PDA

View Full Version : Jim O'Brien, another chance?



BringJackBack
09-27-2010, 09:57 PM
The 09-10 season was a disaster for both Pacers fans and Jim O'Brien, but is it time to turn the page and start fresh? It seems as if O'Brien thinks so.

With his recent comments of a new post half-court oriented offense with pushing the ball after a defensive board, is it time that Coach has finally gotten over his stubborn beliefs of how to win? Is he finally going to coach the players as opposed to coaching the system, or no?

When Jim has had talent, he has won games. Is this the year that we win games, or does Jim hold us back? Has Jim finally turned the page? Or am I going to eat crow when we are 0-5 and we have a lineup of TJ-Dunleavy-Posey-Granger-Foster on the floor?

I guess what I am asking is, is he baiting all of you guys too? Do you think that he is sincere in finally working with the players, or is he the same used car salesman he's been in the past?

I have no clue..

pacer4ever
09-27-2010, 10:00 PM
No wont belive it till i see it.

vnzla81
09-27-2010, 10:02 PM
hell noooo, his time is done with this team.

BRushWithDeath
09-27-2010, 10:04 PM
He's burned his bridge with me.

Trader Joe
09-27-2010, 10:07 PM
Barring a deep playoff run (conference finals or further) I see no reason to retain him, unless there isn't another option.

pacer4ever
09-27-2010, 10:08 PM
he just doesnt know how to use this team and doesnt coach D

MaHa3000
09-27-2010, 10:34 PM
I see O'Brien in the "hold the ship steady till the Captain is aboard" senario this year.

I like what O'Brien has been saying these last couple of weeks but I'm not getting to excited about it.

He has two new assistants this year and an expiring contract. That right there screams LAME DUCK! to me.

I'm thinking that Bird may have already talked to Jim's replacement. I see Bird asking a guy like Mike Brown to replace O'Brien at the end of this season.

I think Jim is a good coach. I don't think he had the players that suited his style here which will probably lead to his resignation or firing mid season.

Pacers#1Fan
09-27-2010, 10:56 PM
I do not think Obie is the right coach for this team.

That being said, this season is make or break for him with me. The only thing that makes me resist the urge to say throw him out the door now is Larry's "three year plan." O'Brien has had to deal with this rebuilding process through its entirety. This is supposedly the final year or the "three year plan." If we don't see some drastic improvements I say bye bye Jimmy.

Hoop
09-27-2010, 11:35 PM
I just want him gone.

Brad8888
09-28-2010, 01:16 AM
I think he, and others in the Pacers front office, are keenly aware of what fan expectations and opinions are this season due to the franchise on the whole paying more attention to social media including fan websites such as PD, and hearing complaints by STH's regarding the team and its performance as well as that of the coach. No, I don't think the new strategy shift comes from directly responding to fan wishes, rather I believe that fans are being subtly shown that the franchise is aware of our concerns by addressing several of them in the media.

I just hope that the efforts to change that we are being told about are actually sincere ones as opposed to just telling the public what they believe we want to hear and then reverting back to more of the same. It won't take very long before that truth becomes apparent, either, IMO. Within the first month the new identity of the team should be pretty well established despite the final gelling not happening for another month or two after that when, once again, the new guys and the previous guys, as well as the newly healthy guys finally adjust to each other, adjust to their new playing styles and strategies (assuming there really are any), and hopefully the idea that they should expect to win instead of hoping not to lose anymore because of increased health and available talent.

I still think O'B is out after this year, but I so want to believe what I am hearing and seeing reported that I am cautiously optimistic. Go Pacers !!!!!!???!!!!!!

BornReady
09-28-2010, 02:11 AM
haha what other chance does JOB need? He's had...246 games to show us what he's made of.

DaveP63
09-28-2010, 08:01 AM
I want to believe what's been coming out of his mouth, but...Time will tell I suppose. As soon as he reverts to "old Jim", bye-bye...

Trophy
09-28-2010, 08:39 AM
If we make the playoffs, it should be interesting to see what Bird will do.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 08:41 AM
he just doesnt know how to use this team and doesnt coach D
Bull****.

Of course this is the make or break year for Jim. I believe we finally have a decent core of players with talent. Previous seasons we've seen that we were working with trade fillers and one year rentals. This squad appears to be the one we are moving forward with, but just missing one or two more pieces.

He's got this year, if not any more to see where we go. If we make substantial progress does he deserve an extension? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on if there is anyone else better available that can work with this current roster.

Now, if he can maximize this talent, he's proven himself worthy of another look. Just a consideration, nothing more. Not a decision, nothing. So none of you fly off the deep end for me saying that.

McKeyFan
09-28-2010, 08:49 AM
The reflexive "O'Brien sucks" mantra probably hurts decent discussion on this board.

He isn't terrible. He just isn't excellent. And the reason he can't make the top tier is that every now and then he makes a bad judgment and stubbornly sticks to it, such as: No timeouts when the other team goes on a run, play Murphy as many minutes as possible, etc.

Remove a couple of these bad judgments and JOB is a an excellent coach. But he does in fact exercise bad judgment at times so he's not excellent. And Bird getting rid of Murphy doesn't solve the problem. Because JOB, who sometimes does not have good judgment, will screw something up again.

He's not the worst coach in the world. He's mediocre to okay. Maybe even good in the right situation. But we've had him three years, way too long to keep a mediocre coach.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 08:52 AM
He's not the worst coach in the world. He's mediocre to okay. Maybe even good in the right situation. But we've had him three years, way too long to keep a mediocre coach.
I understand that, but what is the point of having an awesomely-amazing freaking bestest in the world coach when you have sub-mediocre to poor talent? Kind of counter-productive it seems...

graphic-er
09-28-2010, 09:10 AM
I understand that, but what is the point of having an awesomely-amazing freaking bestest in the world coach when you have sub-mediocre to poor talent? Kind of counter-productive it seems...

Yeah but nobody is talking about having the best coach in the world. But there are plenty of assistant coaches out there that are better than JOB. Lester Conner proved it last year.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 09:14 AM
Yeah but nobody is talking about having the best coach in the world. But there are plenty of assistant coaches out there that are better than JOB. Lester Conner proved it last year.
Lester coached one game. Just one game. We happened to win that game. It's just a coincidence.

graphic-er
09-28-2010, 09:27 AM
Or Is it......? Same opponent, different line ups, different results.

Lester went big and forced the Raptors to try and adjust and we killed them by 15. Jimmy went with this coveted small ball line up and we lost by about the same.

daschysta
09-28-2010, 09:32 AM
The sample size is far too small to draw a conclusion from. Trying to extrapolate or come to conclusions from such a small sample size is always bad logic. Furthermore JOB's real cardinal sin was leaving roy hibbert out of small ball lineups and allegedly he is comfortable with giving big roy 35 minutes each game if he can handle it.. Also didn't danny guard chris bosh that game? That isn't exactly big ball in my books

graphic-er
09-28-2010, 09:52 AM
The sample size is far too small to draw a conclusion from. Trying to extrapolate or come to conclusions from such a small sample size is always bad logic. Furthermore JOB's real cardinal sin was leaving roy hibbert out of small ball lineups and allegedly he is comfortable with giving big roy 35 minutes each game if he can handle it.. Also didn't danny guard chris bosh that game? That isn't exactly big ball in my books

Lester cost himself his job during that game by upstaging JOB. Purposely went away from JOB's preferred line up. I remember he was asked, what elements of JOB's system will you bring with you as a coach. He said none! Then JVG ripped him on during a broadcast the following night.

Yes Danny guarded Bosh at times during the game, and totally shut him down.

McKeyFan
09-28-2010, 09:54 AM
I understand that, but what is the point of having an awesomely-amazing freaking bestest in the world coach when you have sub-mediocre to poor talent? Kind of counter-productive it seems...

How about just a good coach?

Do you prefer mediocre over good?

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 09:59 AM
I am with Duke on this one. I think the Jim O'Brien era in the end will not be looked upon so favorably by most fans. It really shouldn't, but I think that JOB has done a very good job with what he has had. He hasn't had ****** from a talent perspective. We gutted our whole team in an effort to remove the negative stigma. When your best three players are Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, and a rookie/young Danny Granger who is learning the ropes, that is not a great lineup. It is weak, terrible defensively, poor rebounding, and requires the team to outscore other teams to win. Jim implemented a perimeter ball movement system to utilize his three best players on the perimeter. He went small because the team didn't have the front court to compete in a more half court, slowed down matchup. If we push the tempo, we could be more effective and give ourselves a better chance of winning.

I am not a JOB apologist by any means. I don't necessarily agree with his assessments of how ready the young players are for more minutes, but he has stayed the course by letting Bird accumulate more talent. Bird made some major moves, and yet stayed patient by drafting well and letting those players develop. We were only going to get better by drafting because nobody wanted our over-priced pupu platter of huge contractual obligations to mediocre players and less than stellar defenders. Our "fountain of youth" is the key moving forward. Heavy minutes will go to our core of Granger, Hibbert, and Collison. I think we will still see our veterans getting significant burn and it will be complemented by the other young players like McRoberts, Tyler, George, Lance, and AJ. We will see a bigger distribution of minutes to the young guys this year. The last two or three years, our young guys just weren't ready enough to get more minutes. I would have played those younger guys more, because we knew then that our bread and butter going forward is with the young guys.

I am a Pacers fan forever. Jim O'Brien is not a Pacer forever. I have been looking long-term the last couple of years, while JOB has had the "privilege" of trying to balance current winning with moving forward. I am not envious of JOB's role. But this was something that he and Bird discussed three years ago. JOB knew the plan going in. He took the job, because his phone wasn't ringing off the hook. He has done a good job with the mess that our franchise has been. Would I run things differently? Absolutely, but again, I am a Pacer forever. He only has a short timeframe to be successful.

I think JOB at the end of this year will probably be let go. I think a fresh voice will be good for everybody. If our team makes the playoffs, it will be time for a head coach that will make us a contender. If we miss the playoffs, we will need someone toenergize this team and move it forward in that direction. This is a huge year for JOB. Not for himself, necessarily, but to finish the work that he started. He has been at the helm of a small fishing boat trying to cross the Atlantic. That beat down and battered ship is in its last leg of the journey, beaten and downtrodden. Let's hope we make it succecssfully back to the shores of our playoffs home where the Captain can retire.

Kegboy
09-28-2010, 10:19 AM
Jimmy always talks a good game, but his actions never match his words.

In respect to the Pacers new ad campaign, Jimmy's should be "I promise...to actually do what I promise to do this year."

flox
09-28-2010, 11:32 AM
There is no reason to give him another chance because he never lost my faith. He has done our game plan completely and fully and deserves at least one year with the team he helped build.

I'm all for giving him an extension right now. He has done nothing to hurt the mandate that the team has given.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 11:46 AM
You really need to be a masochist to say that you want to give JOB another year, he is going to end up maybe as the worst coach to ever coach the Pacers, he already had three years to prove that he could do something with this team and didn't do anything so is time for him to say godbye.


By the way his record is 104 wins and 142 loses in his three years with the pacers.

BillS
09-28-2010, 11:49 AM
I'm all for giving him an extension right now. He has done nothing to hurt the mandate that the team has given.

OK, now that's just crazy talk. :eek:


You really need to be a masochist to say that you want to give JOB another year, he is going to end up maybe as the worst coach to ever coach the Pacers, he already had three years to prove that he could do something with this team and didn't do anything so is time for him to say godbye.

"This team" as it stands this year is completely different from "that team" as it stood when he took over.

He's not very good, but I don't think he's the worst coach the Pacers ever had.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 11:57 AM
By the way his record is 104 wins and 142 loses in his three years with the pacers.
And where exactly does that not fall onto the talent (or lack therof)?

Face it, these past few years this team has sucked. And it isn't entirely Jim's fault, as you make it out to be each and every time.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 11:58 AM
"This team" as it stands this year is completely different from "that team" as it stood when he took over.

He's not very good, but I don't think he's the worst coach the Pacers ever had.

That is the reason why I said maybe, I know that old schoolers are going to come out with stats telling me that he is not the worst, my point is that JOB has not done anything for Larry to consider giving him an extention, JOB is lucky that he got one last season and gets to coach this one.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 12:01 PM
my point is that JOB has not done anything for Larry to consider giving him an extention, JOB is lucky that he got one last season and gets to coach this one.
If it looks like ****, smells like ****, it must be ****. Jim wasn't given the best of circumstances coming into coaching this team. This team had no talent except for Danny Granger, and old, worn out Jermaine O'Neal, busted Tinsley, and an old, worn out Jeff Foster. Not to mention a revolving door on defense.

To throw that record solely on his shoulders is not fair in his defense.

Speed
09-28-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm actually not against seeing what Obie can do with this group, I really don't have a choice, though. From what he said yesterday, it almost sounded like someone got in his ear about utilizing the guys he has better with the focus on Roy. I guess I'll believe it when I see it though.

BPump33
09-28-2010, 12:03 PM
I'm actually not against seeing what Obie can do with this group, I really don't have a choice, though. From what he said yesterday, it almost sounded like someone got in his ear about utilizing the guys he has better with the focus on Roy. I guess I'll believe it when I see it though.

Exactly. We can b*tch and moan all we want (and we will), but he is our coach this season. I disliked him just as much as anyone last season, but IF he follows through with what he said yesterday about utilizing Roy and DC2 then I'm happy.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 12:09 PM
And where exactly does that not fall onto the talent (or lack therof)?
Face it, these past few years this team has sucked. And it isn't entirely Jim's fault, as you make it out to be each and every time.

I am sorry Duke but I don't think that talent is been the problem with JOB, you got worse teams than the Pacers winning more and doing more.(Houston,GS, Bucks, Bobcats)

I think is ashamed that the Pacers have only won one more game than Golden State in the past three years, are you telling me that the Pacers don't have a better team than GS? and how Nellie with a bunch of undersized players and D league players got almost the same result as JOB? (by the way I don't like Nellie)

flox
09-28-2010, 12:25 PM
I am sorry Duke but I don't think that talent is been the problem with JOB, you got worse teams than the Pacers winning more and doing more.(Houston,GS, Bucks, Bobcats)

I think is ashamed that the Pacers have only won one more game than Golden State in the past three years, are you telling me that the Pacers don't have a better team than GS? and how Nellie with a bunch of undersized players and D league players got almost the same result as JOB? (by the way I don't like Nellie)

The Bobcats, Bucks, Houston have infinitely more talent than we did. And the years were GS was good they had more talent than we did.

Are we going to ignore that Golden State in the last three years has had Curry (who is better than any guard on our roster), Ellis (ditto), Davis (ditto), and big men better then ours in Biens. The fact that they had one good season with 48 wins and didn't make the playoffs. The Pacers have been better than GS when GS has had infinitely more talent. That Jackson and Harrington is much better than any two combonation of healthy wings we've had in the past 2 seasons?

Are we going to ignore that the Bobcats have had a center better than ours for 2 of the last 3 seasons. What about the time when they had Jackson or J-Rich with Wallace? Or they had role players on playoff teams on their roster like Brown, Dudley, Bell. Who have we had in the past 3 seasons- Jones? Dunleavy? And Dunleavy STARTS for us.

Lets not even talk about how good Houston is. Martin, TMac, Yao, Battier, Scola, Brooks, they are loaded. They absolutely should have been better than us the past 3 seasons. This season they should kick our butt.

And come now. Jennings is better than Collison. So we have Granger who is better than whoever they have. But Bogut is much better than Hibbert, and Murphy is better than Ilyasova. So we have to look at the 2 guard- which means we put up Dunleavy and Rush vs Salmons/Delfino and Redd. The Bucks win that one. The Bucks also have had big talent in CV3 in the past- who is probably a little worse than Murphy.

McKeyFan
09-28-2010, 12:26 PM
If it looks like ****, smells like ****, it must be ****. Jim wasn't given the best of circumstances coming into coaching this team. This team had no talent except for Danny Granger, and old, worn out Jermaine O'Neal, busted Tinsley, and an old, worn out Jeff Foster. Not to mention a revolving door on defense.

To throw that record solely on his shoulders is not fair in his defense.

It was his choice to always use the revolving door.

flox
09-28-2010, 12:26 PM
OK, now that's just crazy talk. :eek:


Probably. But I really can't think of a point where he really hurt this team's mandate.



It was his choice to always use the revolving door.

Really now- outside of Granger who on the team in the past 3 years could play defense? Jones maybe. Thats it.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 12:38 PM
Flox go back an read my post again, I said in the past three years, three years ago Baron Davis signed with the Clippers, three years ago S Curry was in college, three years ago Tmac and Yao were in and out of the line up.

Kegboy
09-28-2010, 12:39 PM
If it looks like ****, smells like ****, it must be ****. Jim wasn't given the best of circumstances coming into coaching this team. This team had no talent except for Danny Granger, and old, worn out Jermaine O'Neal, busted Tinsley, and an old, worn out Jeff Foster. Not to mention a revolving door on defense.

To throw that record solely on his shoulders is not fair in his defense.

I completely agree that you can't judge Jimmy soley by our record. But you can certainly judge him by the rotations, adjustments, play-calling, player development, philosophy, and staying true to his word.

People can say our talent sucks all they want, I'm fine with that. What I don't really understand is how anyone can feel Jimmy has maximized that talent, or properly developed its potential.

Justin Tyme
09-28-2010, 12:52 PM
my point is that JOB has not done anything for Larry to consider giving him an extention, JOB is lucky that he got one last season and gets to coach this one.


I wholeheartly agree.

Jimmy was a lameduck coach going into last season and his TO was picked up by Bird. Many thought it was necessary, b/c it wouldn't be good to have him as a lame duck coach. He's a lame duck coach this season, and I don't feel it will make any difference. I didn't feel him having a status of being a lame duck coach last year would be detrimental to his coaching nor should it be this year.

After this season, I sincerely doubt Jimmy's phone will be ringing off the hook from GM's looking for him to be their coach. I've said it b4, and I'll say it again... I don't ever believe Jimmy will be a NBA HC again after he leaves the Pacers.

Jimmy has served his purpose as far as I'm concerned, and there is absolutely NO REASON on God's green earth for him to be given an extension again! It's time for a new coach to take the Pacers to the next level.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 12:57 PM
Here are the win and loses from the teams out of the playoffs from last year, who can explaing to me how the Pacers only got three more wins than New York, five more wins than Detroit, five more wins than Philli and six more wins than Washington, if it wasn't for the last season run and teams tanking they Pacers could had finished worse.


Toronto 40 42 0.488 21.0 29-23 11-5 25-16 15-26 5-5 W 2
Indiana 32 50 0.390 29.0 23-29 6-10 23-18 9-32 6-4 L 2
New York 29 53 0.354 32.0 20-32 6-10 18-23 11-30 3-7 L 1
Detroit 27 55 0.329 34.0 18-34 2-14 17-24 10-31 4-6 W 1
Philadelphia 27 55 0.329 34.0 14-38 7-9 12-29 15-26 2-8 L 2
Washington 26 56 0.317 35.0 18-34 3-13 15-26 11-30 5-5 W 1
New Jersey 12 70 0.146 49.0 8-44 3-13 8-33 4-37 3-7 L 3

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Here are the win and loses from the teams out of the playoffs from last year, who can explaing to me how the Pacers only got three more wins than New York, five more wins than Detroit, five more wins than Philli and six more wins than Washington, if it wasn't for the last season run and teams tanking they Pacers could had finished worse.


Toronto 40 42 0.488 21.0 29-23 11-5 25-16 15-26 5-5 W 2
Indiana 32 50 0.390 29.0 23-29 6-10 23-18 9-32 6-4 L 2
New York 29 53 0.354 32.0 20-32 6-10 18-23 11-30 3-7 L 1
Detroit 27 55 0.329 34.0 18-34 2-14 17-24 10-31 4-6 W 1
Philadelphia 27 55 0.329 34.0 14-38 7-9 12-29 15-26 2-8 L 2
Washington 26 56 0.317 35.0 18-34 3-13 15-26 11-30 5-5 W 1
New Jersey 12 70 0.146 49.0 8-44 3-13 8-33 4-37 3-7 L 3
Well, you asked for a explanation...

Toronto sucked less than we did, and all those other teams below us sucked more.

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:03 PM
If it looks like ****, smells like ****, it must be ****. Jim wasn't given the best of circumstances coming into coaching this team. This team had no talent except for Danny Granger, and old, worn out Jermaine O'Neal, busted Tinsley, and an old, worn out Jeff Foster. Not to mention a revolving door on defense.

To throw that record solely on his shoulders is not fair in his defense.

So you agree with UB that Jim has used the proper system with regards to the players he has?

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 01:05 PM
Really now- outside of Granger who on the team in the past 3 years could play defense? Jones maybe. Thats it.

Rush?

Unclebuck
09-28-2010, 01:06 PM
I think Jim was able to get the Pacers to overachieve during his first two seasons. last year not so much, they probably underachieved

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:06 PM
So you agree with UB that Jim has used the proper system with regards to the players he has?
As far as I'm concerned he could've said, "To Hell with it." and ran any kind of system he wanted. You can't make lemonade out of a bunch of rotten apples or premature grapes. But you can surely mash and mix all that crap together and get something. It may not taste great but you've got something.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 01:07 PM
Rush?

watson?

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:07 PM
I can tell that you don't understand my questions, please don't worry about answering them I you don't undertand(thanks)
You asked for an explanation and did not indicate that you wanted anything from your previous posts factored into said explanation. So I gave you one.(thanks)

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 01:11 PM
You asked for an explanation and did not indicate that you wanted anything from your previous posts factored into said explanation. So I gave you one.(thanks)

My bad you and flox are messing me up with the JOB avatar, my answers was directed at him not you. :blush:


edit:He is the one that is saying that Houston had a killing team with Yao, Tmac, etc and I was looking for an explanation about who of those teams I posted are better than the Pacers.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:12 PM
My bad you and flox are messing me up with the JOB avatar, my answers was directed at him not you. :blush:
No problem. Can you say that JOB is getting under your skin today? :p

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:13 PM
As far as I'm concerned he could've said, "To Hell with it." and ran any kind of system he wanted. You can't make lemonade out of a bunch of rotten apples or premature grapes. But you can surely mash and mix all that crap together and get something. It may not taste great but you've got something.

Well if that's all that's needed to meet your expectations, then the TPTB could have saved a lot of money and just hired me.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:15 PM
Well if that's all that's needed to meet your expectations, then the TPTB could have saved a lot of money and just hired me.
(Insert condescending comment here.)

Yeah, I have nothing.

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 01:15 PM
I completely agree that you can't judge Jimmy soley by our record. But you can certainly judge him by the rotations, adjustments, play-calling, player development, philosophy, and staying true to his word.

I said in my earlier post that I haven't agreed with his rotations a whole lot. He also has had to deal with a lot of injuries, which brings some extra volatility to your rotations. Play-calling, I am with you. I don't like what he runs or his overall philosophy of the game. He is a very good basketball mind and is great helping the young guys develop in practice from what I have heard. The staying true to his word thing should not be part of a coach's directive. If he wants to change his mind in game he should be allowed to. I would have also liked to see quicker and better adjustments in game from him.


People can say our talent sucks all they want, I'm fine with that. What I don't really understand is how anyone can feel Jimmy has maximized that talent, or properly developed its potential.

When you have all offensive players with little defensive talent, then why would you run a slower paced game? You want to spend as little time in half court defense as possible. Especially with no front court defense, which I would say is more important as your defensive basis in the half court.

Has he developed the young players properly? That is debatable. We don't get to watch them practice to really make that determination. Has he given them as many minutes as we have wanted him to in game? Definitely not and I completely agree with that stance. Jimmy's idea was to win games and putting all of our rookies out there for a few more minutes every game would have hurt our ability to win those games. That is his premise behind his sitting the young players. You could look at Rush and Hibbert and say that they got plenty of minutes that helped the team win. You could also say that they hurt the team less than other rookies would have as well. McRoberts is still one of the youngest guys on our team. So should he have been getting 15 minutes a game? His frame needed a lot of work over the last couple of years. He has put in the effort and I think we will finally see him get rewarded this year for his progress.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 01:16 PM
No problem. Can you say that JOB is getting under your skin today? :p

I think so, I'm just trying not to look at your avatar for too long reason why I got confused ;)

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:18 PM
I think so, I'm just trying not to look at your avatar for too long reason why I got confused ;)
It's just filler. I plan on changing it...again. Just don't have nightmares.

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:19 PM
(Insert condescending comment here.)

Yeah, I have nothing.


I'm not being condescending, I'm being serious. I, and I think most, understand that he hasn't had the greatest roster to work with, but he's a professional. He knew when he took the job it wasn't going to be a glamorous one. Hell, he didn't even come to Indy to interview, but instead interviewed by phone.

Let's not pretend like TPTB pulled the rug out from under him and screwed him over. He knew full well what he was getting into.



The excuse about the roster doesn't excuse his **** poor coaching decisions.

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:23 PM
When you have all offensive players with little defensive talent, then why would you run a slower paced game? You want to spend as little time in half court defense as possible. Especially with no front court defense, which I would say is more important as your defensive basis in the half court.


I just wanted to make sure I read this correctly......

Unless you have Dwight Howard as your center, I think most would agree your backcourt defense is more important.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Ok I am going to ask the same question again who can explaing to me how a coach like Nelli got the almost the same wins(GS 103/ Pacers 104) in the last three years? if that is not coaching what it is?

How a team filled with D leaguers and only 8th players can almost win the same amount of games?

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:25 PM
I'm not being condescending, I'm being serious. I, and I think most, understand that he hasn't had the greatest roster to work with, but he's a professional. He knew when he took the job it wasn't going to be a glamorous one. Hell, he didn't even come to Indy to interview, but instead interviewed by phone.

Let's not pretend like TPTB pulled the rug out from under him and screwed him over. He knew full well what he was getting into.



The excuse about the roster doesn't excuse his **** poor coaching decisions.
I was just saying I couldn't find anything silly to say in response to your last post towards me. Nothing harsh at all. :D

I understand where you are coming from. My biggest concern is that there are people who put the entire blame on him and none on the players. Yeah, it's his job to coach. But it's also the players' job to play. Make sense?

Justin Tyme
09-28-2010, 01:27 PM
I'm a firm believer in a "good" coach can take a poor team and mold it into a winning team. I've seen it at all levels of BB. It's not like Jimmy has been totally void of talent. Maybe it's hasn't been the best, but then maybe Jimmy hasn't used it to it's greatest strengths either. That's debateable.

We can debate Jimmy's coaching until the cows come home, and we will, but "I'm truly wanting to see what Jimmy can do with this team this year." I'm not confident he wins much more than in the past, not b/c of lack of talent, but just b/c he's the coach. I don't want to hear any conjured up excuses to sooth the wrath & anguish of the fans for failure, but changes made in coaches. I hope Jimmy does well in his LAST year of coaching the Pacers. I'd like to see a .500 season and the playoffs, but I realize the different between optimism and realism.

duke dynamite
09-28-2010, 01:27 PM
Ok I am going to ask the same question again who can explaing to me how a coach like Nelli got the almost the same wins(GS 103/ Pacers 104) in the last three years? if that is not coaching what it is?

How a team filled with D leaguers and only 8th players can almost win the same amount of games?
We sucked a little less than they did in three years? I don't recall the GS roster being full of D-Leaguers. I do remember Stephen Jackson, though.

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 01:30 PM
I just wanted to make sure I read this correctly......

Unless you have Dwight Howard as your center, I think most would agree your backcourt defense is more important.

Most would agree huh? Who is your audience, JOB?

If you don't have the front court players to defend the paint, you will get dominated in the low post and in offensive rebounding, which is what wins championships and playoff basketball games. You have no one to block shots when perimeter defense fails. The post players are your last line of defense at the basket.

There are different schools of thought on this, but I will never change my stance on that opinion.

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:36 PM
And if you don't have good backcourt defense, you let guards get into the lane and when the help defender stops the ball, they just dump it off.

Or if you can't pressure the guards and they can make good entry passes into the paint, the same outcome pops up.

I don't know any game, or real life scenario, where the "first line of defense" is viewed like it doesn't matter, except from reading your post.

If you need to rely on your center to be a good defensive team, then you've already lost.

Since86
09-28-2010, 01:39 PM
I was just saying I couldn't find anything silly to say in response to your last post towards me. Nothing harsh at all. :D

I understand where you are coming from. My biggest concern is that there are people who put the entire blame on him and none on the players. Yeah, it's his job to coach. But it's also the players' job to play. Make sense?

But it's the coach's job to put them in position where they can play. Like UB and I debated last week, I think it's the coach's job to coach his players and adapt to them, not the other way around. (Unless we're talking about college)

Grangers weaknesses are the "strengths" of JOb's system. If your best player doesn't even fit your system, then it's probably best to find a new one.

Justin Tyme
09-28-2010, 02:05 PM
We sucked a little less than they did in three years? I don't recall the GS roster being full of D-Leaguers. I do remember Stephen Jackson, though.


The Warriors were hit with injuries galore last season. They were a team filled with injuries. There were games they were lucky to have 8-9 players healthy enough to play. They signed 10 day players and players from the NBADL just to be able to have enough players to play games. The last game of the season they had "4 players" playing ALL 48 minutes of the game. Some of the 8 players playing were

Morrow
R. Williams-48 min
C. Hunter-48 min
Toliver

I believe all played in the NBADL. IIRC, they had other NBADL players at times on their roster.

Ellis and Curry played 48 min as well.

vnzla81
09-28-2010, 02:21 PM
The Warriors were hit with injuries galore last season. They were a team filled with injuries. There were games they were lucky to have 8-9 players healthy enough to play. They signed 10 day players and players from the NBADL just to be able to have enough players to play games. The last game of the season they had "4 players" playing ALL 48 minutes of the game. Some of the 8 players playing were

Morrow
R. Williams-48 min
C. Hunter-48 min
Toliver

I believe all played in the NBADL. IIRC, they had other NBADL players at times on their roster.

Ellis and Curry played 48 min as well.

And they pacers Still won few more games
Than then, not just that but they are also in the west.

pacergod2
09-28-2010, 02:31 PM
And if you don't have good backcourt defense, you let guards get into the lane and when the help defender stops the ball, they just dump it off.

Or if you can't pressure the guards and they can make good entry passes into the paint, the same outcome pops up.

I don't know any game, or real life scenario, where the "first line of defense" is viewed like it doesn't matter, except from reading your post.

If you need to rely on your center to be a good defensive team, then you've already lost.

In no way did I discredit back court defense. But I also think this discussion is pointless because we view this entirely different.

IUfan4life
09-28-2010, 02:34 PM
Ok I am going to ask the same question again who can explaing to me how a coach like Nelli got the almost the same wins(GS 103/ Pacers 104) in the last three years? if that is not coaching what it is?

How a team filled with D leaguers and only 8th players can almost win the same amount of games?

you run, and run some more. shoot a lot of 3s, run, shoot more 3s.

Putnam
09-28-2010, 03:07 PM
. . . requires the team to outscore other teams to win.

:hmm: :-o

Brad8888
09-28-2010, 03:08 PM
When you have all offensive players with little defensive talent, then why would you run a slower paced game? You want to spend as little time in half court defense as possible. Especially with no front court defense, which I would say is more important as your defensive basis in the half court.

This concept is the crux of my opposition to the O'B way, and I have never considered things from this perspective before.

Taking the opposite view of your post, why would you reduce the amount of time spent on your strength, offense, and thereby increase the amount of time spent on defense, your weakness, by increasing the team's pace of play on offense? That opens the team up for failing defensively more frequently on a per game basis due to increasing the duration of time spent defending while reducing the opportunity to succeed and control the game by reducing the amount of time spent playing offense. That, for me at least, is an underlying cause for what has been happening throughout the O'Brien years here.

To me, it is almost as simple as the old school days of the four corners "freeze the ball" strategy when inferior opponents ended up competing with, and sometimes beating, superior opponents by slowing the game down to the Nth degree. Obviously, the shot clock completely invalidates that strategy, but the fact remains that teams do have the ability to dictate the pace of the game while they are on offense in accordance with the maximization of strengths vs. weaknesses, and, for the simplified purposes of this discussion, if a team is stronger offensively (and not just at shotmaking, which is an entirely different matter) and weak defensively, the pace of the game being slowed down should maximize the overall rate of success (W's) as long as there is sufficient time to get off quality shots without being totally predictable in doing so.

If, as alleged by O'Brien and his supporters, the opposite is true, that the team is stronger defensively than it is offensively, then the game has, in fact, been played too slowly, and the changes that O'Brien has indicated are being implemented with more of the offense being run through Roy should not be implemented at all due to the fact that they will slow down the game, and nothing could be further from the truth with respect to the utilization of Roy and its impact on the success of the franchise this year and in the future.

Now, do I believe that the play has been too slow? No, it has been far too fast due to our lack of defense in the half court and our lack of offensive rebounding especially since Foster's back issues sidelined him, and I have maintained that numerous times despite others believing that slowing the game down would have relegated the franchise to being like the Memphis Grizzlies or other downtrodden franchises.

Shade
09-28-2010, 03:26 PM
No.

flox
09-28-2010, 07:14 PM
Flox go back an read my post again, I said in the past three years, three years ago Baron Davis signed with the Clippers, three years ago S Curry was in college, three years ago Tmac and Yao were in and out of the line up.
Can I just tell you that you are wrong?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2008.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2008.html






I think is ashamed that the Pacers have only won one more game than Golden State in the past three years, are you telling me that the Pacers don't have a better team than GS? and how Nellie with a bunch of undersized players and D league players got almost the same result as JOB? (by the way I don't like Nellie)

So right, we are talking about 2007-08, 08-09, and 09-10,

flox
09-28-2010, 07:21 PM
Here are the win and loses from the teams out of the playoffs from last year, who can explaing to me how the Pacers only got three more wins than New York, five more wins than Detroit, five more wins than Philli and six more wins than Washington, if it wasn't for the last season run and teams tanking they Pacers could had finished worse.


Toronto 40 42 0.488 21.0 29-23 11-5 25-16 15-26 5-5 W 2
Indiana 32 50 0.390 29.0 23-29 6-10 23-18 9-32 6-4 L 2
New York 29 53 0.354 32.0 20-32 6-10 18-23 11-30 3-7 L 1
Detroit 27 55 0.329 34.0 18-34 2-14 17-24 10-31 4-6 W 1
Philadelphia 27 55 0.329 34.0 14-38 7-9 12-29 15-26 2-8 L 2
Washington 26 56 0.317 35.0 18-34 3-13 15-26 11-30 5-5 W 1
New Jersey 12 70 0.146 49.0 8-44 3-13 8-33 4-37 3-7 L 3

So New York had better point guards than we did last year. Detriot has much more talent than we do- how did a team with Ben Gordon, Rip, CV3, and young guns in Stuckey screw up so badly? Bad coaching.

Philly also has more talent than we do. Jrue is better than any point guard we had last season. AI and Granger are a wash. Thad and Murphy are a wash. They have this guy there, called Elton Brand. Last time I checked, he was still better than everyone we have except maybe Hibbert. And even then, Brand/Dally is better than our frontcourt.

Washington had Caron and Jamison for a time and that carried them, and then they tanked. If the kept Caron and Jamison they probably would have finished ahead of us. And last time I checked, Thorton, Blatche, McGee, and Nick Young isn't a bad core- just very young.


There- those are all your explanations. And they are good ones.


Ok I am going to ask the same question again who can explaing to me how a coach like Nelli got the almost the same wins(GS 103/ Pacers 104) in the last three years? if that is not coaching what it is?

How a team filled with D leaguers and only 8th players can almost win the same amount of games?
Right so first of all we won more games in one season where we had around the same level of players and then last season we won more games and the 07-08 warriors team might have been the 2nd best warriors team this decade so..... I'm confused.

That 07-08 warriors team was really good. I don't believe we could have had a better team than they did last year.

Naptown_Seth
09-29-2010, 12:05 AM
All he has to do is basically coach a drastically different style in order to win me over. I don't want the person JOB gone, I want the coaching choices and methods of the last 3 seasons gone. I don't care if that's done by hiring a new coach or having him make some serious alterations in his approach.

That's about as big a GFL situation as I can think of.


Plus he's just totally ruined 3 quality years of development time when nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation of the future (ie, this season and the next 2-3 seasons) and he should be held accountable for that.

Unless of course you dreamed of a day when Danny would learn to play zip defense and shoot 5-6 threes a game, Josh wouldn't get any PT unless he learned to shoot the 3, and quality improvement PT was given to players of the future like Rasho and Watson rather than Roy and AJ.

In that case he's been a delight.

Naptown_Seth
09-29-2010, 12:10 AM
. . . requires the team to outscore other teams to win.

:hmm: :-o
Yeah, what is this, Australian Rules Football or Curling? I feel like I don't understand the rules of this sport at all.

pacer4ever
09-29-2010, 12:48 AM
All he has to do is basically coach a drastically different style in order to win me over. I don't want the person JOB gone, I want the coaching choices and methods of the last 3 seasons gone. I don't care if that's done by hiring a new coach or having him make some serious alterations in his approach.

That's about as big a GFL situation as I can think of.


Plus he's just totally ruined 3 quality years of development time when nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation of the future (ie, this season and the next 2-3 seasons) and he should be held accountable for that.

Unless of course you dreamed of a day when Danny would learn to play zip defense and shoot 5-6 threes a game, Josh wouldn't get any PT unless he learned to shoot the 3, and quality improvement PT was given to players of the future like Rasho and Watson rather than Roy and AJ.

In that case he's been a delight.

i agree i think Mike Brown could be a good coach he played to his strong points in cleveland(lebron LOL). I like Mike Browns style better than JOB's. I just want JOB to play to our strong points, which is PnR with DC and getting roy involved and gettin DG33 open looks. Not the motion and get the pf a wide open look normally a 3 . The last part is so true he needs to devolpe the young guys PG24 and magnum & lance & price but of couarse this season duns and jones will PG24 's mintues. ugg JOB makes me mad.

McKeyFan
09-29-2010, 08:42 AM
i agree i think Mike Brown could be a good coach he played to his strong points in cleveland(lebron LOL). I like Mike Browns style better than JOB's. I just want JOB to play to our strong points, which is PnR with DC and getting roy involved and gettin DG33 open looks. Not the motion and get the pf a wide open look normally a 3 . The last part is so true he needs to devolpe the young guys PG24 and magnum & lance & price but of couarse this season duns and jones will PG24 's mintues. ugg JOB makes me mad.

I like your content.

But I thought you might like to know that last Friday was National Punctuation Day.

http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/index.html

Unclebuck
09-29-2010, 09:30 AM
Plus he's just totally ruined 3 quality years of development time when nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation of the future (ie, this season and the next 2-3 seasons) and he should be held accountable for that.



On your general point of nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation.

I reject that notion out of hand on so many levels. First let me say I think Jim has done a nice job developing the young guys, I would give him a solid B in that regard. I've stated that over and over again and won't get into the specifics of that in this post.

But to the more general point of nothing being at stake. What about winning games. Isn't that why you play the game. (I know, I know the argument well they would have won the same or more games if the young guys played, who knows that before the fact though)

Plus it is really easy to look back after the fact and decide that nothing was at stake. is anything at stake this season besides developing the young guys. And so if Jim does that to your liking and for sake of discussion the pacers win 28 games - then you want him back next season then right?

pacergod2
09-29-2010, 10:51 AM
This concept is the crux of my opposition to the O'B way, and I have never considered things from this perspective before.

Taking the opposite view of your post, why would you reduce the amount of time spent on your strength, offense, and thereby increase the amount of time spent on defense, your weakness, by increasing the team's pace of play on offense? That opens the team up for failing defensively more frequently on a per game basis due to increasing the duration of time spent defending while reducing the opportunity to succeed and control the game by reducing the amount of time spent playing offense. That, for me at least, is an underlying cause for what has been happening throughout the O'Brien years here.

To me, it is almost as simple as the old school days of the four corners "freeze the ball" strategy when inferior opponents ended up competing with, and sometimes beating, superior opponents by slowing the game down to the Nth degree. Obviously, the shot clock completely invalidates that strategy, but the fact remains that teams do have the ability to dictate the pace of the game while they are on offense in accordance with the maximization of strengths vs. weaknesses, and, for the simplified purposes of this discussion, if a team is stronger offensively (and not just at shotmaking, which is an entirely different matter) and weak defensively, the pace of the game being slowed down should maximize the overall rate of success (W's) as long as there is sufficient time to get off quality shots without being totally predictable in doing so.

If, as alleged by O'Brien and his supporters, the opposite is true, that the team is stronger defensively than it is offensively, then the game has, in fact, been played too slowly, and the changes that O'Brien has indicated are being implemented with more of the offense being run through Roy should not be implemented at all due to the fact that they will slow down the game, and nothing could be further from the truth with respect to the utilization of Roy and its impact on the success of the franchise this year and in the future.

Now, do I believe that the play has been too slow? No, it has been far too fast due to our lack of defense in the half court and our lack of offensive rebounding especially since Foster's back issues sidelined him, and I have maintained that numerous times despite others believing that slowing the game down would have relegated the franchise to being like the Memphis Grizzlies or other downtrodden franchises.

Good stuff Brad. I think in interpreting this discussion, we really have to take into consideration transition offense and defense. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have had the foundation of solid half-court defense predicating the tempo of the game. They get into transition on long outlet passes from their bigs where Tony Parker and Manu Ginolbili and Rajon Rondo can push the ball to beat the other teams defenders down the court. They base everything they do on their half court defense and rebounding the basketball. Many coaches' philosophy on basketball lay this as their foundation to their systems (and it is the opposite of what we have done over the last several years).

With regard to the Pacers, I have been really really surprised that we haven't seen more on ball pressure from our PGs over the last couple of years, to take a few more seconds off the shot clock in helping our defensive rotations prevent a scoring opportunity. I completely disagree with the sentiment that we have been a better defensive team than offensive team. When looking at our tempo, we have wanted to push the ball to gain more scoring opportunities. We need more oportunities to score if we are trying to play to our offensive advantage. It also is more likely that we can offset a poor shooting night with more FG attempts. As you mentioned Brad, we have also been deficient in offensive rebounding so pushing the ball up the court will give us more shots than relying on our offensive rebounding to help create shots. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have tended to be good offensive rebounding teams. This takes some of the burden off of the number of trips up and down the court they need to make. Those teams cater to their bigs more which is where their advantage lies. Just like the Lakers and Magic. You play to your strengths. Our strength is to not get into a 50 possession half court battle in toughness because we will lose that damn near every time.

Our roster has changed and will continue to morph into something where we don't have to adapt our system to something more "gimmicky". We will continue to see improvement in the players on our roster dictating their game against more difficult opponents. I would love for us to slow down the tempo, and I finally think we are starting to have the players to do that. We need to be able to better compete against teams in the half court.

Brad8888
09-29-2010, 11:47 AM
On your general point of nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation.

I reject that notion out of hand on so many levels. First let me say I think Jim has done a nice job developing the young guys, I would give him a solid B in that regard. I've stated that over and over again and won't get into the specifics of that in this post.

But to the more general point of nothing being at stake. What about winning games. Isn't that why you play the game. (I know, I know the argument well they would have won the same or more games if the young guys played, who knows that before the fact though)

Plus it is really easy to look back after the fact and decide that nothing was at stake. is anything at stake this season besides developing the young guys. And so if Jim does that to your liking and for sake of discussion the pacers win 28 games - then you want him back next season then right?

Difficult to not respond here...

Oops, I already am, so here goes...

There is no looking back required. Some of us haven't liked what has been going on since the first half of his first season here.

To make a previously much longer post somewhat shorter (actually I tried, but failed to shorten it), had O'Brien done the following 4 things in combination, he would deserve all of the patience in the world because he would have done what he could to further the interests of the franchise in both the long term (player development) and the short term (winning as many games as possible given the available resources he had to work with). Under the following conditions, without question, O'B would deserve to stay even if it meant 28 (or fewer) wins (which it would not have in my view).

1. Made development of young players the top priority of the franchise

2. Used a sound strategy that maximized the talents of the players available and then altered the basic strategy according to the strengths of the healthy players during the course of the season instead of simply attempting to plug players into positions they were not comfortable playing

3. Shown the desire and ability to adjust strategies and tempo, during the course of the season and during individual games when things weren't working

4. Managed the momentum and flow of games using strategic timeouts and substitutions near the beginning of opposing team's runs when the action on the floor got out of control from both an offensive and defensive standpoint

He has frequently failed to varying degrees at each of these aspects of coaching in the views of his detractors, and that is why the chorus of "Fire the Coach" reached the heights it did last year. It also explains the current skepticism with respect to the upcoming season despite so many things apparently changing fot the better.

I believe there is a glimmer of hope at this point regarding change due to O'Brien's preferred MVP player no longer being with the franchise and no one being able to shoot trailing threes to allow them to have anyone except Granger playing as a "stretch 4" to "space the court", which will necessitate the change to an offense that runs through a hi-lo post game in an effort to maintain a primary scoring threat at the arc, a side effect of which will be more scoring and involvement for Roy. I look forward to seeing that, but I actually hope that Dunleavy is up to the task, in conjunction with McRoberts, of running a true motion offense. I don't think that Collison has that in his nature, and I believe he will be utilized as all other point guards have been, as dribble penetrators who either finish at the rim, kick out for 3's, or simply take the first available 3 if they have no driving lane and are "feeling it". I just hope he can figure out how to somehow reduce the turnovers from that position by exercising better judgement than JT and TJ, and that his defense rises to a level more like JJack.

Notice that I haven't addressed defensive change, either. That is because O'Brien himself has come out and said that all that will change is that the perimeter defense will attempt to cover ground a little further from the basket than it has in the past, meaning that we will probably see the same effectiveness there that we have in the past because teams will have even more options to penetrate our perimeter "team defense" through passing into the midrange and then having more options for quality looks when our defense is slow to read and accurately react. Roy had better be far quicker than he has been in the past or both he and anyone beside him for interior defensive purposes will be on the bench with foul trouble frequently, and the goal of 35 minutes a game for Roy will be a pipedream.

pacer4ever
09-29-2010, 11:55 AM
On your general point of nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation.

I reject that notion out of hand on so many levels. First let me say I think Jim has done a nice job developing the young guys, I would give him a solid B in that regard. I've stated that over and over again and won't get into the specifics of that in this post.

But to the more general point of nothing being at stake. What about winning games. Isn't that why you play the game. (I know, I know the argument well they would have won the same or more games if the young guys played, who knows that before the fact though)

Plus it is really easy to look back after the fact and decide that nothing was at stake. is anything at stake this season besides developing the young guys. And so if Jim does that to your liking and for sake of discussion the pacers win 28 games - then you want him back next season then right?

"YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" lol herm edwards classic

pacer4ever
09-29-2010, 11:56 AM
I like your content.

But I thought you might like to know that last Friday was National Punctuation Day.

http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/index.html

lol

Brad8888
09-29-2010, 12:16 PM
Good stuff Brad. I think in interpreting this discussion, we really have to take into consideration transition offense and defense. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have had the foundation of solid half-court defense predicating the tempo of the game. They get into transition on long outlet passes from their bigs where Tony Parker and Manu Ginolbili and Rajon Rondo can push the ball to beat the other teams defenders down the court. They base everything they do on their half court defense and rebounding the basketball. Many coaches' philosophy on basketball lay this as their foundation to their systems (and it is the opposite of what we have done over the last several years).

With regard to the Pacers, I have been really really surprised that we haven't seen more on ball pressure from our PGs over the last couple of years, to take a few more seconds off the shot clock in helping our defensive rotations prevent a scoring opportunity. I completely disagree with the sentiment that we have been a better defensive team than offensive team. When looking at our tempo, we have wanted to push the ball to gain more scoring opportunities. We need more oportunities to score if we are trying to play to our offensive advantage. It also is more likely that we can offset a poor shooting night with more FG attempts. As you mentioned Brad, we have also been deficient in offensive rebounding so pushing the ball up the court will give us more shots than relying on our offensive rebounding to help create shots. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have tended to be good offensive rebounding teams. This takes some of the burden off of the number of trips up and down the court they need to make. Those teams cater to their bigs more which is where their advantage lies. Just like the Lakers and Magic. You play to your strengths. Our strength is to not get into a 50 possession half court battle in toughness because we will lose that damn near every time.

Our roster has changed and will continue to morph into something where we don't have to adapt our system to something more "gimmicky". We will continue to see improvement in the players on our roster dictating their game against more difficult opponents. I would love for us to slow down the tempo, and I finally think we are starting to have the players to do that. We need to be able to better compete against teams in the half court.

Another excellent, thought provoking post, pacergod2.

With the current philosophy, putting pressure on the opposition with defense at the point that slows the opponents offense is counter to the goal of playing at a fast tempo and having more scoring opportunities each game, isn't it? I am guessing that this is as much of a factor in the decision not to pressure the ball as anything, and it is a wrong decision in my opinion as well.

Also, slowing the game would benefit our defensive play by doing two things. It would shift the balance of available energy expenditure to having more energy available for playing the type of perimeter based defense that the Pacers play, and increase the likelihood of our defense getting set up in a timely fashion. Then, the opposition would also tend to slow down itself subconciously in bringing the ball into the frontcourt, thereby having a couple less seconds each possession to actually run their offense and likely lead to poorer overall shot selection and more turnover producing mistakes than has been the case. The toughness discrepancy factor on the interior, which I agree we will still lose at this point, would be mitigated to an extent also due to having fewer overall possesions for the opposition to exploit that advantage in my view.

The transition offense and defense aspects are harder to quantify, but, at a slower pace, wouldn't transition offense and defense lessen as a factor due to transition opportunities being reduced if everything else were equal, thereby reducing the deficit that has been seen there as well when compared to other teams who have had better defense, and if the defense actually improves as I believe it would, potentially leading to the Pacers actually being able to use transition to their advantage on occasion?

IUfan4life
09-29-2010, 01:30 PM
i agree i think Mike Brown could be a good coach he played to his strong points in cleveland(lebron LOL). I like Mike Browns style better than JOB's. I just want JOB to play to our strong points, which is PnR with DC and getting roy involved and gettin DG33 open looks. Not the motion and get the pf a wide open look normally a 3 . The last part is so true he needs to devolpe the young guys PG24 and magnum & lance & price but of couarse this season duns and jones will PG24 's mintues. ugg JOB makes me mad.

Mike Brown would be an awful hire. we would immediately have the worst offense in the the league

Since86
09-29-2010, 01:32 PM
Mike Brown would be an awful hire. we would immediately have the worst offense in the the league

Sounds like a lateral move to me.

pacer4ever
09-29-2010, 01:53 PM
Mike Brown would be an awful hire. we would immediately have the worst offense in the the league

no the reason there O was bad wasnt because of Mik. But hey i guess 66 wins is a bad thing with only having LBJ and an old group of underachivers

IUfan4life
09-29-2010, 03:42 PM
no the reason there O was bad wasnt because of Mik. But hey i guess 66 wins is a bad thing with only having LBJ and an old group of underachivers

The notion that Lebron had no help is an absolute joke. The Cavs went out every year and got the best player available. The offense was Mike Browns' fault. How are you going to play half court offense with the most athletic player in the league.

daschysta
09-29-2010, 03:47 PM
To be fair our offense was already AWFUL last year, as in one of the worst in the league. Ironically, given the sentiment of some of the members of the board we were actually a decent (average) defensive team (rated 15th)

The converse was true the year before, and I personally believe alot of it was due to dunleavey. If we can put both JOB's together we might actually be an average basketball team YAY!!!

pacergod2
09-29-2010, 04:03 PM
Another excellent, thought provoking post, pacergod2.

Thank you... you as well.


With the current philosophy, putting pressure on the opposition with defense at the point that slows the opponents offense is counter to the goal of playing at a fast tempo and having more scoring opportunities each game, isn't it? I am guessing that this is as much of a factor in the decision not to pressure the ball as anything, and it is a wrong decision in my opinion as well.

It is counter to increasing the tempo. I am just surprised that we haven't seen it from the standpoint, that it reduces the actual time we are defending in the half court. It would slow the tempo, but might also open more steal opportunities in the passing lanes to create more transition opportunities.


Also, slowing the game would benefit our defensive play by doing two things. It would shift the balance of available energy expenditure to having more energy available for playing the type of perimeter based defense that the Pacers play, and increase the likelihood of our defense getting set up in a timely fashion. Then, the opposition would also tend to slow down itself subconciously in bringing the ball into the frontcourt, thereby having a couple less seconds each possession to actually run their offense and likely lead to poorer overall shot selection and more turnover producing mistakes than has been the case. The toughness discrepancy factor on the interior, which I agree we will still lose at this point, would be mitigated to an extent also due to having fewer overall possesions for the opposition to exploit that advantage in my view.

The problem with slowing the tempo too much is that as we get into fewer possessions overall, we are more proficient in scoring from the perimeter. Other teams would get a much higher percentage of makes because they would be exploiting us down low. With Hibbert's development I might feel comfortable with this. Especially if it reduces his foul rate more. However, over the last couple of years we haven't had any sort of advantage in the front court. So we are basically relegated to winning games only if we shoot well from three. That is an over simplification, obviously. I still think our team should be looking to slow things down now that our front court will be more physical and competitive, IMO.


The transition offense and defense aspects are harder to quantify, but, at a slower pace, wouldn't transition offense and defense lessen as a factor due to transition opportunities being reduced if everything else were equal, thereby reducing the deficit that has been seen there as well when compared to other teams who have had better defense, and if the defense actually improves as I believe it would, potentially leading to the Pacers actually being able to use transition to their advantage on occasion?

Yes. Agreed. I think that the point I was trying to make with regard to transition opportunities is that if we can utilize that time spent in transition to offset defensive possessions then that is what we were hoping for. We should have been taking WAY more defensive risk by going for steals and turnovers, which I think we did, just not enough to win more. We saw a glimpse of this with all of the double and recover defense JOB had us running 2-3 years ago. He didn't even trust our front court to body anybody up. Would you with Troy Murphy?

pacer4ever
09-29-2010, 07:15 PM
The notion that Lebron had no help is an absolute joke. The Cavs went out every year and got the best player available. The offense was Mike Browns' fault. How are you going to play half court offense with the most athletic player in the league.

they did get him some decent players but they couldve problly got Paul Gasol when he was with the grizz (kwame lol and rights to marc gasol who is good now but was over seas playing). My thing was they didnt have a 2nd scorer . Also no one in the post besides shaq and big Z who was more a shooter than a big banger. If Jordan had a bad game Pippen was there to pick up the slack who was that for the cavs?