to backs because he is suffering from the ill affects of a lower back injury.

To quote Nancy Reagan it's time for Bird to just say no.

No to playing Mike Dunleavy, D. Jones and Danny Granger at the 4 spot for anything other than situational plays.

You paid money for both Solomon Jones and Josh McRoberts this off season. You didn't just pay for them to be on a practice squad. No, neither player is the answer to our problems but between the two of them they can give you 20 min. a night between the 5 and 4 spot so that Danny doesn't have to spend time there.

Obviously Foster and Hansbrough being out hurts, I give Jim full credit for that. In fact he has had a crap sandwich for player health this season to deal with. But at some point in time you have to not think about the moment and start realizing there is a long term plan here and it is a LONG 82 game season.

But to ask Jim to do this would be to ask him to state that grass is not green. It's not his fault, this is what he knows, it's what he believes and guess what nobody is even denying that he may be right for a short time. But while it may help squeak out a game or two here or there it does nothing to really improve the overall standing of the team and IMO is causing long term health problems for the team.

So while it is his job to win games, it is Larry's job to look out for the long term interest of the team.

Cobalt_Colt
02-02-2010, 05:04 AM
Forward Danny Granger isn't necessarily a fan of that approach full time because it forces him to defend bigger players.

"It takes its toll," the 6-8 Granger said after struggling to defend Toronto All-Star forward Chris Bosh and Los Angeles 7-footer Pau Gasol. "I like it in stretches because it's been effective for us. I trust our coaches know what's been effective for us. I just have to compensate where we lack when we go small."
Guarding bigger, stronger players also has affected Granger's offense. He is 13-of-44 from the field in the past three games.
"It's a different look I get because I'm dealing with heavier guys and they're leaning on you," said Granger, a small forward. "It's one of those things I have to get accustomed to. It takes a toll on your legs and you're trying to push with your arms. You're taking hits. It's hard enough to box them out."

Been hoping that he would come out and say this, I can see spot minutes at the 4 but not as much as he has been.


Listen to what he is saying, now think back to your recent Pacers history and think about if Jeff Foster's back is in the shape it is in now because of the relentless pounding by players much larger than him and the Pacers constantly asking him to do what he should never have been asked to do.

Thought this has been obvious for awhile now.

Don't think I can say anything else about playing guys out of position that hasn't already been said by half the people on this forum.

Thanks for posting this!

MagicRat
02-02-2010, 09:27 AM
But....but....but......Danny played the 4 during THE FIVE GAME WIN STREAK!

I thought the concensus was that JOB was an idiot for not playing Danny at the 4. I'm so confused.

Unclebuck
02-02-2010, 09:32 AM
I am only going to say one thing. This forum is not in agreement about anything except in regards to the coach. But some love the small lineup, many only love certain small lineups, some hate all small lineups.

The 5 game winning streak was a small lineup - The lineup D. Jones wanted to get back to and that was with Granger playing PF.

It seems to me that what everyone wants (and I am not endorsing anything here, just making an observation) is Murphy gone and most in this forum will be happy with whatever is played after that

is argument over small vs large or Murphy vs Roy

Confused

Speed
02-02-2010, 09:36 AM
Several veiled and not so veiled shots at the coaching staff. Danny also said this. Which to me is an endictment of the coaching staff that he is getting mixed messages.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100129/SPORTS04/1290351/1088/SPORTS04/Granger-struggles-through-off-season

"Sometimes I've been told I try to do too much and then sometimes I don't do enough," he said. "It's a process that's somewhat confusing in a way, especially with the ups and downs of the team. It is tough and it's a challenge."

Granger struggles through off season

He is contending with injury, team's growing pains

By Mike Wells (mike.wells@indystar.com)
Posted: January 29, 2010

Putnam
02-02-2010, 09:45 AM
Don't think of it as "going small." Think of it as


SUPER-LINEUP XVIII!!!



.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 09:50 AM
But....but....but......Danny played the 4 during THE FIVE GAME WIN STREAK!

I thought the concensus was that JOB was an idiot for not playing Danny at the 4. I'm so confused.

I think I was wrong. I think I didn't give enough credit to what it would physically do to Danny.

Then I look back, and 4 of the 5 wins were against teams with small front courts. Only Boston was big, and at least that featured an injured, perimeter-favoring Garnett. Otherwise you had the Knicks, Wizards, Warriors, and Nets (who started their own 3-wing lineup that night due to injuries).

The argument of which lineup is better in the short-term is still obvious: Danny at the 4 > Murphy at the 4.

However, now reality sets in with the physical toll that takes on Danny, and that's the point where I face that reality and jump off the bandwagon.

I wrongly thought it wouldn't bother him this much this soon.

Speed
02-02-2010, 09:54 AM
But....but....but......Danny played the 4 during THE FIVE GAME WIN STREAK!

I thought the concensus was that JOB was an idiot for not playing Danny at the 4. I'm so confused.

Danny at the 4 makes this team better in the moment, in given match ups. It's more of lacking enough talent to compete without some kind of gimmick, plus your talent, (limited as it is), is more towards the smallish side. So downsizing allows you to play where your talent is.

The issue is two-fold the way I see it.

One, opposing teams are figuring it out. They are marching Danny right to the front of the rim and posting him up. Watch Bosh tonight. So the effectiveness is not long term, it's a gimmick, which usually means it can be adjusted for, and teams are.

Two, is what Peck is saying and Danny for that matter, it's really wearing Danny down. This will effect Danny this year, but increase the wear and tear over time too.

There is also this, imho, when you wear a guy down, he has to start doing things his body isn't really made for, so injuries can happen by over extending your body.

For example, If I can run a mile without much effort, I have a less likelihood of getting injured, my body knows how to do it without great strain. If all of sudden, I'm running the mini, I'll likely lose form as I tire and could very easily pull something, sprain something. I think it's just the nature of it. I think that's a very real concern for Danny.

So it's two things. Long term degredation of your body and short term injury susceptibility.

This said, I was all for Danny playing the 4, after being way against it. I was for it because in a moment they are better for it (see Danny basically shutting down Bosh, several games ago, in the 4th quarter). The reasons they are better for it, is Danny is an exceptional player and even playing out of position, he's better than any 4 on the team currently, imho.

However, I now see the negatives outweigh the short term gain, especially when it becomes the way you play all the time, not a one quarter in an occasional game thing.

It's like this, another analogy, If Tim Raines, a career great lead off hitter, was taken from 1st in the line up to 4th (clean up) because you didn't have a home run threat on your team. It's maybe good that Tim could hit some home runs at a decent pace, but he's swinging for the fence every at bat and it messes up his swing, plus now you have an average lead off hitter and an average clean up hitter. Instead of a GREAT lead off hitter and a below average clean up hitter. Sure you can see it as an improvement, but is it really? Or is it fools gold that's actually messing up your best hitters swing? Plus, as Raines gets worn out swinging away every at bat, he pulls a back muscle cuz he's fatigued and trying to command his body to do something more than what is naturally comfortable.

Anyway, I completely agree with Peck. I'm starting feel bad for Obie though, since, I don't know if there are any right answers for him and what his options are with this team. Doesn't mean they don't need a change after the season, but Obie has pushed a bunch of different buttons and really nothing is working.

Shade
02-02-2010, 09:57 AM
Get the freaking hint, Bird! :mad:

Speed
02-02-2010, 10:01 AM
Oh and evidence for not making a guy something he's not is Jeff Foster, JO, and Rik Smits feet problems I believe started when he tried to put on muscle. I hope Danny isn't added to this list. It seems irresponsible.

Murphy tried to bulk up two seasons ago to only then be told by Obie he needed to be quicker and be able to get up and down the court. I think I remember Bird saying he needed to get stronger at the end of the first season and then Obie telling him the opposite the start of season two. Evidence of disconnect.

Makes me think of Bird/Carlise saying we don't have to have Milk drinkers then a year later, only wanting milk drinkers.... Tons of other examples. Kind of rudderless, sometimes.

I have an underlying thought that I'll throw out, but not get into until the off season likely....

Bird's simplistic arrogance has really caused and is causing a ton of the problems the Pacers have. I don't see him changing either.

Sorry not trying to hijack the thread at all, but "OK, its on Bird now" sure makes me think of a bunch of things that's happened since his reign.

GMs not liking to work with him, Mel Daniels being let go, Obie and Bird talk all the time, but Bird didn't know if Dick H was involved in the Defense.

I mean has Bird been too simplistic in saying things are this way or that and too arrogant to move off that position until it was/is too late. I'd say ya, without a doubt. Hence, Obie is not getting fired: translation :I will stick with that statement/decision until it's dying breath.

I like decisive straightforward midwestern mindset, no wishy washiness is nice. It's also stupid when you don't listen to anyone or move off of your position when it's proven wrong.

Another words, if the plane is going down in flames, I really don't need to hear what a great reliable engine it has and how we are going to stick with this make and model of plane no matter what as we cascade towards the mountains.

Unclebuck
02-02-2010, 10:09 AM
The problem isn't the lineups the coach uses it is the players, especially at the big positions, that are available. I said before the season that our players at the 4 and 5 as a groupt are the worst in the NBA. And that was with Foster

Cobalt_Colt
02-02-2010, 10:20 AM
I don't think Troy is a bad player nor is he the teams problem, actually I don't want to see him go unless we get something of value back. Most of his problems are related to being misused, he is not a center, shouldn't be on the floor with Hibbert and not playing more than 30 minutes. All of those expose his weaknesses and take away from what he does well.

I personally don't like the small lineup and half the forum may be too many that don't like it, but I know others don't agree with Danny, Dun, DJones playing the 4 spot. As I said earlier I can see it working with Danny for a couple minutes a game. (maybe the other team has a small lineup or really need an offensive lift) I want too see McBob or Solo (Hans when he is good to go) on the court with Hibbert or Murph, I know neither one of them are very good both are young and raw. But they also both have potential, size and and can D up 4s and 5s better than anyone else we have. (excluding Foster and Roy on some 5s)

And while I'm on a bit of a rant COULD THE REST OF THE TEAM FOLLOW EARL AND DJONES LEAD AND ATTACK THE F'in BASKET ohh and FEED HIBBERT THE BALL IN THE POST 1 OUT OF 3 TIMES WE HAVE THE BALL atleast till we can figure out if its worth it.

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 10:24 AM
After seeing this title, I got excited thinking Peck was going to lower the boom on Bird. Alas, it wasn't the type of thread I had envisioned about Bird at all from the title. That's not saying it isn't a nice thread, but just not what I was expecting from the title.

My feeling is it's been on Bird from the day DW left the Pacers orgainization. Sorry, Mr. Walsh's about using your initials but an old habit is hard to break, but no disrepect intended. I could even see Mr.Bird seemed to have a plan, but somewhere that plan must have changed. As the title of this thread says, "It's on Bird now". Oh how true!

I understood Bird's hands were tied with how much money the Simons were going to allow him to spend coming into this season. I understand the "massive" # of injuries the franchise has had to the team to deal with this season. BUT what I don't understand is why you Mr. Bird is/has allowed Jimmy to coach this team in such a putrid manner. The last time I checked Mr. Bird, you were Jimmy's boss, and part of your job description Mr. Bird is direction of this team and it's coach. The way this team is playing it "is on you Mr. Bird", period. The buck stops on your desk Mr. Bird, and you have bungled it serverely. By allowing Jimmy to coach this team the way he has, it is a crime... punishable by termination... both of you. You have given your approval to the way this team is playing that has garnered a whopping 16-32 record with such terrible play it's sickening to even watch the team play. I repeat sickening! By allowing Jimmy to play his helter skelter run n gun with little "D" sickening game, you have become his ENABEABLER saying you approve of it and to continue doing it! As a person, one has to take credit for the BAD as well as take credit for the good of their actions. I don't know how much worse it can get under your leadership, BUT I know one thing "I seen enough to last me a life time of your blunders and poor management skills!" So YES Mr. Bird it's on you... ALL OF IT. Wouldn't you rather be golfing and fishing in Florida? Hint hint.

Brad8888
02-02-2010, 10:43 AM
The only thing that is different at this point is that the Pacers are slowly allowing their media contacts to state the obvious and change their tone regarding how our team is being mismanaged on the floor (due to a combination of unsound strategy and rotations and a lack of players capable of playing the way the coaching staff demands) and the impacts on player performance and health that are being caused by this mismanagement. In my opinion, there are few revelations that have not been discussed here at PD previously, whether there is universal agreement here on these issues or not. Generally, though, it seems like the darker the overall viewpoint of the poster, the more likelihood that they have already been posting frequently regarding these issues for a long time.

Note the silence from Bird recently. He is obviously deep in negotiations on trades at this point, but what will he do when he is unable to complete any trades due either to asking for too much or simply not having players that other teams want? This situation screams for a change, and the team is beginning to signal with its media contacts that things are not right. With Bird having given his coaching staff his blessing (hopefully due to financial constraints), what else can change? The franchise risks further alienation of the very small fan base that they are trying to lure back with cheap tickets if they stand pat, so what will they do?

At this point, I would not be surprised if nothing happens at all prior to the trade deadline. Then, the way out for the franchise is possibly for Bird to step down during the upcoming offseason (just as Mel Daniels allegedly told Vescey would happen) and whoever steps in to run the team (assuming that there is a team here after the negotiations with the CIB conclude at the end of April) fires the coaching staff and installs a new one that they feel is more what the fans who are left would want, and then begin the process of actually planning for what to do player wise going forward.

Things will come to a point where something has to give, even in the eyes of the front office. I am not certain that the front office has quite concluded that it has actually reached that point yet, but it must be getting closer or the tone of its media would not have changed recently.

We shall see.

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 10:43 AM
The problem isn't the lineups the coach uses it is the players, especially at the big positions, that are available. I said before the season that our players at the 4 and 5 as a groupt are the worst in the NBA. And that was with Foster

I thought it was because of Foster.

:flirt:

Only Hibbert is worthwhile, and he's still a 24-26 mpg guy with youthful inconsistency. If you've got 96 minutes to divide up and Roy accounts for 26 of them, what happens to the other 70?

(That's a hypothetical question. Don't answer it.)

Cobalt_Colt
02-02-2010, 10:46 AM
The problem isn't the lineups the coach uses it is the players, especially at the big positions, that are available. I said before the season that our players at the 4 and 5 as a groupt are the worst in the NBA. And that was with Foster

I'll agree to half this, yes our big rotation is bottom 5 in the league. But as a coach when considering lineups, minutes, Xs and Os what ever, IS TO PUT YOUR PLAYERS IN A POSITION TO SUCCEED. Doing things like having Murph and Roy in at the same time when you know good and damn well when one gets beat the other won't make it in time, or when you space the floor with a bunch of shooters and no one takes advantage of by attacking the basket or passing down low, and a lot of the time no one can even create a shot for anyone else.

Stopping it here don't feel like going on about it any more.

EDIT: forgot about Bird

He is the boss a lot of falls on him he shouldn't have gave JOB an extension so early, and he should have resigned Jack. But its his mess to clean up......... better get to scrubbin

Sookie
02-02-2010, 10:47 AM
The problem isn't the lineups the coach uses it is the players, especially at the big positions, that are available. I said before the season that our players at the 4 and 5 as a groupt are the worst in the NBA. And that was with Foster

Come on.

I don't know much about Josh. But I do know, that he's better than DJones at the PF position. Because if he wasn't, he wouldn't be in the NBA.

And I also know, that if you really TRULY think that playing DJones at the four position best helps the team win, then it is time to forget about winning and see what the young guys can do.

But the coach is enamored with his small lineup for his reasons..and it just stinks.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 11:00 AM
I have no problem with Granger playing SOME minutes against certain types of PFs ( aka the "modern" PFs that aren't all about strength but athleticsm )...clearly as a situational PF but not as a regular Starter against ALL PFs. Why JO'B is totally okay with starting Murphy or Hibbert against certain matchups but then decides to ( more then often ) start Granger against most PFs ( regardless of matchups ) seems very odd to me. I guess I'll speak for myself....but I'm guessing that the majority of those that ( in some way ) advocate Granger playing minutes at the PF spot feel the same way. But I don't think that many of us would have advocated playing Granger at the PF spot against a big Frontcourt lineup like the Lakers or the Raptors.

As Peck suggested....why we don't use Solo and McRoberts more often ESPECIALLY when our Frontcourt is so depleted is questionable...if not a concern....especially when Foster and Hansbrough has been out. Since 12/29 when both Hansbrough and Foster ( who has been out longer since 12/21 ) has been out , McRoberts has played a total of 140 minutes and Solo has only played a total of 177 minutes in 19 games. The frontcourt really sucks....cuz a this point we are forced to either play end of the Bench Big Men or Granger as a Starting or Backup PF.

Unclebuck
02-02-2010, 11:26 AM
Come on.

I don't know much about Josh. But I do know, that he's better than DJones at the PF position. Because if he wasn't, he wouldn't be in the NBA.

And I also know, that if you really TRULY think that playing DJones at the four position best helps the team win, then it is time to forget about winning and see what the young guys can do.

But the coach is enamored with his small lineup for his reasons..and it just stinks.

Offensively D. Jones is better at power forward than Josh is. Defensively - probably not but it could depend on the matchup

Sookie
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Offensively D. Jones is better at power forward than Josh is. Defensively - probably not but it could depend on the matchup

We've seen twenty minutes of McBob. How do we know what he is offensively?

DJones is a 6'6 shooting guard. And as I said. If we really think playing DJones at the 4 gives us the best chance to win, we ought to forget about winning..and just see what the younger guys can do.

Since86
02-02-2010, 11:34 AM
The problem isn't the lineups the coach uses it is the players, especially at the big positions, that are available. I said before the season that our players at the 4 and 5 as a groupt are the worst in the NBA. And that was with Foster

But you don't screw your superstar player over just because you're front court sucks.

If it sucks, you work on improving it by adding talent. Don't put your best players out of position.

I, for one, have never been a fan of Danny playing the 4. I think Josh McRoberts is the best option for the 4. No, I'm not saying he's good enough to be a starter in the NBA. I'm saying he's a good enough player to start for the Pacers.

Roy/McBob and Solo/Troy are way better compliments. I think that's common sense, and which is the biggest reason why I'm so pissed off about the lineups.

travmil
02-02-2010, 11:36 AM
Offensively D. Jones is better at power forward than Josh is. Defensively - probably not but it could depend on the matchup

I had to read this three times. Are you serious? Jones a better offensive PF than Josh? I guess you should qualify that by saying that in JOB's system, where PF's are routinely expected to have range to 18 ft, it's probably true. But as soon as Dahntay had to do something in the paint, he'd be in the 3rd row.

Since86
02-02-2010, 11:38 AM
Offensively D. Jones is better at power forward than Josh is. Defensively - probably not but it could depend on the matchup

Offensively Mookie Blaylock was a better center the Mutombo, but defensively probably not......

D.Jones playing the 4 for one second shouldn't be an option, and it illustrates the complete lack of fundamental basketball understanding that JOb has. The knock on Hansborough out of college was that he was too small to play the 4 and JOb thinks it's a good idea to play D.Jones there?

I would wager money that opposing coaches laugh when seeing that lineup in film.

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 11:38 AM
We've seen twenty minutes of McBob. How do we know what he is offensively?

DJones is a 6'6 shooting guard. And as I said. If we really think playing DJones at the 4 gives us the best chance to win, we ought to forget about winning..and just see what the younger guys can do.

Not to mention, he plays his best defense against guards on the perimeter.

We need the team to be good enough that Dahntay Jones is the tenth man and out of the regular rotation. Not more opportunities to rely too heavily on Dahntay.

EDIT

Or more succintly, What he ('86) said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||||||||||||||||||||

Sookie
02-02-2010, 11:50 AM
Not to mention, he plays his best defense against guards on the perimeter.

We need the team to be good enough that Dahntay Jones is the tenth man and out of the regular rotation. Not more opportunities to rely too heavily on Dahntay.

EDIT

Or more succintly, What he ('86) said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||||||||||||||||||||

Didn't he start for Denver?

I think tenth man is asking a little too much. He wouldn't be the tenth man in the Lakers or Cavs.

It's just bad when he's our best option at PF..or our best player.

Brad8888
02-02-2010, 12:16 PM
I had to read this three times. Are you serious? Jones a better offensive PF than Josh? I guess you should qualify that by saying that in JOB's system, where PF's are routinely expected to have range to 18 ft, it's probably true. But as soon as Dahntay had to do something in the paint, he'd be in the 3rd row.

If he weren't an administrator here, I would swear that he is baiting Seth, or others of us, into reacting to this assertion for whatever reason, and I am pretty surprised by that, actually. The small ball / O'B debate continues I guess.

Offensively, Josh will require time which he will not receive here under the current coaching staff to develop shooting touch and confidence away from the basket for the dreaded midrange game that O'B openly despises, therefore he will be considered weak offensively despite the fact that his court recognition for passing and receiving passes inside is better than all but his staunchest supporters recognize.

Defensively, Dahntay plainly has to be crafty and try to grab and hold without being caught against the superior size and strength that virtually any 4 possesses, where Josh has the size and hops required to play the position, and his quickness could provide defensive advantages there as well. Both are likely foul machines there at this point, but Josh could possibly overcome that with actual consistent experiance there whereas Dahntay has no hope of it.

I am going to stop at that. UB pretty much doesn't consider Josh worthy of playing in the NBA and has said so, and he is not alone in his opinion. I, and others more worthy of debating him, disagree with that assessment and have stated the case that he does deserve to play because of the impact that he has had on the floor what few times he has played during meaningful time instead of garbage time.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 12:16 PM
But you don't screw your superstar player over just because you're front court sucks.

If it sucks, you work on improving it by adding talent. Don't put your best players out of position.

I, for one, have never been a fan of Danny playing the 4. I think Josh McRoberts is the best option for the 4. No, I'm not saying he's good enough to be a starter in the NBA. I'm saying he's a good enough player to start for the Pacers.

Roy/McBob and Solo/Troy are way better compliments. I think that's common sense, and which is the biggest reason why I'm so pissed off about the lineups.
Logically, what you ( and many others ) suggest makes total sense......which begs the question....why on Earth are we playing Granger more minutes at the PF spot then McRoberts and Solo combined over the last month?

IMHO...the reason that Granger is playing more Frontcourt minutes then McRoberts and Solo is because they aren't as good on offense as they are on defense. I really think that this is one of the main reasons why JO'B doesn't play either of them as much as he should be.....they are only reliable on one end of the court as opposed to the other and ( surprise surprise ) JO'B ( in the end ) will always value Offense over Defense and a vet over a Player with less experience ( with obvious exceptions to Foster and AJ ).

vnzla81
02-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Offensively D. Jones is better at power forward than Josh is. Defensively - probably not but it could depend on the matchup

what?:eek::eek::confused::confused:

Peck
02-02-2010, 12:24 PM
As much as you all are complaining about D. Jones playing the four spot, and believe me I'm with you, it is nothing compared to the lineup that features Troy Murphy at center and Mike Dunleavy at the power forward spot. I've seen that lineup about 4 or 5 times since we have "gone small".

Also to answer MagicRat, Uncle Buck and anyone else who reall cares.

I'll just go ahead and be the one honest person here so I can be the target for the wrath that is coming.

The five game win streak was prefered because Troy Murphy was not a part of it.

There I said it, now go have a field day.

We played differantly then. Remember Danny may have started at the four but when we went to the bench we were bringing in Hansbrough and on rare occasions S. Jones at the four.

Danny spent plenty of time per game back at the three spot.

But I'll say it again, it had more to do with Troy Murphy not being available to O'Brien that did the trick. He had to coach a different style.

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 12:28 PM
Didn't he start for Denver?

I think tenth man is asking a little too much. He wouldn't be the tenth man in the Lakers or Cavs.

Who cares whether he starts or not... he was ninth in minutes played. Just because he got his name introduced with the spotlight on does not mean he was one of their main guys. Their other four regular starters each played more than 32 mpg, compared to Dahntay's 18, and the four subs in the rotation all played at least 20 mpg (thus, more than Dahntay.)

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 12:31 PM
When Granger gets hurt playing PF in Jimmy's smallball, I wonder who will man up to the mistake. Jimmy for doing it or Bird for enabling Jimmy to do it? My guess is neither, b/c of their pride, ego, and stubboness. It will just be vieved by both as an unfortunate happening.

vnzla81
02-02-2010, 12:33 PM
The five game win streak was prefered because Troy Murphy was not a part of it.

But I'll say it again, it had more to do with Troy Murphy not being available to O'Brien that did the trick. He had to coach a different style.

I agree and the defense was also better, Hans is a rookie and his defense is way better than any other pf we have

CableKC
02-02-2010, 12:36 PM
I agree and the defense was also better, Hans is a rookie and his defense is way better than any other pf we have
On the offensive end....yeah....Hansbrough is better then Solo, Foster or McRoberts.....but on the defensive end.....it's debateable based off of the situation. There are times ( depending on matchup ) that I'd rather have Solo or McRoberts in...whereas there are other times when I'd rather have Hansbrough.

vnzla81
02-02-2010, 12:44 PM
On the offensive end....yeah....Hansbrough is better then Solo, Foster or McRoberts.....but on the defensive end.....it's debateable based off of the situation. There are times ( depending on matchup ) that I'd rather have Solo or McRoberts in...whereas there are other times when I'd rather have Hansbrough.

I think that Hansbrough is the best one on one defender in the bigs the pacers have(not counting Foster), there were times were he was even guarding SF's and he did a pretty good job in keeping his guy in front of him, thinks you never see from Murphy,Solo or Mcbob.

Since86
02-02-2010, 12:45 PM
Logically, what you ( and many others ) suggest makes total sense......which begs the question....why on Earth are we playing Granger more minutes at the PF spot then McRoberts and Solo combined over the last month?

IMHO...the reason that Granger is playing more Frontcourt minutes then McRoberts and Solo is because they aren't as good on offense as they are on defense. I really think that this is one of the main reasons why JO'B doesn't play either of them as much as he should be.....they are only reliable on one end of the court as opposed to the other and ( surprise surprise ) JO'B ( in the end ) will always value Offense over Defense and a vet over a Player with less experience ( with obvious exceptions to Foster and AJ ).

What? I thought JOb said last offseason he needed more defensive players?

You mean to tell me what he does and what he says doesn't go together? SHOCKING!!!! It's kind of like how his offensive philosophy contradicts his defensive philosophy. (something I've been saying since he was first hired BTW)

JOb is full of excuses. Last year when they didn't win he said he needed better defensive players. He got them. Maybe not the high quality players he wanted, but that was only because Kobe and Gary Peyton weren't available. I'm sure Bird tried to get MJ and Mutombo, I've even heard Alonzo, but they couldn't reach a deal.......

But whatever, he got better defensive players but now they don't play because they (DJones/Solo) can't shoot outside and stretch the defense enough.

Naptown_Seth
02-02-2010, 12:47 PM
I do NOT want Danny Granger shortening his career just so Jim can milk out 3-5 more wins this season.
Is this even applicable. For all the "when they start..." numbers, I don't see how they can win if playing against bigger frontline guys results in Danny going 5-20 or something along those lines.

Don't get me started on the impact of putting the smaller DJones at the PF.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 12:50 PM
Who cares whether he starts or not... he was ninth in minutes played. Just because he got his name introduced with the spotlight on does not mean he was one of their main guys. Their other four regular starters each played more than 32 mpg, compared to Dahntay's 18, and the four subs in the rotation all played at least 20 mpg (thus, more than Dahntay.)

Yeah, but starting also meant he spent the majority of his limited time against the opponent's best players. Let's not pretend he was the 9th guy to step foot on the floor to play against the other teams' reserves.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 12:54 PM
What? I thought JOb said last offseason he needed more defensive players?

You mean to tell me what he does and what he says doesn't go together? SHOCKING!!!! It's kind of like how his offensive philosophy contradicts his defensive philosophy. (something I've been saying since he was first hired BTW)

JOb is full of excuses. Last year when they didn't win he said he needed better defensive players. He got them. Maybe not the high quality players he wanted, but that was only because Kobe and Gary Peyton weren't available. I'm sure Bird tried to get MJ and Mutombo, I've even heard Alonzo, but they couldn't reach a deal.......

But whatever, he got better defensive players but now they don't play because they (DJones/Solo) can't shoot outside and stretch the defense enough.
Yeah, I know.....a real surprise.

I think that a lot of this comes down to the way that JO'B looks at the Players on an individual basis. My guess is that he ranks all the Players...regardless of position.....from best to worst and sets his rotation to it. Of course, Granger ( at times ) is a way better Player then McRoberts or Solo....he sort of fits the bill for guarding some PFs in the league...why not play him there more minutes? Heck, even many of us have said that Granger is sometimes a better PF option than Murphy is....but what does that mean when it comes to rotations?

We want Granger at the SF spot...and Hibbert at the Center spot...but don't want Murphy on the floor at the same time as Hibbert....which then makes Granger ( in JO'Bs eyes ) the best option at the PF spot....then what is JO'B going to do?

The answer is simple...yet something that we do not see JO'B use....give McRoberts and Solo more burn. We have options ( not great ones ) in the Frontcourt rotation....JO'B just consiously chooses not to use them.

Speed
02-02-2010, 01:05 PM
Personally, I think Obie has done everything we've asked him to do on this board except play McBob consistently and it's all failed.

So I'll prognositcate and say McBob will start getting consistent minutes soon. Then what will be the cry? Why are they playing McRoberts so much.

The other thing recently is don't play Murphy so much, what happened. He didn't start one game and I think his minutes have lessened a bit, even without Foster and TH available.

My point is this, nothing Obie will do is going to matter at this point. When you are losing it's wrong. Even when it is exactly what we want him to do, it's wrong.

Look he needs to go, if for no other reason than it's time via the 3 year Bird rule. Which I think needs to be qualified to say 3 years of losing a team tunes you out (see Jerry Sloan). But make no mistake, lack of congruent vision aside, Obie got served a craptastic sandwich and sure he didn't maybe do the best he could with it, but you have to realize there are no right answers when you suck to the magnitude this incarnation of the team does right now.

My bigger concern is you basically are gonna get one shot at steering this thing in the right direction here in the next year. I hope the right guy(s) is in place to do that.

Side note: Anyone see what Coach Brown has doing in Charlotte? A great coach DOES make a difference.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 01:43 PM
Side note: Anyone see what Coach Brown has doing in Charlotte? A great coach DOES make a difference.
Not like SJax didn't make any difference there :D :zip:

To be fair....SJax did make a difference...a huge one. I think the only thing they are missing is a much better scoring PG, which we have that Brown was interested in last season ( hint hint :signit: )

Jonathan
02-02-2010, 01:45 PM
I want to see Diener getting minutes, Turnovers have been killing us. Face It no matter what starting lineup the Pacers use they will be having a top ten draft pick. I hope Larry Does not mess that up!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I give Bird credit for not panicking and making bad trades. Large contracts and long contracts have hurt this team (Tinsley, Dunleavy, Murphy,)

Speed
02-02-2010, 01:49 PM
Larry's still hardly playing Henderson...

Unclebuck
02-02-2010, 01:58 PM
When Granger gets hurt playing PF in Jimmy's smallball, I wonder who will man up to the mistake. Jimmy for doing it or Bird for enabling Jimmy to do it? My guess is neither, b/c of their pride, ego, and stubboness. It will just be vieved by both as an unfortunate happening.

What if he gets hurt playing small forward, who do we blame for that.

How do most injuries occur. Are the caused by the man they are guarding or the man that is guarding them. Are injuries more likely defending Bosh than they are defending Lebron. Lebron is stronger than Bosh.

So if Granger re-injures his foot, do we have any way of knowing if it will be caused by playing power forward. What position was Danny playing when he suffered the injurty in the first place?

How can you or anyone have any idea if playing power forward is any more or any less likely to cause an injury. For every argument you can make about guarding a big strong guy or pounding underneath, I could easily make an argument that chasing small quicker players around the perimeter could just as likely cause an injury.

If someone stuck a gun to my head and said what causes injuries and or what causes players to have their careers shortened. Playing a lot of hard minutes will shorten a career - by hard minutes I mean playoff minutes, guarding the other team's best player - carrying the load offensively - having to play hard all the time - those things will cause players to age, those things will cause injuries especially as players age.

PaceBalls
02-02-2010, 01:59 PM
Re: Speed... Everything but not play Troy, forcing him to play a different style... which many of us feel is the problem in the first place.

Re: Peck's original post...
I hardly ever disagree with your posts, but I do on a few points on this one. The thing about Danny shortening his career because of playing the 4. That to me is hogwash. Basketball is a grueling sport, espeically vs the world's best competition and for 82 games. I think whatever extra wear and tear one would get from playing out of position is negligible. No matter what position he plays, the human body is just not designed to withstand playing the sport at the NBA level for years at a time, and a pro basketball player's body can, generaly speaking, only handle 5-6 years of it before things start breaking down.
I think this is more about Danny having to play some tough defense, and lo and behold, his outside shot isn't as good when he is tired. Maybe if he didn't shoot 10 3pt attempts a game his game would improve? He is payed over 10 million dollars. The guy is 6'9" and solid, he can play PF if he has to.

All that said, we have options at the PF spot we can play instead of Danny. That just happens to be the position we are weakest at, and Danny is by far our best PF as well as SF. There are alot better players at SG SF that can play alongside Danny.

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 02:23 PM
Side note: Anyone see what Coach Brown has doing in Charlotte? A great coach DOES make a difference.


Maybe you should e-mail Bird this.


I stated the other day I felt the Bobcats didn't have a great roster. I felt it was comparible to the Pacers. Sure they have Wallace, Jackson, and Felton but then they have Nzar Mohammed playing center, Diaw playing forward, and Chandler out injured not to mention 2 former Pacers in Graham and Flip.

The difference IS the coach! One who demands his players play "D".

I have been watching Memphis the last 2 years. They are in a small market and are winning with youth. They HAVE 4 rookies and Tinjury as their bench. Other than Z-Bo their starters have 2-4 years experience with Gay the most. They started out terrible this season, and are around 5 games above 500. They beat the Lakers last night. The same Lakers who beat the Pacers by 22 pts last week. Hollins is doing a great job as coach with this youth.

Coaching DOES make a difference!!

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 02:37 PM
As I was posting about Charlotte, I remembered a few years ago Gerald Wallace was playing PF and got injured. He then complained the toll having to play PF, and didn't want to anymore. He wasn't a PF, he was playing out of position, and he didn't want to have to play PF.

My point is Granger isn't a PF, and he doesn't need to be Jimmy's PF in his smallball. If there is a team that has experienced injuries over the years, it's the Pacers, and there is no need to constantly put Granger in a situation to be another one having to play PF.

Stop it now Bird b4 it becomes too late! Part of your job is the well being of the players and this franchise, not Jimmy's fanatical obsession with his smallball.

Speed
02-02-2010, 02:49 PM
This probably goes in the game thread later, but I wonder if you'll see a different effort level tonight without Obie on the bench?

Unclebuck
02-02-2010, 03:13 PM
This probably goes in the game thread later, but I wonder if you'll see a different effort level tonight without Obie on the bench?

Can't read too much into 1 game one way or the other. You could easily use the substitute teacher analogy, when the cats away the mice will play, or you could argue that yes a new voice might motivate them just like there is always a honeymoon period when a new coach is brought in.

Too many variables to know

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 03:17 PM
Yeah, but starting also meant he spent the majority of his limited time against the opponent's best players. Let's not pretend he was the 9th guy to step foot on the floor to play against the other teams' reserves.

Although true, the flip side is that with Dahntay at only 18 mpg, the opponents starters spent almost 1/2 their time matched up against a so-called second-string player. JR Smith played as many minutes with the other starters as Dahntay did; perhaps more. He just didn't have his name announced in the pregame festivities.

Naptown_Seth
02-02-2010, 03:56 PM
But....but....but......Danny played the 4 during THE FIVE GAME WIN STREAK!

I thought the concensus was that JOB was an idiot for not playing Danny at the 4. I'm so confused.
All of those games featured Roy at center, much bigger than Troy. Also the players Danny was starting against were all smaller PFs OR FACEUP PFs.

Garnett had some issues with Danny because DG was quick enough to defend him, and even with that KG was still able to clearly shoot over him.

NYK - David Lee was the center against Hibbert, Gallinari and W Chandler were the forwards, Roy+Solo = 47 min, no Josh or Tyler but Knicks didn't really have a PF themselves.

WSH - Oberto is 6'10" but fouled quickly, Jaminson didn't play at all, once again Hibbert started against their true big. Roy+Solo = 48, Josh+Tyler = 17 min, so 17 minutes of 2 bigs together.

GS - SF Azibuke started along with 3 guards, Hibbert went at Biedrens, Roy+Solo = 47 minutes, no Tyler or Josh though, GS only has Biedrens and Randolph, and Rand. places face up and is rail thin, no real PFs to go at Danny

BOS - Hibbert vs the 6'10" Perkins, Danny took face up KG as I mentioned. S Williams is only 6'9" himself. Roy+Solo = 45 min. Tyler+Josh = 19 min. So 16 minutes of 2 bigs on the court.

NJN - Hibbert vs Lopez, but the Nets had HASSELL playing PF along with TWill and CDR, Boone and S Williams got 26 minutes to go with Lopez at 46, so they ran 2 legit bigs at points, but the Pacers had Tyler + Josh = 21 to counter them. Roy+Solo = 43 min


All 5 games of "1 big, 4 smalls, Danny at the 4" featured small opponents and when needed you saw 17-21 minutes of PF play to go with a center. You always had the biggest guys on the team playing center.


The 6th game of the legend was the loss to NY, same basic lineup from NY. Pacers had Roy+Solo = 48 minutes, Tyler = 21 minutes, so nearly half the game the Pacer ran 2 bigs.

Much is made about how this proves that lineup wasn't special, but those comments leave out the fact that the Knicks were down by 10 going into the 4th and won that final quarter by 17 mostly on the back of Harrington getting super hot.


Even the Cavs game after that which had the Cavs playing Big Z and Hickson to start featured HIBBERT starting with the smalls. Roy+Solo = 31 minutes, Troy+Tyler = 45 minutes. To start the 3rd the Pacers were down 5. Hibbert, Rush, Danny, DJ and TJ went on a 17-4 run in that quarter to help the team take the lead into the 4th.

Also Roy had foul issues that limited his time but was +7. Troy was - 18 in 24 min.


Charlotte game - Roy again starts with Danny at the PF. Roy is pulled halfway through the first for Troy, the game is tied. 6 minutes later Indy is down 8. Roy goes -3, Troy goes -15. The "bigs" are being removed more and more as Roy+Jeff = 32 (no Solo), Troy+Tyler = 42. And this was with the Cats running 6'8" Diaw at PF.



Conclusion
When the opponents ran small the Pacers were able to win with Danny at the PF. When they went a little bigger JOB actually played 2 bigs for good chunks of the game in winning.

They didn't really win a game going small against a team playing 2 true bigs (C and PF). And when they lost it tended to be because they went with TROY more.

ROY with Solo as the "only big" worked fine against smaller teams. It's Troy as the "only big" that's a problem.


If the opponent has 1 center and then a smallish PF or no PF, then the "1 big" thing works using ROY.

If the opponent has 2 true bigs then IMO you play Roy and a PF, specifically now Josh (no Jeff or Tyler available anytime soon). You avoid Troy as the starting PF, and you simply don't use Troy as the starting C anchoring an undersized lineup.

The 1 big using Troy as the big IS NOT 7-5 or anything like that.

Putnam
02-02-2010, 04:09 PM
Good stuff, Seth :bowdown:

Naptown_Seth
02-02-2010, 04:10 PM
Larry's still hardly playing Henderson...
Cough TARGET cough cough

Unfortunately the Cats traded their first rounder this year, otherwise I'd look at a trade down that pulled back Henderson AND 17th, take my choices of Brackins, Pittman, Lawal or Booker. I'd like more actually but don't see how we'd get it from them.

But Gerald is just sitting there waiting to be taken. Maybe he's not going to work, but Brown hasn't even bothered to find out. Very odd, especially considering that Henderson was a very dedicated defensive player last year.

Naptown_Seth
02-02-2010, 04:23 PM
Personally, I think Obie has done everything we've asked him to do on this board except play McBob consistently and it's all failed.

So I'll prognositcate and say McBob will start getting consistent minutes soon. Then what will be the cry? Why are they playing McRoberts so much.Did I or did I not put up a positive thread specifically because of the rotation the other day. It was against an elite team, we had to beg most of the year for it after injuries darn near dropped it in our lap with the 5 game streak, and it got tossed aside after that 1 feeble attempt.

It had all the makings of "Is this what you want? See, it sucks, told you". I've seen a lot more games with F'd up rotations than I have with one close to what we saw vs the Cavs.

And as my last post would indicate, due to Varejao at PF I would have started McBob to counter him. Troy has proven last year and this that he can't outrebound him. So you use Josh there at least to start simply to grind him a little. Or Solo if you must, though I'd like to hold him back to help Roy due to fouls you know Shaq is likely to draw.

Troy off the bench pops them for some 3s, gets some offense going. He basically did just that in fact.

In fact that lineup was in the park with the Cavs apart from Danny's shooting, and if that was partially caused by banging with Varejao then this all has a point. Danny went at Lebron last year and had tons of success. Suddenly when taken off him and moved to PF he struggles. Seems like more than chance, especially when he says just that in a quote.



PS - I DON'T THINK the dream lineup is going to be a huge winning group. I think they still lack some scoring punch and coordination as a group. But I do think that:
Price/Watson
Rush/DJones/Head (or TJ at times)
Granger/DJones (Rush if small, Tyler if big)
McBob/Tyler (Granger if small, Solo if big)
Roy/Troy/Solo

Would function well enough to be enjoyable to watch, maybe win a bit more than we are now, and at the least give us some idea of what their future is.


Or just keep doing what we have been because its been going great.

Naptown_Seth
02-02-2010, 04:38 PM
Offensively D. Jones is better at power forward than Josh is. Defensively - probably not but it could depend on the matchup
Well it's hard to argue against that

FG%
Josh 45.5
DJ 45.1

3P%
Josh 28.6
DJ 11.5

eFG%
Josh 47.7
DJ 45.5

FT%
Josh 60.0
DJ 76.8

OReb (p36)
Josh 2.5
DJ 0.8

FTAs (p36)
Josh 2.1
DJ 4.6

Ast (p36)
Josh 1.9
DJ 2.8

PPS (points per shot)
Josh 1.09
DJ 1.19

Off Rating (basketball-reference.com)
Josh 98
DJ 97


No one measure is the end-all, be-all for evaluating a player, but the bottom line is that on a pure offensive level not adjusting for position they are even. Then if you are talking about the ability to score from the PF position, has DJ shown that he can? He certainly isn't posting up guys 4-6 inches bigger than him, and he's not getting those OReb tip ins or impacting action at the rim.

DJ is better at driving for a foul, that's his main thing. Otherwise he's not really better at all.

odeez
02-02-2010, 04:40 PM
Over the past couple of days I have seen things I have NEVER EVER seen, read or heard from this franchise before.

I have seen employee's of the Pacers organization (both P.R. people and players) openly question the direction of a coach.

I mean I've set through George Irvin for God's sake and never heard one player or radio or TV person make a comment about the way the team is being coached on the floor.

Don't get me wrong nobody is saying that Jim O'Brien is an idiot or anything like that but it certainly contrast with what we have seen over the years from the P.R. staff who would be the first to jump on a hand grenade for the franchise.

If you watch Pacers crate this week with Stacy Paetz as guest you will see the topic of going small be brought up and not a single one of them came close to endorsing it. My opinion of their tone is that none of them supported it for anything other than a temporary fix to an emergency situation. Mark Boyle even goes on to point out that this is NOT a formula for winning with any significance (ie. title) to which Brunner say's we are a couple steps away from that. (Award for understatement of the year for 2010 is already over with btw).

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/crate.html

I have heard Clark Kellogg all but beg the team to play from the inside out not outside in when he is doing the games. I have even heard Dennari make comments about this.

This is all on style of coaching btw, fast exterior shots may not be what he wants but his history dictates that is what he gets.

Then in today's star Danny Granger has just given me the reason for why he has sucked so bad the past few games and to be honest with you I thought it was on him at first but after reading this, he is right.

Here is the link, with some snippets from the article

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100202/SPORTS04/2020329/1088/SPORTS04/Pacers-plan-to-rely-on-small-lineup

Forward Danny Granger isn't necessarily a fan of that approach full time because it forces him to defend bigger players.

"It takes its toll," the 6-8 Granger said after struggling to defend Toronto All-Star forward Chris Bosh and Los Angeles 7-footer Pau Gasol. "I like it in stretches because it's been effective for us. I trust our coaches know what's been effective for us. I just have to compensate where we lack when we go small."
Guarding bigger, stronger players also has affected Granger's offense. He is 13-of-44 from the field in the past three games.
"It's a different look I get because I'm dealing with heavier guys and they're leaning on you," said Granger, a small forward. "It's one of those things I have to get accustomed to. It takes a toll on your legs and you're trying to push with your arms. You're taking hits. It's hard enough to box them out."

There is much more to that article so please read it and no I am not making any claim that Danny is rebelling or anything of the like.

However I want to focus on the part I have highlighted here.

Listen to what he is saying, now think back to your recent Pacers history and think about if Jeff Foster's back is in the shape it is in now because of the relentless pounding by players much larger than him and the Pacers constantly asking him to do what he should never have been asked to do.

Think about Jermaine O'Neal bulking up to try and compensate for the fact that the Pacers never got anyone to help muscle players around and then ask yourself if maybe this didn't hurt his time on the floor here.

People this is no longer about meaningless wins the rest of this season, we are now talking about the long term health of a player who right now is our franchise player.

Do any of us think getting a few more wins (like that is even happening) this season is worth the risk of asking Danny to play out of position in a season where he is already trying to compensate for another injury?

To me from this day forward this is no longer on O’Brien’s shoulders, this is on Bird's.

Just like you can't ask a caterpillar to be a condor, you can not expect a coach who is so ingrained into one way of doing things to just change on his own.

According to O'Brien they talk everyday to make sure that they are on the same page. Well it's time for Larry to tell Jim that his job is safe, he doesn't have to risk the future of the franchise for some short term meaningless gain.

This season is lost. I'm sorry but it is. It has been really since November but it without a doubt it went down the crapper with that first 8 game losing streak.

The rest of the east has started to move on and now the 7th & 8th seeds are either at or above .500% a figure that we are not going to obtain this season.

I do NOT want Danny Granger shortening his career just so Jim can milk out 3-5 more wins this season. I say shortening his career not in the sense that this year or even in the next couple of years he will have problems, but I don't want to get 4-5 years down the road and all of a sudden he has no lift and has to miss several games and can't play back to backs because he is suffering from the ill affects of a lower back injury.

To quote Nancy Reagan it's time for Bird to just say no.

No to playing Mike Dunleavy, D. Jones and Danny Granger at the 4 spot for anything other than situational plays.

You paid money for both Solomon Jones and Josh McRoberts this off season. You didn't just pay for them to be on a practice squad. No, neither player is the answer to our problems but between the two of them they can give you 20 min. a night between the 5 and 4 spot so that Danny doesn't have to spend time there.

Obviously Foster and Hansbrough being out hurts, I give Jim full credit for that. In fact he has had a crap sandwich for player health this season to deal with. But at some point in time you have to not think about the moment and start realizing there is a long term plan here and it is a LONG 82 game season.

But to ask Jim to do this would be to ask him to state that grass is not green. It's not his fault, this is what he knows, it's what he believes and guess what nobody is even denying that he may be right for a short time. But while it may help squeak out a game or two here or there it does nothing to really improve the overall standing of the team and IMO is causing long term health problems for the team.

So while it is his job to win games, it is Larry's job to look out for the long term interest of the team.

Great post thanks for sharing, I couldn't agree more at this point.

PaceBalls
02-02-2010, 04:47 PM
did ya really have to quote the whole post to say thanks? there is a thanks button ya know :P

Bball
02-02-2010, 05:01 PM
Anyone willing to entertain the thought that the Vecsey story was entirely true and Bird is gone after this season?

So in that case I could see why he wouldn't fire O'Brien or why he seems to be allowing the team to go on as it is. You would have to be careful with short term changes when someone else would be putting their stamp on things in a few short months anyway.

That doesn't mean there won't be a mid-season trade but I'd certainly look for it to be a salary dump and picks over much else.

Of course I'd think the team would revert to Morway so you'd think there could/should be some continuity in plans so it doesn't entirely make sense to me why we'd not go ahead and start building toward the future and taking better advantage of an otherwise lost season (IOW relegating O'Brien's spray and pray O and little D gameplan to the sidelines ASAP even if it's replaced with an interim with a strict guideline of developing and evaluating players and instilling/stressing better basketball fundamentals).

It's pretty bad when the team reaches a point when a win isn't exactly a good thing. "Yay!!! We win!!! We Win!!!!... Wait... So, how bad did we hurt our lottery chances??"

Sookie
02-02-2010, 05:04 PM
Can't read too much into 1 game one way or the other. You could easily use the substitute teacher analogy, when the cats away the mice will play, or you could argue that yes a new voice might motivate them just like there is always a honeymoon period when a new coach is brought in.

Too many variables to know

Or you could argue that the team feels bad and wants to put in a good effort for him. I agree, too many variables..especailly with an assistant most likely going on the same philosophy.

Brad8888
02-02-2010, 06:05 PM
Anyone willing to entertain the thought that the Vecsey story was entirely true and Bird is gone after this season?

So in that case I could see why he wouldn't fire O'Brien or why he seems to be allowing the team to go on as it is. You would have to be careful with short term changes when someone else would be putting their stamp on things in a few short months anyway.

That doesn't mean there won't be a mid-season trade but I'd certainly look for it to be a salary dump and picks over much else.

Of course I'd think the team would revert to Morway so you'd think there could/should be some continuity in plans so it doesn't entirely make sense to me why we'd not go ahead and start building toward the future and taking better advantage of an otherwise lost season (IOW relegating O'Brien's spray and pray O and little D gameplan to the sidelines ASAP even if it's replaced with an interim with a strict guideline of developing and evaluating players and instilling/stressing better basketball fundamentals).

It's pretty bad when the team reaches a point when a win isn't exactly a good thing. "Yay!!! We win!!! We Win!!!!... Wait... So, how bad did we hurt our lottery chances??"

I made reference to this very thing in this thread in one of my posts from this morning. I really don't see the franchise having much choice, at this point. Why bother to make any trades unless they either are salary dumps or total steals when somebody else is likely to be calling the shots and making the team in whatever vision they have. Also, why bother to fire the coach, either. And, at this point I bet the players recognize the likelihood of this also. I also agree that for continuity, Morway is likely to fill the position himself.

90'sNBARocked
02-02-2010, 06:13 PM
As much as you all are complaining about D. Jones playing the four spot, and believe me I'm with you, it is nothing compared to the lineup that features Troy Murphy at center and Mike Dunleavy at the power forward spot. I've seen that lineup about 4 or 5 times since we have "gone small".

Also to answer MagicRat, Uncle Buck and anyone else who reall cares.

I'll just go ahead and be the one honest person here so I can be the target for the wrath that is coming.

The five game win streak was prefered because Troy Murphy was not a part of it.

There I said it, now go have a field day.

We played differantly then. Remember Danny may have started at the four but when we went to the bench we were bringing in Hansbrough and on rare occasions S. Jones at the four.

Danny spent plenty of time per game back at the three spot.

But I'll say it again, it had more to do with Troy Murphy not being available to O'Brien that did the trick. He had to coach a different style.



Youre not the only one man. I for the life of me can not figure out what magic they came across during that 5 game winning streak. Their attitude was totally different form now. They looked confident and agressive . They looked collectively fearlous and they had the ordasity(sp?) to BELIEVE they could win.

After the line up change and the first couple of losses the team has look deflated and disinterested. Their is no confidence, no will to win , and basically no hope

Is Bird angry at the Pacers, City of Indianapolis or something?

It sure looks like he is doing his best to systematically destroy the franchise while proving to the entire league how smart he really is

90'sNBARocked
02-02-2010, 06:22 PM
When Granger gets hurt playing PF in Jimmy's smallball, I wonder who will man up to the mistake. Jimmy for doing it or Bird for enabling Jimmy to do it? My guess is neither, b/c of their pride, ego, and stubboness. It will just be vieved by both as an unfortunate happening.

Jim will say that was the only option he had , then blame Bird for the players he got him. Then Bird will say the players are the problem

and the wheels on the bus go round and round round and round

BlueNGold
02-02-2010, 06:44 PM
As much as you all are complaining about D. Jones playing the four spot, and believe me I'm with you, it is nothing compared to the lineup that features Troy Murphy at center and Mike Dunleavy at the power forward spot. I've seen that lineup about 4 or 5 times since we have "gone small".

Also to answer MagicRat, Uncle Buck and anyone else who reall cares.

I'll just go ahead and be the one honest person here so I can be the target for the wrath that is coming.

The five game win streak was prefered because Troy Murphy was not a part of it.

There I said it, now go have a field day.

We played differantly then. Remember Danny may have started at the four but when we went to the bench we were bringing in Hansbrough and on rare occasions S. Jones at the four.

Danny spent plenty of time per game back at the three spot.

But I'll say it again, it had more to do with Troy Murphy not being available to O'Brien that did the trick. He had to coach a different style.

D Jones at PF is beyond the pale. Other teams have to be laughing about that. ...until the draft I suppose.

In any event, above and beyond anything else with this fiasco of a season, it is coaching malpractice not to try what has worked previously. That is, bench Murphy and prove that it's not him. There are enough stats, as imperfect as they are, to at least try it for a few games. Our record is significantly better without him. He has the worst plus-minus on the team...something JOb has stressed positively about Foster.

What is there to lose? Certainly not the season. Troy's trade value?.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Ever notice how players that are relegated to go to the bench (Tins, TJ, etc.) are tough to move and have to be bought out? Troy's contract ain't cheap folks.

McKeyFan
02-03-2010, 09:41 AM
D Jones at PF is beyond the pale. Other teams have to be laughing about that. ...until the draft I suppose.

In any event, above and beyond anything else with this fiasco of a season, it is coaching malpractice not to try what has worked previously. That is, bench Murphy and prove that it's not him. There are enough stats, as imperfect as they are, to at least try it for a few games. Our record is significantly better without him. He has the worst plus-minus on the team...something JOb has stressed positively about Foster.

What is there to lose? Certainly not the season. Troy's trade value?.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Ever notice how players that are relegated to go to the bench (Tins, TJ, etc.) are tough to move and have to be bought out? Troy's contract ain't cheap folks.

I disagree as well that JOB has tried everything.

He has not tried to consistently play a defensive minded line up except when forced to because Murphy is injured. Whenever Troy returns, he gets huge minutes and the defensive mindset is gone.

Here's the deal: if the five game win streak strategy had been continued (and that includes Danny at the four at times), this team may have had a lot better record about now. If so, playoffs would be in the picture, and continuing to play Danny at the four may be worth some of the possible long term fallout.

As it stands right now, there is no positives about playing Danny at the four if it risks his long term.

This team, I believe, would be much better if Troy got about 20 minutes and Solo, McBob, and a healthy Tyler played the other 40 minutes available in the front court (give Granger 10).

But we will never find out (other than the fgws where we had the best winning percentage of the year) if that lineup above will work because JOB won't play it. Actually, we already did find out, but politics or business or egos or Rick Pitino or something won the day.