PDA

View Full Version : Danny Grangger is about to go on JMV (other players talked, too, and O'Brien)



pacer4ever
09-21-2010, 06:19 PM
DG33 will be on in next 1/2 hr and JOB was on earlier, JMV will post it on the website later, in the podcast section, any thoghs on what JOB said pretty much wat he said at the Q&A breakfast.

Speed
09-21-2010, 06:42 PM
JMV already has a bunch of interviews up.

http://www.1070thefan.com/podcast/Episodes.aspx?PID=1632

DC2, Obie, Dunleavey, and more.

pacer4ever
09-21-2010, 06:48 PM
didnt like want JOB said except for what he said about hibbert

pacer4ever
09-21-2010, 06:51 PM
LOVED WHAT DC2 HAD TO SAY

Sookie
09-21-2010, 06:59 PM
"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*

Trader Joe
09-21-2010, 07:06 PM
"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*

Translation: "I GOTTA TRY AND SAVE MY *** AND INCREASE MY JOB SECURITY, MAN!"

Tom White
09-21-2010, 07:09 PM
[QUOTE=Sookie;1062792]"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*[/QUO

I know I should'nt say it this bluntly, but what a short-sighted moron.

CableKC
09-21-2010, 07:11 PM
"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*
Uhh.....you're surprised by this?

"We're competing now to make the Playoffs" is the mantra that we've been seeing for the last couple of seasons....a valid one at that....but the second that we're out of the Playoffs...you'd think that we'd play the younger players :shrug:.

I think that they like to develop Players as well...but unless they aren't considered a serious "impact player" ( and I don't think that PG is..at least for this season ) then they're going to get garbage time and we're going to go with the more experienced players.

That's why I think that the notion that "PG won't be read for a few seasons" is more deliberate then not. Unless PG impresses JO'B the same way that Iggy impressed JO'B in Philly....get used to seeing Posey, BRush and Dunleavy getting more playing time at the expense of PG.

CableKC
09-21-2010, 07:13 PM
"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*

I know I should'nt say it this bluntly, but what a short-sighted moron.
Are you referring to Sookie or JO'B? :stirthepo

Sookie
09-21-2010, 07:34 PM
Collison is likeable and blantanly cocky. :D I like it.

pacer4ever
09-21-2010, 07:37 PM
Collison is likeable and blantanly cocky. :D I like it.

i see it more confident then cocky but i like it too

Hicks
09-21-2010, 07:55 PM
I was just about to recommend everyone listen to all of these interviews.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned what Jim said about Tyler Hansbrough. We should know tomorrow whether or not Tyler is going to be cleared by his doctor(s?) to play. He's seeing them tomorrow and Jim said that's what they were hoping to hear. Keep your fingers crossed!

Hicks
09-21-2010, 07:57 PM
I just finished listening to Mike Dunleavy's interview.

He admitted he was just mentally checked out last season, and he sounded more upbeat heading into this new season. I was surprised when he said this is the first time in three years he's been able to play in training camp. But I guess that's right because he wasn't able to in '09 or '08.

He also said this is the most talented group he's been around; he didn't specify if he meant for his career or for his time in Indiana. I kind of assumed the latter.

pacer4ever
09-21-2010, 08:16 PM
I just finished listening to Mike Dunleavy's interview.

He admitted he was just mentally checked out last season, and he sounded more upbeat heading into this new season. I was surprised when he said this is the first time in three years he's been able to play in training camp. But I guess that's right because he wasn't able to in '09 or '08.

He also said this is the most talented group he's been around; he didn't specify if he meant for his career or for his time in Indiana. I kind of assumed the latter.

i understand where mike is coming from having had knee trouble myself. It is draning coming back from knee trouble. I it the wall he was talking about doing phisical theraphy, you just are wore out from recoving that it takes a toll on u.

OakMoses
09-21-2010, 08:42 PM
[QUOTE=Sookie;1062792]"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*[/QUO

I know I should'nt say it this bluntly, but what a short-sighted moron.

I'd bet that Bird agrees much more with O'Brien than not in this regard.

rel
09-21-2010, 09:42 PM
Collison is likeable and blantanly cocky. :D I like it.

What did collison actually say?

Brad8888
09-21-2010, 09:42 PM
[QUOTE=Tom White;1062796]

I'd bet that Bird agrees much more with O'Brien than not in this regard.

Except for Hansbrough, of course, because Bird sees a lot of himself in Hansbrough and wouldn't want O'Brien to get in the way of his development.

pacer4ever
09-21-2010, 09:51 PM
What did collison actually say?

just he wants to help the team into the playoffs listen for ur self at
1070thefan.com under JMV

Sookie
09-21-2010, 10:46 PM
What did collison actually say?

He talked about being a franchise player and stuff, very confident in his abilities.

I feel that "confident" is just a political correct way of saying "cocky." :P

But he also seems very personable and media friendly, (the bit about the GPS girlfriend was cute) which is good.

I like cocky players, personally. I hope it translates on the court.

Peck
09-21-2010, 11:25 PM
[QUOTE=mellifluous;1062833]

Except for Hansbrough, of course, because Bird sees a lot of himself in Hansbrough and wouldn't want O'Brien to get in the way of his development.

What possible similarities would he see between himself & Tyler? They play nothing alike.

OakMoses
09-21-2010, 11:45 PM
I believe there's ample evidence to show that Hansbrough is not just a favorite of Bird's, but also of O'Brien's.

beast23
09-22-2010, 01:44 AM
JOB: "We can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

If anyone has a problem with this, or does not think that it coincides with Bird's wishes, then you just haven't been paying attention throughout Bird's history with the Pacers.

The Pacers establish goals prior to every single season they play. The first item on the list has always been (and probably always will be) "to make the playoffs". That makes it very evident that the coach, whether JOB or someone else, will never sacrifice a chance at winning a game for the sake of assuring that one of the youngsters gets ample playing time.

I'm probably near the top of the anti-JOB list, but I can't fault him for the statement he has made. All that does is at least show that he and his management are on the same page regarding the #1 goal of the team.

Personally, I want to see three things. Winning as many games as possible, while finding enough playing time for the younger players to determine who the keepers are, while also doing whatever we can to get the most value out of the expiring contracts that we have.

Brad8888
09-22-2010, 03:40 AM
[QUOTE=Brad8888;1062845]

What possible similarities would he see between himself & Tyler? They play nothing alike.

I attended a season ticket selling dinner for former club level clients that virtually everyone involved with the Pacers from Herb Simon to Larry Bird to O'Brien and his assistants as well as every player on the roster at that time including some players who were at the training camp in early October and were about to be cut.

Bird spoke at that event, and was very excited by the prospects of Hansbrough, and to paraphrase, Bird said that Tyler was a lot like him in that everybody doubted that some small town boy could do what he could do on the court, and that Tyler is driven to prove everybody wrong like Bird himself had been.

He did not indicate similarities in their style of play at all, just that their overall demeanor and outlook are similar (when someone asked Bird what he thought about competing teams for last year's upcoming season, he cracked "I hate 'em all. Tyler does, too, he hates 'em all, that's what I like about him." and everybody chuckled), although I think that Bird similarly outhustled others for both rebounds and steals as Tyler potentially can, and despite not being a superior athlete was able to get to the rim and finish and draw fouls and get to the line in a way that Tyler could potentially emulate in the future. Tyler will never be the shooter that Bird was from midrange or the perimeter even if he is completely healthy, and I am sure Bird had no intention of portraying him that way.

Peck
09-22-2010, 04:28 AM
Ok, in attitude and personality traits maybe. But not on the basketball court.

Chuck Chillout
09-22-2010, 06:54 AM
JOB: "We can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

If anyone has a problem with this, or does not think that it coincides with Bird's wishes, then you just haven't been paying attention throughout Bird's history with the Pacers.

The Pacers establish goals prior to every single season they play. The first item on the list has always been (and probably always will be) "to make the playoffs". That makes it very evident that the coach, whether JOB or someone else, will never sacrifice a chance at winning a game for the sake of assuring that one of the youngsters gets ample playing time.

I'm probably near the top of the anti-JOB list, but I can't fault him for the statement he has made. All that does is at least show that he and his management are on the same page regarding the #1 goal of the team.

Personally, I want to see three things. Winning as many games as possible, while finding enough playing time for the younger players to determine who the keepers are, while also doing whatever we can to get the most value out of the expiring contracts that we have.

Agreed. And I think it was actually a pretty generic statement any coach would make. At least here he isn't saying something he's going to completely ignore when it really comes down to it, like he did with the "defense earns playing time" nonsense he's tried to sell and then Murphy's minutes don't decrease a second or he let's Danny play one side of the court.

Trading Murphy alleviates a lot of the angst I feel about young guys not playing. I guess he could play Foster or SJones major minutes there, or have Danny play the 4 most of the game, but even with that he'd have to rely on Hansbrough or McRoberts more this season.

Point guard same thing- he doesn't have Watson to start and feed major minutes to, and he's not going to play Ford, so Collison and Price should get plenty of time.

If George is raw, no need to rush him this year. I'm fine with Dunleavy playing as it maybe makes him a trading piece at the deadline.

Tom White
09-22-2010, 09:03 AM
Are you referring to Sookie or JO'B? :stirthepo

Ha! I didn't think it might be taken that way. No, I'm NOT referring to Sookie.

Tom White
09-22-2010, 09:06 AM
[QUOTE=Brad8888;1062845]

What possible similarities would he see between himself & Tyler? They play nothing alike.

Perhaps the work ethic?

owl
09-22-2010, 09:41 AM
He also said this is the most talented group he's been around; he didn't specify if he meant for his career or for his time in Indiana. I kind of assumed the latter.

How can this be with Troy gone?(sarcasm, I hate the green font)

BillS
09-22-2010, 10:23 AM
"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*

I still don't understand the idea that you sit guys who earned the minutes in favor of guys you hope will deserve the minutes someday. I don't see how this works on the floor or in the locker room, how you instill a winning attitude when winning isn't a goal, or how it gives anyone the incentive to work hard if your minutes are only based on how young and raw you are.

The VALID arguments last year were whether or not the young guys actually DID give the team a better chance of winning, and whether there were more minutes that could have been carved out by lowering huge amounts of playing time for certain veterans.

Make those arguments, and - while I may or may not agree - they make sense. They argue for or against JOB's skills and abilities as coach, not that the only way to win in the long term is to lose in the short term.

Of course, I also believe that players don't need major minutes their first few years to learn about the game and that you actually learn by practicing and by being on the bench.

NuffSaid
09-22-2010, 10:42 AM
Just finished listening to Mike Dunleavy's podcast...couldn't help laughing when he was asked about Roy Hibbert's mixed martial arts training and the comments made about playing not being able to use the round-house kick in basketball....just couldn't get that visual out of my head the avatar of him getting the crap kicked outta him while he was w/GS. Poor guy, but that remains one of the funniest still-shots ever!

90'sNBARocked
09-22-2010, 10:46 AM
I still don't understand the idea that you sit guys who earned the minutes in favor of guys you hope will deserve the minutes someday. I don't see how this works on the floor or in the locker room, how you instill a winning attitude when winning isn't a goal, or how it gives anyone the incentive to work hard if your minutes are only based on how young and raw you are.

The VALID arguments last year were whether or not the young guys actually DID give the team a better chance of winning, and whether there were more minutes that could have been carved out by lowering huge amounts of playing time for certain veterans.

Make those arguments, and - while I may or may not agree - they make sense. They argue for or against JOB's skills and abilities as coach, not that the only way to win in the long term is to lose in the short term.

Of course, I also believe that players don't need major minutes their first few years to learn about the game and that you actually learn by practicing and by being on the bench.

If thats true then why is Tyler being discussed by Jim O'Brien? What has he done to earn minutes?

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 10:51 AM
I still don't understand the idea that you sit guys who earned the minutes in favor of guys you hope will deserve the minutes someday. I don't see how this works on the floor or in the locker room, how you instill a winning attitude when winning isn't a goal, or how it gives anyone the incentive to work hard if your minutes are only based on how young and raw you are.



I agree 100%.



Of course, I also believe that players don't need major minutes their first few years to learn about the game and that you actually learn by practicing and by being on the bench.

Interestingly enough, Tyler addresses this point in the pacers.com interview when asked if he is essentially a rookie again this season. Tyler says this. A. I feel more prepared than I was last year just because I was able to sit back and watch and learn the system and adjust to the city. It won't just be like I'm a rookie again. Yeah, I'm going to have to learn a lot just like anybody else that's been out for awhile.

BillS
09-22-2010, 11:32 AM
If thats true then why is Tyler being discussed by Jim O'Brien? What has he done to earn minutes?

A valid argument, though my answer would be that he performed well when given the opportunity and he plays a position at which we are not particularly robust.

The next argument, of course, would be why didn't he treat certain other players who looked to the fans as if they also performed well and played a position at which we were not particularly robust. That I can't answer, but if the argument exists there why wouldn't it exist for Tyler?

Bear in mind I don't think JOB is particularly good at his job (see avatar). I just want the arguments to be more than just parroting sound bites and making ad hominem attacks.

90'sNBARocked
09-22-2010, 11:48 AM
A valid argument, though my answer would be that he performed well when given the opportunity and he plays a position at which we are not particularly robust.

The next argument, of course, would be why didn't he treat certain other players who looked to the fans as if they also performed well and played a position at which we were not particularly robust. That I can't answer, but if the argument exists there why wouldn't it exist for Tyler?

Bear in mind I don't think JOB is particularly good at his job (see avatar). I just want the arguments to be more than just parroting sound bites and making ad hominem attacks.

Bill ,

Do you think there was a "friendly nudge" by Bird for O'Brien to at least see if Tyler can play? If so , do you think there may be that same nudge by Bird to play Paul George?

Becasue for Tyler to even have gotten a chance last year, meant the above is true or that he outplayed McBob, Foster, Jones in practice?

Speed
09-22-2010, 11:53 AM
If Tyler is healthy I'm guessing he'll play and get consistent minutes at that. He's a coaches type of player, run through a wall if you tell him to. I don't see Tyler getting time as an issue, even under a coach that values the position differently than I do. Just my best guess, of course.

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 11:57 AM
"we can't afford to send guys minutes for the sake of developing, they get minutes for the sake of winning."

.... *head/desk*

You should tell this to the guys in Portland or the ones in Oklahoma city, I bet Durant would disagree with this.


edit: JOB is doing this because he is trying to save his job, this was the reason why I did not want to listen to the guys interview of him, this guy is never going to change he says one thing and does something else. His method has never work and never will but he is going to keep banging his head againts the wall because that is who he is.(a loser)

Sookie
09-22-2010, 12:18 PM
I still don't understand the idea that you sit guys who earned the minutes in favor of guys you hope will deserve the minutes someday. I don't see how this works on the floor or in the locker room, how you instill a winning attitude when winning isn't a goal, or how it gives anyone the incentive to work hard if your minutes are only based on how young and raw you are.

The VALID arguments last year were whether or not the young guys actually DID give the team a better chance of winning, and whether there were more minutes that could have been carved out by lowering huge amounts of playing time for certain veterans.

Make those arguments, and - while I may or may not agree - they make sense. They argue for or against JOB's skills and abilities as coach, not that the only way to win in the long term is to lose in the short term.

Of course, I also believe that players don't need major minutes their first few years to learn about the game and that you actually learn by practicing and by being on the bench.

And I agree.

But I think with O'brien, when he says "guys that give us a better chance of winning" he means the vets.

And obviously developing means the younger guys.

I don't believe he thinks that PG, Magnum, (possibly) Lance, AJ, Darren, and Tyler, and possibly Rush (Roy might have graduated to vet), give you a better chance of winning. Simply because the are younger guys.

I think they give you a better chance of winning than TJ, Dun, and Posey. And I think once a team is out of the playoffs, they ought to play players who they want to develope and expect to be a part of the team's future. AKA, admit to rebuilding.

I don't think his stance on "who will win us games" will change. To him, that's the vets, regardless of how many times it's shown otherwise. And so when he makes those comments...I get concerned.

nerveghost
09-22-2010, 12:19 PM
Just finished listening to Mike Dunleavy's podcast...couldn't help laughing when he was asked about Roy Hibbert's mixed martial arts training and the comments made about playing not being able to use the round-house kick in basketball....just couldn't get that visual out of my head the avatar of him getting the crap kicked outta him while he was w/GS. Poor guy, but that remains one of the funniest still-shots ever!

http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/30639/2192277536_9512b94410_o.jpg

Justin Tyme
09-22-2010, 12:47 PM
http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/30639/2192277536_9512b94410_o.jpg


Thanks for posting the picture! I don't believe I've ever seen it b4.

Since86
09-22-2010, 01:01 PM
just he wants to help the team into the playoffs listen for ur self at
1070thefan.com under JMV

Some of us can't listen due to security firewalls while at work. It helps a lot when people give summaries.

Since86
09-22-2010, 01:09 PM
I still don't understand the idea that you sit guys who earned the minutes in favor of guys you hope will deserve the minutes someday. I don't see how this works on the floor or in the locker room, how you instill a winning attitude when winning isn't a goal, or how it gives anyone the incentive to work hard if your minutes are only based on how young and raw you are.

The VALID arguments last year were whether or not the young guys actually DID give the team a better chance of winning, and whether there were more minutes that could have been carved out by lowering huge amounts of playing time for certain veterans.

Make those arguments, and - while I may or may not agree - they make sense. They argue for or against JOB's skills and abilities as coach, not that the only way to win in the long term is to lose in the short term.

Of course, I also believe that players don't need major minutes their first few years to learn about the game and that you actually learn by practicing and by being on the bench.


Just a quick question. Did AJ earn his minutes last year?

Because I think I recall being told AJ outperforms vets in practice, by JOb. I also think I recall AJ getting PT only after TJ was injured, and then exceeded expectations. I also think I recall that once TJ was healthy, AJ was sent back to 3rd string with a comment that went something like "now we know what AJ can do if we need him again."

That's the problem. In theory you're stance is how it should be ran. But reality doesn't always follow theory.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 01:20 PM
Bill ,

Do you think there was a "friendly nudge" by Bird for O'Brien to at least see if Tyler can play? If so , do you think there may be that same nudge by Bird to play Paul George?

Becasue for Tyler to even have gotten a chance last year, meant the above is true or that he outplayed McBob, Foster, Jones in practice?

I realize you didn't ask me. but no, I think O'Brien loved hansbrough style of play from the start. With very rare exceptions coaches love players who play as hard as Tyler. You can teach Tyler how to play within the system, but you cannot teach other players to play as hard as Tyler.

Sookie
09-22-2010, 01:22 PM
Just a quick question. Did AJ earn his minutes last year?

Because I think I recall being told AJ outperforms vets in practice, by JOb. I also think I recall AJ getting PT only after TJ was injured, and then exceeded expectations. I also think I recall that once TJ was healthy, AJ was sent back to 3rd string with a comment that went something like "now we know what AJ can do if we need him again."

That's the problem. In theory you're stance is how it should be ran. But reality doesn't always follow theory.

We can also get into Obie's favorite "plus/minus" theory..
Guess who had the best on the team..AJ (he actually had the best adjusted +/- for all rookies. )
The worst..Troy..

but players earn their minutes.

Which is where I get back to.
Jim says he wants to win, and will play players that help you win.
Jim thinks the vets help you win.
Jim plays the vets.

The problem lies with the second bit. As it's not always true.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 01:25 PM
Just a quick question. Did AJ earn his minutes last year?

Because I think I recall being told AJ outperforms vets in practice, by JOb. I also think I recall AJ getting PT only after TJ was injured, and then exceeded expectations. I also think I recall that once TJ was healthy, AJ was sent back to 3rd string with a comment that went something like "now we know what AJ can do if we need him again."

That's the problem. In theory you're stance is how it should be ran. But reality doesn't always follow theory.

I thought AJ was "sent back to the bench" because he injured himself. I think it was a sprained ankle, nothing serious, but he needed a sit a few games, but then TJ played quite well so Jim rode with ford for a few games and then he was injured and sat the rest of the season. TJ also played right before the trade deadline (take that for what its worth)

One thing I am 100% sure about by March Jim had enough of TJ and would have played almost anyone over him. I thought overall AJ played OK, but certainly struggled at times. Watson is the one who started playing really well in March and IMO he was the biggest reason why the pacers were good in March.

Tom White
09-22-2010, 01:29 PM
Just a quick question. Did AJ earn his minutes last year?

Because I think I recall being told AJ outperforms vets in practice, by JOb. I also think I recall AJ getting PT only after TJ was injured, and then exceeded expectations. I also think I recall that once TJ was healthy, AJ was sent back to 3rd string with a comment that went something like "now we know what AJ can do if we need him again."

That's the problem. In theory you're stance is how it should be ran. But reality doesn't always follow theory.

That very instance ran through my head, earlier. That, and the odd DNP-CD's McRoberts would get after giving a good performance, even though we were short handed in the front court.

I'll also add there were blowouts last year, during which would have been a good chance to give some of the younger guys time on the court. I know some people think those situations are not a great learning time for younger players, but I hold that any playing time is better than none.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 01:32 PM
And I agree.

But I think with O'brien, when he says "guys that give us a better chance of winning" he means the vets.



Collision is a second year player and he'll play 38 minutes a game if he can.

Tyler is a second year player and I fully expect him to play as many minutes as he physically can handle

Roy is a third year player and I expect him to play over 30 minuites per game and only limited by his foul trouble and inability to play long stretches.

So, no I do not think Jim believes only the vets give the pacers the best chance of winning. The "right" young players give us the best chance of winning. So it isn't an either or situation. You do not play the young guys just because they are young. You play the young guys because they are good.

Sookie
09-22-2010, 01:34 PM
I thought AJ was "sent back to the bench" because he injured himself. I think it was a sprained ankle, nothing serious, but he needed a sit a few games, but then TJ played quite well so Jim rode with ford for a few games and then he was injured and sat the rest of the season. TJ also played right before the trade deadline (take that for what its worth)

One thing I am 100% sure about by March Jim had enough of TJ and would have played almost anyone over him. I thought overall AJ played OK, but certainly struggled at times. Watson is the one who started playing really well in March and IMO he was the biggest reason why the pacers were good in March.

Jim had enough of TJ in January, and went "F it, I'm playing the rookie"

In January, AJ was arguably the best PG on the roster. Then he got two start two games, and Bogurt hit him in the face and caused a concussion.

The next game, AJ was cleared to play, Watson as back, and JOB decided to go "with the vets" Stating that "we know what we have an AJ, now it's time to go with the vets."

Ford injured himself in march, so AJ got the backup minutes. I don't know whether it was fair to say he struggled, though. Yes, he didn't play as well as he did in January, but he also got reduced minutes. (January it was closer to 20 minutes per game. March it was closer to around 10. It's kind of hard for him to outplay Watson when one is playing around 40 and the other is playing around 10. Although he had a few games where he was a main reason why the Pacers were in the game, so Jimmy had to play him..ie: Cleveland and Miami.)

Sookie
09-22-2010, 01:38 PM
Collision is a second year player and he'll play 38 minutes a game if he can.

Tyler is a second year player and I fully expect him to play as many minutes as he physically can handle

Roy is a third year player and I expect him to play over 30 minuites per game and only limited by his foul trouble and inability to play long stretches.

So, no I do not think Jim believes only the vets give the pacers the best chance of winning. The "right" young players give us the best chance of winning. So it isn't an either or situation. You do not play the young guys just because they are young. You play the young guys because they are good.

Are you sure Collison will play 38 minutes a game this year? We've heard "He was only a rookie last season." "Put up good stats on a bad team" and "TJ's going to get the opportunity to earn a spot in the rotation"

Now, I don't necessarily think that Jim does what he says. But he hasn't had the opportunity to do anything yet. I haven't heard Jim say that Collison is the guaranteed starter. I haven't heard him say that Collison gives the team the best chance of winning at the PG spot (In fact, he pretty much said the opposite) So why do you think Jim will play him?

As I said, I do think Roy has graduated to vet now. But Jim clearly didn't think Roy gave us the best chance of winning last season.

Since86
09-22-2010, 01:43 PM
I thought AJ was "sent back to the bench" because he injured himself. I think it was a sprained ankle, nothing serious, but he needed a sit a few games, but then TJ played quite well so Jim rode with ford for a few games and then he was injured and sat the rest of the season. TJ also played right before the trade deadline (take that for what its worth)

So I'm making up the "We now know what we have" comment, or do you just genuinely not remember? I know it's the latter, but this hasn't been the first time that I, or others, have brought up his comment.

And even if you just don't remember, why in the world would it take an injury to TJ to get AJ some burn if AJ was outperforming him in practice? Shouldn't players "earn" minutes in practice? And if not, then how in the world can they "earn" them, if they don't play?

If it was a stupid comment due to one circumstance, I wouldn't be so harsh with him on it, but it fails the sniff test on multiple levels.




One thing I am 100% sure about by March Jim had enough of TJ and would have played almost anyone over him. I thought overall AJ played OK, but certainly struggled at times. Watson is the one who started playing really well in March and IMO he was the biggest reason why the pacers were good in March.

My overall point isn't really about AJ, it's about what JOb say's and how it doesn't really mesh with what JOb does.

I realize that some players play really well during practices, that they excel in controlled environments. I also understand that some players are crappy practice players, and really bring it during games. I get all of that, and if JOb came out saying AJ outperformed them in practice, so he was going to get burn and fell flat on his face, I would support JOb sending him back to 3rd string. But that's not how it went down.

Quite frankly, I don't care what people say as much as what they do. When listening to Jim speak, I can easily understand why people don't dislike him being the coach, as much as I do. But when he gets on the sidelines and directly contradicts what he said, then I'm reminded of why I don't agree with what he does, pretty much exclusively.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:04 PM
So I'm making up the "We now know what we have" comment, or do you just genuinely not remember? I know it's the latter, but this hasn't been the first time that I, or others, have brought up his comment.



I remember that comment. Thought it was a strange comment at the time, didn't really pay too much attention to it though. Jim talks a lot, I don't think disecting everything he says is useful. I care more about what he does. If someone disected everything I said or post (oops, they do) then I would be in trouble. sometimes Jim sayd things in frustration and most of what he says I don't think should be brought back 8 months later to prove some point

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 02:05 PM
It really amaze me to see people making excuses for this coach after three years of bad coaching.



:picardriker:

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Are you sure Collison will play 38 minutes a game this year? We've heard "He was only a rookie last season." "Put up good stats on a bad team" and "TJ's going to get the opportunity to earn a spot in the rotation"



I would be shocked if Collision doesn't play 38 minutes or so a game. (I mean if he plays 36 don't kill me) And I would be shocked if Ford plays at all, and I do not believe for 1 second that TJ will be given a real opportunity to earn a spot in the rotation. Sure I suppose if lance is off the team, if AJ isn't healed, then I suppose Ford has to play I guess.

Once again you have to decipher coach speak and read between the lines and decide when to listen to the coach(any coach).

Coaches talk a lot, you cannot take everything at face value. Why is Jim the first coach ever that fans take everything he says and analyze it for days on end, and bring things back from months and months ago. (I do realize some of those collision comments are recent and he is just trying to lower expectations, which is fine, but I don't think Jim believes this comments about Darren)

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:12 PM
It really amaze me to see people making excuses for this coach after three years of bad coaching.





I don't think I'm really talking too much about his coaching, more responding to some of the posts in which Jim's comments are used against him IMO in inappropriate ways


edit: just for my curiosity I went back starting December 29 through March 19th and charted minutes played by Watson, Ford and AJ. Didn't really learn anything. Only thing that I was slightly surprised about is that AJ only sat (DNP) 5 games during this whole time and 4 of those games were in a 4 games stretch in mid February after he was injured. So I think it is false to suggest that AJ was injured and then Jim didn't play him for weeks and week. AJ was injured he sat 4 games and then started playing again , limited minutes at first, but slowly started playing more and more.

There were 4 games in which TJ and Watson both started and it is true that after AJ returned from his injury on February 22nd, he had 3 straight games where he played 8,5, and 6 minutes.

count55
09-22-2010, 02:14 PM
No, he said it, and he did it, and that was a **** up. O'Brien himself said late in the season that if he had to do it all over, he would have gone with the PG rotation (Watson/Price) from opening day (or something to that effect).

I never understood that month or that move with TJ.

Since86
09-22-2010, 02:18 PM
Oh geez..... JOb and Ron Artest are in the same category now.

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 02:22 PM
The only reason that JOB is going to play Collison for more than 30min a game is because he knows that if he doesn't do that he is going to get fired.

I'm not too worry about Collisons playing time, I am worry about the other young guys playing time, I am also worry about the coach again playing people out of position, I don't believe he is going to play Roy as many minutes he is saying he is going to play him, he would always play the veterans "because they give him a better chance to win"( and they been losing for years). I am sorry but I don't think JOB is going to change in his last year with the Pacers.

Since86
09-22-2010, 02:23 PM
I don't think I'm really talking too much about his coaching, more responding to some of the posts in which Jim's comments are used against him IMO in inappropriate ways


Inappropriate ways? Seriously? I'm using what he said about the situation in talking about the situation. I'm not using general comments, or comments from another situation.

He's talking about apples, I'm talking about apples.

If it was a comment out of frustration like "McBob's stats are irrelevant because we didn't win" then I agree with you. Things like that are heat of the moment that you in turn regret. But JOb had time to think about what he was going to say. This wasn't thrown at him from left field. Obviously he put thought into the situation because he was looking at roster depth and then had to CHANGE it when TJ got healthy. This is something he actually puts thought into.

I mean seriously? You're not supposed to take comments that they put thought into at face value? Come on.

Now your just making excuses to make excuses.

count55
09-22-2010, 02:26 PM
Oh geez..... JOb and Ron Artest are in the same category now.

I don't know what that means.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:27 PM
The only reason that JOB is going to play Collison for more than 30min a game is because he knows that if he doesn't do that he is going to get fired.



What? I am confused. Are you saying that now Jim doesn't like Collision and doesn't want to play him. Are you saying that he'll get fired strictly if he doesn't play darren or if he doesn't play Darren the team won't win and therefore he'll be fired?




I'm not too worry about Collisons playing time, I am worry about the other young guys playing time, I am also worry about the coach again playing people out of position, I don't believe he is going to play Roy as many minutes he is saying he is going to play him, he would always play the veterans "because they give him a better chance to win"( and they been losing for years). I am sorry but I don't think JOB is going to change in his last year with the Pacers.

OK, so he doesn't really want to play Roy - I suppose we'll never know what he really wants to do, but he'll play Roy because there is no one else and Roy will give us the best chance of winning

vnzla, are you saying Jim doesn't want to win, and only wants to play the vets. Your post almost falls into the category of Jim is evil and wrong all the time

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:28 PM
I don't know what that means.

I assume he probably means that I always say that we should never listen to what Ron says ever, never, ever, and now I am almost suggesting the same thing about Jim. I'm not, but I would guess that is what he means

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:32 PM
Inappropriate ways? Seriously? I'm using what he said about the situation in talking about the situation. I'm not using general comments, or comments from another situation.

He's talking about apples, I'm talking about apples.

If it was a comment out of frustration like "McBob's stats are irrelevant because we didn't win" then I agree with you. Things like that are heat of the moment that you in turn regret. But JOb had time to think about what he was going to say. This wasn't thrown at him from left field. Obviously he put thought into the situation because he was looking at roster depth and then had to CHANGE it when TJ got healthy. This is something he actually puts thought into.

I mean seriously? You're not supposed to take comments that they put thought into at face value? Come on.

Now your just making excuses to make excuses.

No it is called coachspeak -coaches do it all the time. Jim does it less than most coaches. But you cannot take every word a coach says at face value. I'm confused am I introducing a new concept.

Since86
09-22-2010, 02:33 PM
sometimes Jim sayd things in frustration and most of what he says I don't think should be brought back 8 months later to prove some point


I assume he probably means that I always say that we should never listen to what Ron says ever, never, ever, and now I am almost suggesting the same thing about Jim. I'm not, but I would guess that is what he means

Really, you aren't suggesting that?

The "irrelevant" comment is a good joke, but really shouldn't be taken seriously. On that we agree.

The fact that you think his comments about AJ shouldn't be used against him in the discussion of how he used AJ isn't anywhere close to the same category.

EDIT: I'm not saying you're introducing a new concept. I fully understand coach speak. I'll use Bryan Kelly as my example. When he took the ND coaching position he made a comment that he didn't think Michael Floyd was as good as advertised, that he wasn't a good route runner etc.

That wasn't supposed to be a put down, it was a challenge. That is coach speak.

Saying a player outperforms his competition in practice can be taken that he's just trying to give praise to a practice player, nothing more if that's the only criteria.

That player getting minutes due to injury and outperforming said injured player during that time adds on to his comment and changes the discussion. He's proven that he's the better option between the two not only in practice (like the coach said) but in games.

Getting his minutes taken away for said injured player, even though they practice better, played better, and then is said "now we know what he can do" adds even more on to the situation.

They aren't single situations UB. They make a timeline. If one happened, and the rest didn't, then maybe we would agree. But they all happened. At some point in time what he says is what he means, when he continually says it and does the opposite.

EDIT2: Him contradicting himself isn't something new. When he was named head coach I made post after post about how his offensive and defensive philosophies contradict each other.

It's something he does on a regular basis, not just this one time.

Sookie
09-22-2010, 02:35 PM
I would be shocked if Collision doesn't play 38 minutes or so a game. (I mean if he plays 36 don't kill me) And I would be shocked if Ford plays at all, and I do not believe for 1 second that TJ will be given a real opportunity to earn a spot in the rotation. Sure I suppose if lance is off the team, if AJ isn't healed, then I suppose Ford has to play I guess.

Once again you have to decipher coach speak and read between the lines and decide when to listen to the coach(any coach).

Coaches talk a lot, you cannot take everything at face value. Why is Jim the first coach ever that fans take everything he says and analyze it for days on end, and bring things back from months and months ago. (I do realize some of those collision comments are recent and he is just trying to lower expectations, which is fine, but I don't think Jim believes this comments about Darren)

But my point is, with Darren, JOB hasn't given us any indication he feels any differently.

None. I hope he does obviously. And I agree with what he's said about Darren, it only got me nervous when I heard the TJ comments. Because as annoyed as I'll be if TJ takes one of (Darren or AJ's) minutes, If he ends up starting over the two of them...sheesh.

I think it's pretty obvious that Darren and AJ will help this team win more games than TJ. That's not to say that in some games, Darren won't throw the ball away every other play, or that AJ won't be able to make a shot occassionally. But they are the better alternative.

He's just stubborn with the vets, that's all. And it concerns me with the PG situation. I'm obviously not as sold as some people that Collison is better than Price. But I am sold, that despite being a vet, they are both better options than TJ. And I also believe that between the two of them, we have the future at the point. So I want both of them to be playing. And I hope the minutes battle is simply, between the two of them. (although, I'm sure they'll share some court time..)

And essentially. I believe JOB wants to win. I believe he stubbornly thinks that playing "the vets" will earn more wins. Thus, he plays the vets. I do think JOB's theory tends to be right. But on this team it's not, and he doesn't adjust properly.

He'll be able to play whoever he wants. Jim isn't going to get fired for not playing Collison. Seriously, until he proves that he won't play TJ if all other options are available. I believe he'll play TJ, and quite honestly, probably start him.

About the "coach speak" his actions with AJ don't make sense. Even if we take out "we like what we see so we bench him" and "he outplays the vets on a regular basis."

We still have, last season. He (AJ) at the very least blantanly outplayed TJ. And yet didn't see nearly the amount of time TJ did. And he might not have gotten back into the rotation at all if TJ hadn't of gotten injured. He put AJ back to third string, when at that time, it was definitely arguable that AJ should have been starting. (begining of Febuary). How was that not a problem?

And the fact that he tends to overlook younger players in favor of vets is a pattern. So why would it be different now. Particularly when what Jim is saying now is close represents how he feels. (Collison, the young guy, was just a rookie last season, put up good stats on a bad team. But Posey will be a huge key to the season..really?)

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:38 PM
Really, you aren't suggesting that?

The "irrelevant" comment is a good joke, but really shouldn't be taken seriously. On that we agree.

The fact that you think his comments about AJ shouldn't be used against him in the discussion of how he used AJ isn't anywhere close to the same category.

I think the comment about AJ knowing what we have in him now, (so we aren't going to play him {actually only lasted 4 games and he was injured] was a throw away line that I think means nothing as we move forward. Why bring it up. Does anyone seriously think Jim would rather play Ford over Price going forward. OK, then why does it matter what Jim said in a throw away line, The evidence was that price actually only sat 4 games and I honestly don't know or care when he said it. Jim's actions: Price suffered a concussion, sat out 4 games and then was slowly worked back into the lineup - that seems like a reasonable response to a very young player suffering a concusion. No reason to rush him back in there

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:41 PM
But my point is, with Darren, JOB hasn't given us any indication he feels any differently.



Training camp doesn't start for 6 days. And who would Jim play if he doesn't play Collsion and less experienced and talented AJ? No. A vet he doesn't like in Ford? No

Since86
09-22-2010, 02:49 PM
TJ's minutes for April? 24, 32, 24, 34, 39, 4.
AJ's minutes for April? 26, 23, 18, 15, 20, 25, 11. (TJ didn't play on 4/14)

That's a combined total of 60, 55, 42, 49, 59, 29 minutes for those games. So either Earl didn't play and they went into OT some games, or he was playing either TJ or AJ at SG.

Earl's minutes? 40, 25, 39, 33, 31, 25, 39. Clearly Earl was available.

Not only did TJ still play, he actually average more minutes.


Does anyone seriously think Jim would rather play Ford over Price going forward. Well the proof is in the pudding.

EDIT: And quite frankly how the season is going to start off doesn't bode well for you're argument either, except I'm fully admitting that AJ probably shouldn't get heavy minutes due to coming back from his injury.

Sookie
09-22-2010, 02:52 PM
I think the comment about AJ knowing what we have in him now, (so we aren't going to play him {actually only lasted 4 games and he was injured] was a throw away line that I think means nothing as we move forward. Why bring it up. Does anyone seriously think Jim would rather play Ford over Price going forward. OK, then why does it matter what Jim said in a throw away line, The evidence was that price actually only sat 4 games and I honestly don't know or care when he said it. Jim's actions: Price suffered a concussion, sat out 4 games and then was slowly worked back into the lineup - that seems like a reasonable response to a very young player suffering a concusion. No reason to rush him back in there

That would be reasonable if it happened that way.

It didn't. AJ was healthy and ready to go the next game. He didn't actually get put back into the linup for about five weeks, not five games. (yes, he did play a few minutes in blowouts, but had the game been close, he wouldn't have gotten in the game)

Price only got inserted back into the lineup because TJ got hurt. It wasn't the other way around.

I think Jim likes AJ as a player better than TJ. But I think the vet thing overrules.

And as for the Collison thing.

Would he play AJ over Collison? If AJ's completely healthy..um, he's a better shooter and has been on the team longer. So Jim might. Although, I think to be honest, Jim would let those two battle it out in practice and games. But as it is, AJ's coming back from a knee injury. So it wouldn't be smart to play him, probably anything more than 20 MPG. (I'm sure they'll have a limit.)

But TJ. That's what I'm saying. I think there's a possibility, at least at the begning of the season, that TJ gets minutes ahead of both of our younger guys. He's a vet. JOB says he likes him as a person. And JOB might be willing to give him ANOTHER shot.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:52 PM
TJ's minutes for April? 24, 32, 24, 34, 39, 4.
AJ's minutes for April? 26, 23, 18, 15, 20, 25, 11. (TJ didn't play on 4/14)

That's a combined total of 60, 55, 42, 49, 59, 29 minutes for those games. So either Earl didn't play and they went into OT some games, or he was playing either TJ or AJ at SG.

Earl's minutes? 40, 25, 39, 33, 31, 25, 39. Clearly Earl was available.

Not only did TJ still play, he actually average more minutes.

Well the proof is in the pudding.

So why have the pacers tried to not only trade Ford, but also try to buy him out. is this another case where Bird is trying to get a vet away from O'Brien.

Honestly I think it is absurd to suggest that Jim wants to play Ford.

edit: your numbers are incorrect on Ford, he didn't play after March 12th

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 02:54 PM
Unclebuck;1063003]What? I am confused. Are you saying that now Jim doesn't like Collision and doesn't want to play him. Are you saying that he'll get fired strictly if he doesn't play darren or if he doesn't play Darren the team won't win and therefore he'll be fired?

I am saying that even though he is not a veteran JOB better play him if not he is going to get fired. They made the trade for a reason and if he plays a veteran in front of him(TJ) he is getting fired.



OK, so he doesn't really want to play Roy - I suppose we'll never know what he really wants to do, but he'll play Roy because there is no one else and Roy will give us the best chance of winning

Roy is not the type of Center that JOB likes, we seen this since they drafted him, he rather play Murphy and Rasho at center than him, again I believe it when I see it(JOB playing Roy big minutes)


vnzla, are you saying Jim doesn't want to win, and only wants to play the vets. Your post almost falls into the category of Jim is evil and wrong all the time

I'm not saying he does not want to win, the thing is that he is too stubborn to understand that playing the young guys could maybe give them a better chance to win, he rather play a veteran at PF(Dun,DJ) than Mcbob, he rather play a veteran at pg(TJ, Watson) than AJ, he is been doing this for years and because of that we still don't know how good our players are, if you are telling me that by playing the veterans they made it to the playoffs I would not be saying anything, the thing is that by him playing the veterans he is only getting them like 5 more wins a year and again not playing time or experience for the young guys.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:56 PM
It didn't. AJ was healthy and ready to go the next game. He didn't actually get put back into the linup for about five weeks, not five games.

Price only got inserted back into the lineup because TJ got hurt. It wasn't the other way around.

well then the box scores on Pacers.com are wrong, because I looked at every game starting December 29th through March 17th. Price sat out 4 straight games (after the concussion) then played 1 games sat the next and then played the rest of the season I think every game. My source is Pacers.com

count55
09-22-2010, 02:58 PM
TJ Ford didn't play a single minute after March 12th.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 02:59 PM
TJ Ford didn't play a single minute after March 12th.

That is what I thought, but didn't want to directly challenge Since86's figures until I had a chance to look it up.

Sookie
09-22-2010, 03:00 PM
well then the box scores on Pacers.com are wrong, because I looked at every game starting December 29th through March 17th. Price sat out 4 straight games (after the concussion) then played 1 games sat the next and then played the rest of the season I think every game. My source is Pacers.com

Sorry, I corrected myself.

He did technically play. He played the "scrub" minutes. (And a few of those games look closer than they were, because Josh and AJ had a tendency to compete better with those teams than the players in the actual lineup.) That isn't "back in the rotation" imo.

Honestly, I hope you're right. That O'brien plays Collison and Price and TJ doesn't take any of their time. I know that's harsh, but there's no reason to play him. He's not as good as those two. Doesn't have a future with the team. Him playing is not going to help us win, and it won't even help him get traded. So we'll see. I just have a bad feeling.

Since86
09-22-2010, 03:08 PM
That is what I thought, but didn't want to directly challenge Since86's figures until I had a chance to look it up.

You're right. The dates matched up through me just glancing back and forth between screens. The fifth numbers were 3/12 for TJ and 4/12 for AJ.

BillS
09-22-2010, 03:10 PM
See, these are all about specifics and that is OK. Some quick responses (bear in mind that I may go from specific to general, so please don't assume that a generalization refers to the person being quoted):


Do you think there was a "friendly nudge" by Bird for O'Brien to at least see if Tyler can play? If so , do you think there may be that same nudge by Bird to play Paul George?

Becasue for Tyler to even have gotten a chance last year, meant the above is true or that he outplayed McBob, Foster, Jones in practice?

No, I don't think Bird interferes that much if at all.

Part of the issue here is that I think most of the fans on this board don't mean the same thing as JOB when they use the word "outplayed", the phrase "outplayed in practice", or the phrase "earn playing time". Because we DON'T see everything, we often assume that "outplayed" means "in all areas", that what we see on the floor in a game is going to always be consistent when JOB may see something in practice that makes him think otherwise, or that "earn playing time" is based only on what we see as fans and not a total package of factors that are behind the scenes or at least not seen by fans or reported by media. See the AJ response below for more on a specific example.


And I agree.

But I think with O'brien, when he says "guys that give us a better chance of winning" he means the vets.

And obviously developing means the younger guys.

I don't believe he thinks that PG, Magnum, (possibly) Lance, AJ, Darren, and Tyler, and possibly Rush (Roy might have graduated to vet), give you a better chance of winning. Simply because the are younger guys.

I think they give you a better chance of winning than TJ, Dun, and Posey. And I think once a team is out of the playoffs, they ought to play players who they want to develope and expect to be a part of the team's future. AKA, admit to rebuilding.

I don't think his stance on "who will win us games" will change. To him, that's the vets, regardless of how many times it's shown otherwise. And so when he makes those comments...I get concerned.

I don't think it is as simple as this, but I agree that JOB has more faith in vets, seemingly simply due to their time in the league. There are an awful lot of folks on here who seem to have more faith in the younger guys simply because they haven't shown bad or been figured out by defenses yet. To a certain extent, that is the same flaw.

Arguing that JOB doesn't see something that we see, that a player has a disadvantage as a rookie if there are vets ahead of him, that we can't predict what JOB will do when he says "outplayed" (see above) are valid. Making blanket statements (not saying you do it, but in general) that "JOB hates (or never plays) rookies" or "JOB doesn't want anyone to play defense" or "JOB doesn't want to play Roy" or any number of similar absolutes is not valid - mostly because blanket statements are a lazy way to try for emotional impact or quickly dismiss a topic or try for bad humor rather than treat a complex situation with the analysis it deserves.


Just a quick question. Did AJ earn his minutes last year?

Because I think I recall being told AJ outperforms vets in practice, by JOb. I also think I recall AJ getting PT only after TJ was injured, and then exceeded expectations. I also think I recall that once TJ was healthy, AJ was sent back to 3rd string with a comment that went something like "now we know what AJ can do if we need him again."

That's the problem. In theory you're stance is how it should be ran. But reality doesn't always follow theory.

This is the primary example I was thinking about in my statement about the meaning of "outplayed", above. As I recall, there were no specifics about whether JOB meant that AJ was superior in all aspects of the game or simply was able to dominate in one or more. Maybe he could run over the guys on offense but couldn't guard his way out of a paper bag, maybe he was able to shine in specific moments but couldn't keep it up (rookie conditioning), maybe any of a number of things. The trouble is that we take what is really a pretty vague description and expand it to include every possible nuance. The only way we have to know what he was talking about was to look at his game play on the floor when he got the chance - and, while I think he was better than one would expect from a second-round PG, I don't think he was dominant.

It is a bit similar to taking comments about Tyler's hustle and equating them to a guy who gets down the court first on defense, gets air, rips shots off the backboard, and sprints back for the single-handed layup (one extreme), when they could just as easily apply to a guy who is in the middle of every play and always running down the floor but is completely ineffective while doing so (the other perspective). The REALITY is somewhere in between, and the most USEFUL discussion is the kind that helps us nail down that place. The most USELESS discussion is the one between two people who have definitions at those two extremes but don't provide specifics - thus one person says "a hustler like Tyler can take us to the Finals" while the other says "hustle is irrelevant". Neither can understand how the other can be so "stupid", when each one may be right based on their particular definition - which, in this case, is completely hidden.

To be clear, I really DON'T like the way AJ was played, I DON'T like the number of minutes that Murphy got, and I agree that JOB has many blind spots (including preferring players who play in a way not necessarily helpful to the team as a whole). Trust the avatar. What I don't care for in forum conversation is the absolutism, the denigration of JOB's intelligence or integrity, and the conspiracy theories that imply some sinister or malice-driven motive. They aren't required in order to explain what is going on or to explain that JOB is not, frankly, a very good coach (which, by the way, CAN mean that he just isn't very good, NOT that he sucks. There's middle ground in there as well.)

END OF :soapbox:

90'sNBARocked
09-22-2010, 03:16 PM
I agree that Obie contridicts itself

Tyler didnt play in training camp last year, only the summer league, yet Tyler earned almost instant playing time from the moment he came back from injury.

So how did he "prove himself" prior to playing minutes in his first year?

If you say "he played well in summer league"


So did Lance and Paul in my opinion , and Magnum for that matter

It will be interested in seeing if PG, Lance, and Magnum get an opportunity for instant minutes once the season starts

If not, then I stand by my original commetn that Jim is being hypocritical

Since86
09-22-2010, 03:18 PM
To be clear, I really DON'T like the way AJ was played, I DON'T like the number of minutes that Murphy got, and I agree that JOB has many blind spots (including preferring players who play in a way not necessarily helpful to the team as a whole). Trust the avatar. What I don't care for in forum conversation is the absolutism, the denigration of JOB's intelligence or integrity, and the conspiracy theories that imply some sinister or malice-driven motive. They aren't required in order to explain what is going on or to explain that JOB is not, frankly, a very good coach (which, by the way, CAN mean that he just isn't very good, NOT that he sucks. There's middle ground in there as well.)

END OF :soapbox:

Huh? The bolded part just isn't true, at all. I have no ill-will towards JOb, none at all. I just think he's not a good NBA coach. I think he would be a pretty damn good college coach, depending on his ability to recruit the players that fit his design.

He's a gimmick coach, plain and simple. Gimmicks don't work in professional ranks. Players are too good and too disciplined to get beat routinely by gimmicks. It might work a few times in the beginning but not when opponents actually have time to sit down and scout.

I don't think you can find any evidence of someone (especially me) saying that we think JOb is purposely doing it either out of pure stupidity or malice. He's just too damn stubborn to see it from a different angle, which is why some actually call him Jim O'Stubborn.

This isn't personal, for me atleast. I'm sure that Jim is a great guy, outside of coaching basketball. I just happen to 100% disagree with the way he coaches, and have said so since the very first day he was hired.

Quite frankly, I think I am on middle ground. I think UB is way off to the side trying to say that you shouldn't listen to MOST of what he says. Again, most?

Sookie
09-22-2010, 03:20 PM
It is a bit similar to taking comments about Tyler's hustle and equating them to a guy who gets down the court first on defense, gets air, rips shots off the backboard, and sprints back for the single-handed layup (one extreme), when they could just as easily apply to a guy who is in the middle of every play and always running down the floor but is completely ineffective while doing so (the other perspective). The REALITY is somewhere in between, and the most USEFUL discussion is the kind that helps us nail down that place. The most USELESS discussion is the one between two people who have definitions at those two extremes but don't provide specifics - thus one person says "a hustler like Tyler can take us to the Finals" while the other says "hustle is irrelevant". Neither can understand how the other can be so "stupid", when each one may be right based on their particular definition - which, in this case, is completely hidden.

To be clear, I really DON'T like the way AJ was played, I DON'T like the number of minutes that Murphy got, and I agree that JOB has many blind spots (including preferring players who play in a way not necessarily helpful to the team as a whole). Trust the avatar. What I don't care for in forum conversation is the absolutism, the denigration of JOB's intelligence or integrity, and the conspiracy theories that imply some sinister or malice-driven motive. They aren't required in order to explain what is going on or to explain that JOB is not, frankly, a very good coach (which, by the way, CAN mean that he just isn't very good, NOT that he sucks. There's middle ground in there as well.)

END OF :soapbox:

I see what you mean. I don't think this discussion has gone into the "you're so stupid, you don't get what I'm saying" way. Unclebuck, despite disagreeing with a huge majority of the board, is always reasonable in the way he defends his position. And I think most of the rest of us (there are a lot more, so this comment is a lot more broad ;P ) are reasonable back. Yea, we have our moments of outburst, but we're all frustrated. :P

I think the degineration of his character comes from frustration on our part from the reasonable reasons to discuss him. The essential problems with Jim is that he contradicts himself, is stubborn, and doesn't adjust properly. Not that he's ebil. Quite frankly, when I listen to him in interviews I find myself liking him..and thinking "he's reasonable..maybe he knows what he's doing.." only to watch him coach a game and get frustrated again. He's certainly got charm on his side. :P

BillS
09-22-2010, 03:23 PM
Roy is not the type of Center that JOB likes, we seen this since they drafted him, he rather play Murphy and Rasho at center than him, again I believe it when I see it(JOB playing Roy big minutes)

I know I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I want to answer this directly.

Let me take the two justifications (JOB would rather play Murphy than Roy and JOB would rather play Rasho than Roy) and see if they support the two conclusions (JOB does not like centers like Roy and JOB won't play Roy big minutes).

Yes, JOB played Rasho over Roy. It was Roy's rookie year. Roy made stupid fouls. Roy's NBA conditioning might have been suspect (two examples, Roy's not playing super minutes per game in college, and what we now know to be an asthma issue, back this up).

Yes, there were times Murphy played more C than Roy. Roy still got huge minutes. It didn't happen every game. It happened under certain circumstances that JOB defined pretty clearly.

We might disagree with JOB's reasons or his ability to make a good decision, but to reach the conclusion that this is because JOB "doesn't like" Roy's game is to ascribe an emotional component that isn't proven.

To reach the conclusion that JOB will play Roy fewer than (an undefined number of minutes that could be described as "big") is incomplete logic.

We may disagree with JOB's ability to carve out minutes for rookies or his assessment of how effective someone can be, but to be absolute to imply JOB DOES NOT LIKE or JOB WILL NOT PLAY is not supported by the arguments.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 03:28 PM
Quite frankly, I think I am on middle ground. I think UB is way off to the side trying to say that you shouldn't listen to MOST of what he says. Again, most?

I think some comments are just coach speak. Some comments are frustration, either in the heat of the moment, or some personal frustration Jim is having for whatever reason. Some comments he is using the media maybe to reach or get through to his players. I don't know what % shouldn't be taken as gospel. But I think 99% of what a coach said 8 months ago should be forgotten - things change. What he says now I think has some real value, but everything shouldn't be taken at face value. Coaches can also change their minds. Every word isn't reported in the media.

I feel I am beating a dead horse here.

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 03:37 PM
I think some comments are just coach speak. Some comments are frustration, either in the heat of the moment, or some personal frustration Jim is having for whatever reason. Some comments he is using the media maybe to reach or get through to his players. I don't know what % shouldn't be taken as gospel. But I think 99% of what a coach said 8 months ago should be forgotten - things change. What he says now I think has some real value, but everything shouldn't be taken at face value. Coaches can also change their minds. Every word isn't reported in the media.

I feel I am beating a dead horse here.

So you are telling me that I shouldn't listen to him when he is telling us that he is going to give Mcbob playing time and gets benched the next game?

Or when he is telling us that Roy is going to start just to find out that Murphy is the starter?

We kind of agree in the point that we shouldn't listen to JOB talk(reason why I don't want to listen to any of his interviews) to me if JOB is telling me that Roy is getting more minutes I think less minutes, if he is saying that Collison is the starter I'm thinking TJ, if he is telling me that Rush is the starter I'm thinking Dunleavy.

BillS
09-22-2010, 03:39 PM
Huh? The bolded part just isn't true, at all. I have no ill-will towards JOb, none at all. I just think he's not a good NBA coach. I think he would be a pretty damn good college coach, depending on his ability to recruit the players that fit his design.

He's a gimmick coach, plain and simple. Gimmicks don't work in professional ranks. Players are too good and too disciplined to get beat routinely by gimmicks. It might work a few times in the beginning but not when opponents actually have time to sit down and scout.

I don't think you can find any evidence of someone (especially me) saying that we think JOb is purposely doing it either out of pure stupidity or malice. He's just too damn stubborn to see it from a different angle, which is why some actually call him Jim O'Stubborn.

Remember what I said at the beginning, that I would go from specific to general and that comments were not to be construed as referring to the specific quote or quoted person.

In regard to just finding evidence of someone, here's one just from this thread:


I know I should'nt say it this bluntly, but what a short-sighted moron.

Yeah, I know, it isn't completely serious, but (as the discussion here has shown), this deserves a better response than something to the effect of "Of course he said it, he's an idiot".


This isn't personal, for me atleast. I'm sure that Jim is a great guy, outside of coaching basketball. I just happen to 100% disagree with the way he coaches, and have said so since the very first day he was hired.

As I've said to you a number of times (not least during my "fighting fire with fire" phase and our consequent discussion), I do not in any way count you in the list of people who react with absolute statements or without a history of justification. Please don't take anything I use from you as a conversational springboard to imply that I put you in that category.

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 03:42 PM
I know I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I want to answer this directly.

Let me take the two justifications (JOB would rather play Murphy than Roy and JOB would rather play Rasho than Roy) and see if they support the two conclusions (JOB does not like centers like Roy and JOB won't play Roy big minutes).

Yes, JOB played Rasho over Roy. It was Roy's rookie year. Roy made stupid fouls. Roy's NBA conditioning might have been suspect (two examples, Roy's not playing super minutes per game in college, and what we now know to be an asthma issue, back this up).

Yes, there were times Murphy played more C than Roy. Roy still got huge minutes. It didn't happen every game. It happened under certain circumstances that JOB defined pretty clearly.

We might disagree with JOB's reasons or his ability to make a good decision, but to reach the conclusion that this is because JOB "doesn't like" Roy's game is to ascribe an emotional component that isn't proven.

To reach the conclusion that JOB will play Roy fewer than (an undefined number of minutes that could be described as "big") is incomplete logic.

We may disagree with JOB's ability to carve out minutes for rookies or his assessment of how effective someone can be, but to be absolute to imply JOB DOES NOT LIKE or JOB WILL NOT PLAY is not supported by the arguments.

Eveybody knows that since the beginning Roy was not the type of center that fits a "JOB system" in fact many of Bird picks don't make any sence for this reason, do I believe that JOB likes Roy as a person? yes, do I believe that JOB likes Roy as a player? of course, do I believe that JOB feels that a center like Roy gives him a better chance to win? I don't think so.

BillS
09-22-2010, 03:48 PM
Tyler didnt play in training camp last year, only the summer league, yet Tyler earned almost instant playing time from the moment he came back from injury.

So how did he "prove himself" prior to playing minutes in his first year?

If you say "he played well in summer league"


So did Lance and Paul in my opinion , and Magnum for that matter

It will be interested in seeing if PG, Lance, and Magnum get an opportunity for instant minutes once the season starts

If not, then I stand by my original commetn that Jim is being hypocritical

There are so many differences between Tyler's situation and each of PG, Lance, and Magnum's that to take any failure to play any one of those three like Tyler as evidence of a character flaw (hypocrisy) would be exactly the kind of thing I'm unhappy about.

First, they are at different positions. Second, "played well" isn't an absolute description. Did they "play well" in exactly the same way? Against the same type of opponents? Third, how will they be doing in the practices they have outside of training camp? Do they screw up in training camp (that would have been an advantage to Tyler by not being there, perhaps)? Fourth, one could argue that PG DIDN'T play particularly well in Summer League and that Lance has off-the-court issues that would affect his concentration.

To ignore all of that, to pick one vague argument - not a good enough reason to imply that it is as simple as there being no reason for a difference in treatment other than being hypocritical when he talks.

We may not KNOW his reasons. We may not AGREE with the ones we DO know. But that isn't the same as JOB not having reasons that are perfectly valid to him. That is NOT hypocrisy.

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 03:53 PM
So you are telling me that I shouldn't listen to him when he is telling us that he is going to give Mcbob playing time and gets benched the next game?

Or when he is telling us that Roy is going to start just to find out that Murphy is the starter?

We kind of agree in the point that we shouldn't listen to JOB talk(reason why I don't want to listen to any of his interviews) to me if JOB is telling me that Roy is getting more minutes I think less minutes, if he is saying that Collison is the starter I'm thinking TJ, if he is telling me that Rush is the starter I'm thinking Dunleavy.

Actually for you and others who are driven nuts by JOB, you probably shouldn't
listen to anything he says

BillS
09-22-2010, 04:00 PM
Eveybody knows that since the beginning Roy was not the type of center that fits a "JOB system" in fact many of Bird picks don't make any sence for this reason, do I believe that JOB likes Roy as a person? yes, do I believe that JOB likes Roy as a player? of course, do I believe that JOB feels that a center like Roy gives him a better chance to win? I don't think so.

OK, now THAT is specific. It actually says what you think that JOB does or does not believe. Now, to demonstrate your conclusion, you have to show that an alternative exists that is closer to what JOB believes and that you think JOB will choose. What will he do INSTEAD of playing Roy?

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 04:00 PM
Eveybody knows that since the beginning Roy was not the type of center that fits a "JOB system" in fact many of Bird picks don't make any sence for this reason, do I believe that JOB likes Roy as a person? yes, do I believe that JOB likes Roy as a player? of course, do I believe that JOB feels that a center like Roy gives him a better chance to win? I don't think so.

I disagree. I think we have to factor in the quality of the player. Dwight Howard by your definition is no more (and probably less because he cannot shot from further than 5 feet) a player that fits JOB system than Roy does. And yet I guarantee that Dwight would play 38 minutes a game for Jim and he would have from day 1. IMO the fact of the matter is Roy wasn't ready, Dwight was (Dwight a lot better and will always be)

Now I believe Jim likes a low post center, in fact I think he loves a good low post center. Why wouldn't he, if nothing else that will draw double teams and open up other players for three point shots.

I think overall the idea that a certain player is or isn't a player who fits JOB system is way overblown in this forum. Goes back to the idea that Jim won't or cannot adjust his system to match the players, I think that is false, and he has shown the willingness and ability to change to match the players and I fully expect to see that this year with Roy and Darren on the offensive end. Jim already changed his defense (last season) to better use our slow footed big men.

Since86
09-22-2010, 04:04 PM
So it's your position that JOb is employing the best suited system for this team?

To keep it short, I completely 100% disagree.

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 04:18 PM
OK, now THAT is specific. It actually says what you think that JOB does or does not believe. Now, to demonstrate your conclusion, you have to show that an alternative exists that is closer to what JOB believes and that you think JOB will choose. What will he do INSTEAD of playing Roy?

Like I said before I don't think he is going to stop playing Roy completely I just think he is not going to play as many minutes he is saying he is going to play him(30+ minutes) I think we are going to see Foster taking most of the minutes (if healthy), Solomon taking some, depending in how JOB think he is matching up with some team I can see Posey as center with Dunleavy at PF just like he did with Murphy and Dun.

Trust me I want to believe the guy but like I say before "I believe it when I see it"

Unclebuck
09-22-2010, 04:24 PM
So it's your position that JOb is employing the best suited system for this team?

To keep it short, I completely 100% disagree.

I think the offensive system was built around Mike Dunleavy and Danny Granger primarily. Based upon two seasons ago, that makes some sense. Of course Mike has been injured the past two years, so that set things back quite a bit. Offensively, yeah I think the system JOB has used has done a good job at maximizing our offensive potential. it has enabled Danny to be an allstar and has made the current talent better offensively than the talent would indicate.

What do we have or had. No point guard to speak of, no low post game that worries any opponent. For the past two years we have had Danny and not much else, so yeah I'd give JOB a strong B in maximizing offensive potential. Going forward i think now we have a poiont guiard that if used properly can excel and can push this offense to a much higher level and going forward I think Roy has improved enough that he'll be a force in the low post, so I fully expect Jim to adjust to take advantage of both of those players to benefot the whole team.

Do I particularly like the offensive system the past three season? No - but I do think it was the best for this team offensively.

I do have a problem on the defensive end in general as Jim has not gotten this team to be a cohesive unit defensively. Also to the extent that the offensive style hurts our defense I do not like that. Defense has been average, I blame the coach for that, a great coach should be able to get this team to play better defense. How much better? Not a ton better, but maybe from an average defense, ranked in the 14 -16 best in the league to around the 10th best. But for the average offense I blame the talent for that

Since86
09-22-2010, 04:46 PM
I read your first paragraph, and then just started skimming because it went off in another direction.

Yes, I agree the first year here his offense was designed around Danny and Mike. I also agree that it should have been.

After that first season is where we part ways. Reading your post, one would assume that he didn't change his offensive scheme when Mike went down. I think we both can agree he did. How he did is where we differ.

I know you want to gouge your eyes out whenever someone brings this up BUT......

The mythical 5 game winning streak proves my point, IMHO. He was forced to change his lineup to something different, and magically 5 wins appear in a row. I'm not niave enough to try and make the argument that they would be a great team with that lineup. Not at all. What I will argue however is that roster was better than what he reverted back to as soon as he possibly could.

In his mind, and in your's for that matter, those 5 games disappeared. Which is why I'm referring to it as "mythical." You think it didn't change anything, and therefore ignore the results. I think it changed everything and that JOb just ignored the results because it didn't fit into his grande ideal of how to run the team.

I don't think I can think of one instance where Jim voluntarily made a system switch. Whenever he was forced too, due to injury, sure. But as soon as the injuries passed, he was right back to how it was prior.

That's not changing things up. That's making short-term adjustments.

JOb is set on how he wants things ran. And whenever given the opportunity to play his gimmick style, he will. Because he changed things up shortly, when his hand was forced too, doesn't mean he has the ability to adapt.

He encourages open shots, whether or not they're quick. I don't think he preaches quick shots, but I think he punishes players for not shooting when they're open, and that causes confusion. Unless you have a roster with just dead-eye shooters (which the Pacers clearly do not) I don't agree with that type of coaching, at all.

This team would be better with a structured style. Granger does not create shots for himself well, and he's your best player. If your coaching style doesn't reflect even your best players strengths, but instead is geared towards his weakness, how can you say that's the best scheme for the team?

There's not one player, maybe outside of DJones, that is good creating for themself, or for others really. I can't complain about how he used Murph. That's exactly how he should be used. But he also doesn't put Hibbert into situations at which he can execute either. Nor BRush.

I don't think I need to go through every player on the roster, but I will later if need be. But when you look at the style he wants to play, with the players that he has, it just doesn't add up.

They need structure. They need designed cuts, designed picks. Jim wants a free flowing offense, and the players just do not have the skill sets to run it.

We have argued in the past about you saying that you thought the team overachieved under JOb. And to a point, I agree. I think they performed better than expected with the style of play he wants them to play. I think they also would play better if they were in a different style. So it's really two-fold.

Coaching should try to put players in situations they can succeed in, and I don't see that with this roster and his style of play.

BillS
09-22-2010, 04:53 PM
Like I said before I don't think he is going to stop playing Roy completely I just think he is not going to play as many minutes he is saying he is going to play him(30+ minutes) I think we are going to see Foster taking most of the minutes (if healthy), Solomon taking some, depending in how JOB think he is matching up with some team I can see Posey as center with Dunleavy at PF just like he did with Murphy and Dun.

Trust me I want to believe the guy but like I say before "I believe it when I see it"

What is it about Foster's game that makes you think that Jim will play Foster most of the minutes?

Note that I don't disagree Foster is going to get a lot of minutes. I would be surprised if he started over Roy for anything other than injury reasons, and I would be surprised if Solo got more than spot minutes or he would have played more last year. Posey is an interesting thought, but what does he bring that you think JOB prefers over what Roy brings?

Bear in mind also that if Roy plays 30 minutes he will have played more minutes than ever in his career, including college. Also, at 30 minutes there's still 18 minutes for someone else. If all of those are one player (or one player getting the lion's share and one getting spot minutes) will you be saying Roy should have played 32 or 34 minutes?

This is going the right direction for constructive dialog, by the way...

90'sNBARocked
09-22-2010, 05:01 PM
We may not KNOW his reasons. We may not AGREE with the ones we DO know. But that isn't the same as JOB not having reasons that are perfectly valid to him. That is NOT hypocrisy.



Bill , my point is Tyler did nothing to "earn" playing time. Unless he was so spectular in practice ( which we are not privy to see )

He played well in summer league, got hurt , got healthy, then instantly got into games

PG , Lance, Magnum also played well in summer league, and are not injured

Also PF last year , Murph took the majority of minutes, so it was already crowded there.

McBob deserved Tylers minutes last year

McKeyFan
09-22-2010, 05:04 PM
and possibly Rush (Roy might have graduated to vet), give you a better chance of winning.

So far, it's JOB talk.

Someone will have to check, but I bet Rush finished more games than Roy last year. JOB pulls Roy at the end of games in favor of his type of player or style (Foster, small ball, etc.) and I still fear he will do it again this year.

I'll believe differently when I see if with my own eyes.

McKeyFan
09-22-2010, 05:05 PM
http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/30639/2192277536_9512b94410_o.jpg

I thought that was a Magic Rat-ism ;)

vnzla81
09-22-2010, 06:16 PM
[QUOTE=BillS;1063069]What is it about Foster's game that makes you think that Jim will play Foster most of the minutes?

Foster is the old vet that JOB loves to play(I don't think Roy qualifies as a vet yet) he just trust vets more than a rookie or two or three years players.



Note that I don't disagree Foster is going to get a lot of minutes. I would be surprised if he started over Roy for anything other than injury reasons, and I would be surprised if Solo got more than spot minutes or he would have played more last year. Posey is an interesting thought, but what does he bring that you think JOB prefers over what Roy brings?
Bear in mind also that if Roy plays 30 minutes he will have played more minutes than ever in his career, including college. Also, at 30 minutes there's still 18 minutes for someone else. If all of those are one player (or one player getting the lion's share and one getting spot minutes) will you be saying Roy should have played 32 or 34 minutes?

This is going the right direction for constructive dialog, by the way...


Posey is again an old vet that for JOB liking can also stretch the floor(like Troy last year) and Dunleavy at power forward because he can also stretch the floor(not saying that this is going to be the team most of the time but it can happen)

BillS
09-22-2010, 06:25 PM
Bill , my point is Tyler did nothing to "earn" playing time. Unless he was so spectular in practice ( which we are not privy to see )

He played well in summer league, got hurt , got healthy, then instantly got into games

PG , Lance, Magnum also played well in summer league, and are not injured

Also PF last year , Murph took the majority of minutes, so it was already crowded there.

McBob deserved Tylers minutes last year

This is going to turn into the McRoberts vs. Hansbrough whizzing contest again, isn't it?

I agree Josh should have had more minutes. I think they should have come from Murphy, because I think Murphy had too many minutes (see avatar).

How do we know what Tyler did or did not do to earn his minutes, though weren't many of them while Murphy was injured? My point is that we don't see practice, we don't really know what JOB's criteria are. I don't think Tyler showed he didn't deserve the minutes he got, especially since he was on limited minutes all but maybe 2 games.

Again, I don't KNOW what JOB saw that gave Tyler opportunities (though weren't some of those games when Murphy was injured?) I don't KNOW what JOB doesn't see in Josh. I certainly don't KNOW why he had such a man crush on Troy even when ineffective (see avatar).

However, I still say that Tyler's situation does not match PG, Lance, or Magnum. None of them was a top player on the championship team. All of them potentially have other issues - heck, Rolle isn't even signed yet. In particular, even if the sum total of your argument is summer league, PG in no way was as much of a standout there as Tyler was - if he had been, we would definitely not be talking about Lance and Magnum.

Bottom line is that JOB really hasn't given a detailed enough statement on why he plays certain players and not others for him to be accused of hypocrisy if he doesn't play PG, Lance, or Rolle - especially given the backlog at wing that just simply didn't exist at PF when Murphy was either injured or (God help us, see avatar) playing C.

BillS
09-22-2010, 06:31 PM
Foster is the old vet that JOB loves to play(I don't think Roy qualifies as a vet yet) he just trust vets more than a rookie or two or three years players.

Which (along with Foster's real abilities, should they be there still) is why I think he'll see more minutes than many would like. But "most" minutes, and more minutes than Roy? Not unless Roy is injured or goes into Area 55 to beat up El Pacero.


Posey is again an old vet that for JOB liking can also stretch the floor(like Troy last year) and Dunleavy at power forward because he can also stretch the floor(not saying that this is going to be the team most of the time but it can happen)

Again, we'll see this lineup (hopefully not with Dun at 4 but see avatar) sometimes, but certainly not most of the time and I don't think it will be the reason Roy doesn't see the minutes JOB is talking about.

There is a risk that we'll start a small lineup with someone else at 5, but I believe JOB when he says that isn't his strategy this year. With the personnel at hand I'd be more inclined to believe we'll see PF small while Roy stays at 5, but we don't really have a second big 5 so when Roy is on the bench I think the small lineup will likely prevail.

Kemo
09-22-2010, 06:54 PM
I took JOB's comment/thoughts on Darren as trying to scale back/lower the high expectations that ALOT of people (including myself) are putting on Collison's shoulders...

I just look at it as a way of relieving some of the pressure on DC2 ..

KennerLeaguer
09-22-2010, 07:08 PM
I loved the interview with Darren. The results are still to be determined but that kid sounds like a leader and a winner. Sounds pretty smart too.

Hicks
09-22-2010, 07:27 PM
I was hoping to hear about Tyler by now.

Sookie
09-22-2010, 07:29 PM
I was hoping to hear about Tyler by now.

Yea I would have thought we'd hear from a tweet or something.

pacer4ever
09-22-2010, 09:24 PM
Like I said before I don't think he is going to stop playing Roy completely I just think he is not going to play as many minutes he is saying he is going to play him(30+ minutes) I think we are going to see Foster taking most of the minutes (if healthy), Solomon taking some, depending in how JOB think he is matching up with some team I can see Posey as center with Dunleavy at PF just like he did with Murphy and Dun.

Trust me I want to believe the guy but like I say before "I believe it when I see it"

God i hope this is not the truth. Duns cant even guard a 3 let alone a 4 (PG24 better get more mins then DUNS because PG can play D), and roy better see 35mins per game. and solo beter not play a singal min, and if foster takes most of the mintues from Roy i will boycott the team till JOB is gone

Sparhawk
09-22-2010, 09:33 PM
Thanks for posting the picture! I don't believe I've ever seen it b4.

That was my avatar when I first signed up. I found that picture by searching "basketball ninja" on Google.

All I wanted was a ninja playing basketball, but I only got Dunleavy getting kicked. What a shame.

Doug
09-22-2010, 09:33 PM
:deadhorse

I will say that I find the notion of not giving young players minutes to help them develop is very short sighted.

IMO, a GM and coach must always be thinking a couple of years down the road.

But, maybe 8-12 minutes in real game situations just doesn't matter that much. I think it does, but I really don't have any thing to back it up. Maybe the vast majority of their improvement comes in practice and in the offseason?

pacer4ever
09-22-2010, 09:48 PM
:deadhorse

I will say that I find the notion of not giving young players minutes to help them develop is very short sighted.

IMO, a GM and coach must always be thinking a couple of years down the road.

But, maybe 8-12 minutes in real game situations just doesn't matter that much. I think it does, but I really don't have any thing to back it up. Maybe the vast majority of their improvement comes in practice and in the offseason?

i know eric gordons mom she is my teacher. she says during the season, they dont really pratice much. She said it is normally just a morning shootaround. then they go home or hotel and rest. i dont know if that is everyteam but the majority i think thats how they work.

Hicks
09-23-2010, 12:00 AM
I asked Mike Wells and JMV about Tyler's update on Twitter, and here's what Mike sent back:


got word that they probably won't hear anything specific until sometime tomorrow

O'Bird
09-23-2010, 07:25 AM
I will say that I find the notion of not giving young players minutes to help them develop is very short sighted.

I don't think that you're advocating just handing minutes to players who have not earned them, are you? Because once you start doing that, you put team morale in a downward spiral. You need your vets to be leaders and mentors - and what do you say to a vet who has outplayed his younger rival? "Yeah, thanks anyway, it doesn't matter what you do, you're not getting on the court, and by the way please keep backing me up on the team D thing. Oh and really, good luck with the long-term deal you're trying to get, I want that for you and your lovely family."

No, make the young guys bust their tails outside of practice, make them prove that they HAVE to be on the floor, make them push the vets so the vets will pull them (analogy courtesy of Tom Heinsohn). Let them battle, compete, and go beyond themselves, and wake them up to the fact that they have no earthly idea how hard they really have to work, or what excellence really is at the highest level.

As the old saying goes, "Welcome to the NBA, kid." (after you find yourself on the floor without quite knowing how you got there, a sharp pain in your hip, and the ball's going the other way in transition.)


IMO, a GM and coach must always be thinking a couple of years down the road.

In general, I agree. Of course, whether you're winning or not makes a big difference in where you are a couple of years down the road - is there anything bigger, in fact?

I don't see how you get around it: if you want a winning attitude on the team, you have to do what you can to win, you have to reward winning behavior, you have to let everyone know that what gets you on the court is doing things that help the team win.

You speak of developing young players. I think that if there's one thing you want your young guys to develop more than anything else, it's making winning the absolute priority.


But, maybe 8-12 minutes in real game situations just doesn't matter that much. I think it does, but I really don't have any thing to back it up. Maybe the vast majority of their improvement comes in practice and in the offseason?

Yes, 8-12 minutes makes a big difference, especially if it's consistent. Ten consistent minutes is rotation-level, and the opposition is scouting you and scheming how to neutralize you. So it's a bigger responsibility - you need reps and rest.

Roy Hibbert got rotation minutes his rookie year (14.4 I think?) and was clearly a better player at the end than the beginning - better body, better positioning - though he took his lumps. I love the outside-the-box thinking that O'Brien did in allocating Roy's minutes: he made him a starter as a way to get him a consistent burn from game to game (that's the kind of thing Chuck Daly used to do, simple but not at all typical - and yet perfectly suited to both Hibbert's and the team's needs). It had the added benefit for Roy that he was going up against the A competition.

You mention practice and the off-season - sure, but there are a lot of hours in the day when players either work on their own or with each other - or, crucially important, with trainers and coaches. Having head-to-head work with coaches day in and day out is where the gold is, and the guys like Roy Hibbert who have the fire in the belly take full advantage; obviously he has.
_______________

Unclebuck
09-23-2010, 09:51 AM
i know eric gordons mom she is my teacher. she says during the season, they dont really pratice much. She said it is normally just a morning shootaround. then they go home or hotel and rest. i dont know if that is everyteam but the majority i think thats how they work.

Depends how you define "practice" If you are talking about a training camp type 90 minute practice where there is conditioniong, drill work, full court, full contact. Then no that maybe happens a half dozen times after the first game of the season, and that is only when a team might have 3 or more days between games.

But teams have shorter practices, film sessions, and they work on specific aspects of the game. Might work their halfcourt offense, might put in a few new plays, might work on the team defense, might make some changes to that. Some teams also spend a lot of time preparing for the opponent (much more so in the playoffs - about 99% more in the playoffs)

Jim O'Brien from what I hear has some of the most difficult shootarounds as any coach in the NBA.

pacer4ever
09-23-2010, 12:10 PM
Depends how you define "practice" If you are talking about a training camp type 90 minute practice where there is conditioniong, drill work, full court, full contact. Then no that maybe happens a half dozen times after the first game of the season, and that is only when a team might have 3 or more days between games.

But teams have shorter practices, film sessions, and they work on specific aspects of the game. Might work their halfcourt offense, might put in a few new plays, might work on the team defense, might make some changes to that. Some teams also spend a lot of time preparing for the opponent (much more so in the playoffs - about 99% more in the playoffs)

Jim O'Brien from what I hear has some of the most difficult shootarounds as any coach in the NBA.

That is just what the clippers did with Mike dunleavy sr. like i said i dont know about other teams. Im just saying PG24 needs some mintues to learn the NBA game.

pacer4ever
09-23-2010, 12:13 PM
I asked Mike Wells and JMV about Tyler's update on Twitter, and here's what Mike sent back:

thanks for asking praying he is cleared, and his injury is completly over.:)

pacergod2
09-23-2010, 12:47 PM
I don't think that you're advocating just handing minutes to players who have not earned them, are you? Because once you start doing that, you put team morale in a downward spiral. You need your vets to be leaders and mentors - and what do you say to a vet who has outplayed his younger rival? "Yeah, thanks anyway, it doesn't matter what you do, you're not getting on the court, and by the way please keep backing me up on the team D thing. Oh and really, good luck with the long-term deal you're trying to get, I want that for you and your lovely family."

No, make the young guys bust their tails outside of practice, make them prove that they HAVE to be on the floor, make them push the vets so the vets will pull them (analogy courtesy of Tom Heinsohn). Let them battle, compete, and go beyond themselves, and wake them up to the fact that they have no earthly idea how hard they really have to work, or what excellence really is at the highest level.

As the old saying goes, "Welcome to the NBA, kid." (after you find yourself on the floor without quite knowing how you got there, a sharp pain in your hip, and the ball's going the other way in transition.)

Agree with this completely. People will point to the Oklahoma City Thunder as an example. But look at all the other teams. San Antonio with Hill. Cleveland with Hickson. Rockets with Buddinger. The big quandry in this whole discussion is whether or not the young player you bring in his head and shoulders better than the guy they are replacing with those minutes.


In general, I agree. Of course, whether you're winning or not makes a big difference in where you are a couple of years down the road - is there anything bigger, in fact?

I don't see how you get around it: if you want a winning attitude on the team, you have to do what you can to win, you have to reward winning behavior, you have to let everyone know that what gets you on the court is doing things that help the team win.

You speak of developing young players. I think that if there's one thing you want your young guys to develop more than anything else, it's making winning the absolute priority.

On bad teams, which I would have considered the Pacers over the last several years, the veterans aren't doing enough to win, so you make the decision to move in a different direction. This is the big gray area that we have been dealing with. Our veterans are CLEARLY not good enough to be a playoff team. So do you reward their lack of talent? Are they really working harder than the young guys in a losing efforts? I thought you were on the same page with JOB, as it seems you are a coach and understand, where losing efforts are "irrelevant". I agree and that is why I think there should have been more minutes awarded to the younger guys busting their asses when they get in the game. Reward them for helping the team win. Don't reward the veterans for losing. The big difference between some of the other teams and the Pacers is that other teams will let the rookies play through mistakes. They keep their veterans on the floor with a young guy, where it helps them to overcome the issues and make adjustments. It seems as though a lot of our young guys only get late game burn with other young players. That does not help the young players get better.

There is a big difference in opinion of how well the young guys could possibly play given the minutes. That is the quandry. I don't necessarily agree with the mentality that "we suck anyway", play the young guys. That is not a prefered philosophy in my opinion. I just think that our young guys could handle a few more minutes with the veterans than they have been given over the last few years.


Yes, 8-12 minutes makes a big difference, especially if it's consistent. Ten consistent minutes is rotation-level, and the opposition is scouting you and scheming how to neutralize you. So it's a bigger responsibility.

Roy Hibbert got rotation minutes his rookie year (14.4 I think?) and was clearly a better player at the end than the beginning - better body, better positioning - though he took his lumps. I love the outside-the-box thinking that O'Brien did in allocating Roy's minutes: he made him a starter as a way to get him a consistent burn from game to game (that's the kind of thing Chuck Daly used to do, simple but not at all typical - and yet perfectly suited to both Hibbert's and the team's needs). It had the added benefit for Roy that he was going up against the A competition.

I like what JOB did with Rush and Hibbert. We were clamoring for more minutes for those two and they definitely got them. I think the only downfall in the way that JOB handled these two was that their minutes were inconsistent. They might get 30 minutes one night and 12 the next. Young players are inconsistent and anything the coaching staff can do to bring stability to their game is helpful. That means they should be making the most out of their 20 minutes per game. Of course, if the kid is hot you leave him in. If he is making terrible decisions you can't reward that. So understandably its unrealisitc to be at 20 minutes every single night, but there shouldn't be a two week stretch where they hardly play either.


You mention practice and the off-season - sure, but there are a lot of hours in the day when players either work on their own or with each other - or, crucially important, with trainers and coaches. Having head-to-head work with coaches day in and day out is where the gold is, and the guys like Roy Hibbert who have the fire in the belly take full advantage; obviously he has.
_______________

I think most of the development of players happens in the practice facilities. That is where players learn the game and understand the motions and reactions and technical parts of the game so that they can eventually apply those skills and techniques in a game situation against better competition. That is the end goal. At the same time, you must give the kid an opportunity to overcome their mistakes in applying their skills to game situations. It is a fine line between adversely affecting the game and working towards something positive.

I don't envy JOB. His situation and talent distribution is not conducive to easy decisions when it comes to our personnel. Most of our best talent lies within the younger core of players. Our veterans are getting paid more and probably give us the best chance to win in one game. Over the long-term that is clearly not the case. The transition between winning every single game you play and winning in the long-term is tough. We have been in no man's land for four years now. We are close to handing the team over to the youth. That is inevitable going into next year because of the salary structure. I think Bird and Morway have done an excellent job overall in makign this transition. I think JOB has done a good job with what he has been given. He thinks like a coach and a competitor and that is to win. You can't fault a guy for that. At the same time, I would have liked to see a few more minutes late in the season to reward the young guys for their hard work throughout the year. Let the veterans get healthy when games don't matter.

Great post O'Bird. You bring a lot of great thoughts to this forum. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your wisdom even if it does not correspond with the sentiment of others on the board who are fed up with JOB. You know the game and study the game and it is obvious. You seem to be privvy to a coach's thought process (which makes me wonder if you are a Pacers assistant or something). Keep up the good work.

O'Bird
09-23-2010, 05:25 PM
The big quandry in this whole discussion is whether or not the young player you bring in his head and shoulders better than the guy they are replacing with those minutes.

Fortunately it's not a choice of one player over the other - you can give minutes to both, and if you do it right you make them both more effective.

The odd thing about the current discussion is that in the last two years the young players on the Pacers have played a huge number of minutes, by normal NBA standards

AJ Price: how many 52nd picks have played 15 minutes a game as a rookie in the history of the league?

The year that JJack was here, his third in the NBA, he played starter's minutes.

As a rookie, Brandon Rush was already playing high rotation minutes, 24 per, and in his second season he played starter's minutes.

As a rookie, despite body and conditioning issues, Roy Hibbert was already averaging rotation minutes at 14.4; in his second season he played sixth man minutes. Coming into his third season, they're projecting 34-36, another order of magnitude up. Given that the old rule of thumb is that players take three years to figure out the NBA game, and big men often longer, you'd have to say that he's ahead of the curve.

Tyler Hansbrough we know about; his coach played him the maximum number of minutes that the doctors allowed.

It was Josh McRoberts' third season; in his rookie year with Portland he played a grand total of 30 minutes on the floor and was a throw-in in the Bayless/Rush swap (good job Larry!), so obviously the Blazers didn't think him worth developing. But in his second real year the youngster started to get traction and played rotation minutes in the games he appeared in, supplanting a more experienced player in Solomon Jones.

Do Pacer fans realize that fans of every team that doesn't make the playoffs criticize the coach for not giving young players enough minutes? But in the case of the Pacers for the last two - rebuilding - years, young players have gotten an impressive number of minutes on the floor. It's just not a reasonable criticism.


On bad teams, which I would have considered the Pacers over the last several years, the veterans aren't doing enough to win, so you make the decision to move in a different direction. This is the big gray area that we have been dealing with. Our veterans are CLEARLY not good enough to be a playoff team. So do you reward their lack of talent? Are they really working harder than the young guys in a losing efforts? ... Don't reward the veterans for losing.

The team may not be good enough to win; I'm asserting that you should reward players who play winning ball. The Pacers' young players have been rewarded with minutes for their play; it's a good bet that that will continue.

What about this year's rookies?

Bird says that Paul George isn't ready physically, that Lance is, and I seem to remember him saying that Magnum is not (for what it's worth, I don't think he is). Lance may not play for other reasons, though he does things that the Pacers' offense urgently needs. Paul is also competing with a glut of more experienced wings: Granger, Rush, Dunleavy, and DJones - and also maybe with Lance; given the physical immaturity it's hard to see him getting a lot of minutes before January at least.

I think that it's apparent they want Rolle; and given the state of uncertainty at 4 he might even be on the active roster, if and when they sign him.


I don't envy JOB. His situation and talent distribution is not conducive to easy decisions when it comes to our personnel.

Yes. But he's now in a situation where it's a "good problem to have."

Mike D said in his JMV interview that they're "stacked" at multiple positions. I think that that's a fair assessment, though you could argue about which individuals will give you the most. The contest for minutes at the second wing and the PF should see a lot of fierce competition in the coming weeks. Brandon Rush in particular has got to go beyond himself, and we will watch with keen interest to see if Josh can have a breakthrough year.


I think Bird and Morway have done an excellent job overall in making this transition.

Hear, hear. Getting Roy Hibbert out of the Jermaine O'Neal wreck was brilliant; getting McRoberts as a throw-in in the Bayless deal probably means eventually an eighth or ninth man (or a trade asset by himself equal to the value of Bayless); AJ Price with at least rotation upside at 52 was again brilliant; Murphy for Collison was genius, addressing an urgent need and managing salary at the same time; action on the long-term planning for 2011 has been systematic, prudent, and yet also bold.


I think JOB has done a good job with what he has been given. He thinks like a coach and a competitor and that is to win. You can't fault a guy for that. At the same time, I would have liked to see a few more minutes late in the season to reward the young guys for their hard work throughout the year. Let the veterans get healthy when games don't matter.

I actually thought that that was what happened with Price and McRoberts, depending, of course, on what you mean by "a few more minutes late in the season." I guess we could quibble about how many minutes, though like you, I think, I was glad to see those two get a chance and show some good things on the court.


You seem to be privy to a coach's thought process (which makes me wonder if you are a Pacers assistant or something). Keep up the good work.

Aw shucks.

No, I am not employed by the Pacers, though I'm thinking of changing my screen name to Vitaly Potatohead. Photoshop denizens, take note.

______________

King Phoenix
09-23-2010, 08:03 PM
Great post!

pacergod2
09-24-2010, 12:14 PM
O'Bird... another nice post. As to your points, I think we are very much in agreement with the handling of our team the last several years.

This year's rookies will garner playing time for sure. I think we will see a lot of rotation in the active roster this year. I think we will see Solo inactive the most. Rolle may be inactive a lot depending on how "ready" he is. We will probably see a wing inactive as well. And then the last will go to an injury or whoever has been playing poorly. We have a ton of depth and as you said its a good problem to have. I don't think we will see George inactive outisde of injury. Lance has a whole bag of issues that we can't foresee. But I believe the rookies will get their chances to run with some of the heavier minute players this year. It needs to happen in order to preface next year's roster. We are going to be losing TJ Ford, Mike Dunleavy, Jeff Foster, and Soloman Jones. We will have 12 roster spots filled before we spend our $20+ M in cap space. These rookies will need to get their feet wet and this is a perfect time to be getting ten minutes of burn with the starters or veterans.