PDA

View Full Version : Star: O'Brien still believes in his defensive system



Kegboy
10-12-2010, 10:22 AM
http://www.indystar.com/article/20101012/SPORTS04/10120333/Pacers-say-emphasis-will-be-on-defense

Emphasis on defense

Heard it before? Pacers say they're serious about being better this season

Oct 12, 2010 |
<SCRIPT> (function(){ var _t = GEL.thepage.pageinfo.date.article.timestamp; if(_t) GEL.ement('ody-byline').element.innerHTML = _t+' | '; })(); </SCRIPT>

Mike Wells (mike.wells@indystar.com)

<!-- pagination off -->The drill is called "Perfect Stop." In order to get off the court, the defensive team has to perfectly challenge the shot, block out and rebound for three straight possessions.

One mistake and the process starts over.

The drill kept the imperfect Indiana Pacers on the practice court longer than they wanted Monday.

Over the past few years, the Pacers have had a difficult time stopping their opponents from getting quality shots and running up the score. They believe this season will be different.

The Pacers say they have the players to be a better defensive team. But that line had been heard in the past.

"It's going to be up to us to prove we can be better defensively," Pacers forward Danny Granger said. "We have to have the commitment and understand the details of what we're trying to do."

Opponents have shot at least 45.4 percent against the Pacers each of the three years Jim O'Brien has coached the team.

That won't get it done.

O'Brien said his team has to hold opponents to less than 45 percent from the field while also getting better play from team leader Granger. Opponents shot better than 45 percent against the Pacers 39 times and scored at least 110 points against them 27 times last season.

"We want to be in the top 10 in the league in field goal defense," O'Brien said. "If you can be a team that holds opponents under 45 percent for the year, you'd be a playoff team. That's our defensive goal."
The Pacers haven't gotten off to a good start.

They're giving up 46.6 percent shooting through the first three preseason games. Houston scored 126 points and shot 57 percent from the field against the Pacers on Saturday.

"It all comes down to knowing where you're supposed to be, knowing your assignment and doing it in a physical way," O'Brien said.

"If we can stay healthy, we have the people that will be able to do that."

O'Brien didn't tinker with his schemes during the offseason. He says the team can be successful if the point guards pressure the ball, all five players have active hands, perimeter players cut off dribble penetration and the big men protect the paint.

"I definitely think it starts with me at the point," point guard Darren Collison said. "If I start it up by pressuring the ball, then everybody else will follow. That's my responsibility."

Lack of defensive focus cost Granger playing time on Team USA during the World Championships in Turkey over the summer.

Granger has to regain his focus in order for the Pacers to have a chance, according to O'Brien.

"He better or we're not making the playoffs," O'Brien said. "If our leader doesn't take on the defensive end of the court, then our chances of making the playoffs are zero."

Granger is not running from his coach's challenge.

"I have to be in the right spot defensively if I'm going to tell somebody they're not in the right spot," Granger said.

"We've had stretches where we forgot minor details and that ends up turning into something big. It snowballs and then we really look bad defensively. That can't happen."

Injury update

Forward Josh McRoberts (neck) is questionable for Wednesday's game against the Minnesota Timberwolves. Point guard T.J. Ford (hamstring) practiced Monday, but may not play until Friday against New Orleans.

Call Star reporter Mike Wells at (317) 444-6053.

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 10:27 AM
O'Brien didn't tinker with his schemes during the offseason. He says the team can be successful if the point guards pressure the ball, all five players have active hands, perimeter players cut off dribble penetration and the big men protect the paint.

This is what I wanted to highlight. Jimmy's starting to remind me of Vic Fangio. Even though his defenses routinely failed, there was nothing wrong with Vic's system, it was always the players. At least Vic had an established reputation that partly excused his overinflated view of himself and his abilities.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 10:29 AM
The guy is a complete joke. This is the fourth year in a row where "The emphasis is on defense"

Yet each year we are close to the bottom in the league in points allowed and defensive fg%

Kid Minneapolis
10-12-2010, 10:34 AM
There's a rampant symptom in America right now across the board of people saying they will do something, and then inexplicably --- they just don't do it.

I come across it 6-7 times a day in my business dealings. And then when you point it out to them in a civil manner, they acknowledge it, and look at you and say, "You're right. I'll fix that." And guess what? They proceed to not do it.

People just don't care. It's cool to not care. It's pretty f'n lame.

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 10:39 AM
:lol:

MagicRat
10-12-2010, 10:45 AM
The Pacers opponents shot .453 last year. League average was .461.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 10:48 AM
Cain in New Zealand:
Do you think that Darren Collison will figure out the offense in time for the season? How effective do you think he can be?

Jason Fleming:
I wouldn't worry too much about Collison. He's smart and he knows how to get the ball to where his teammates need it to be effective. What I think does need to happen is perhaps the offense needs to change just a bit to put him in a better position to succeed.

Too many coaches just run their offense regardless of their personal. You have to be flexible to work with what you have and take advantage of what makes a particular group effective. If the Pacers can't make it work with Collison at the point, they have other problems.

I guess that answers the second half of your question too - I think Collison will be a stud.
Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Chat.asp?CHAT_TOPICS_ID=1207#ixzz129js3GP4

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 10:54 AM
The Pacers opponents shot .453 last year. League average was .461.

No one cares about the facts

Hicks
10-12-2010, 10:55 AM
While Jim may technically be right that the system wasn't the problem, in that it was mental mistakes or physical limitations by the players that caused the failure, he needs to be willing to admit that a different defense might be less prone to player error. Dumb it down if they can't handle your system.

grace
10-12-2010, 10:56 AM
No one cares about the facts

The fact is they didn't make the playoffs.

When I saw the headline my first thought was "what defense?"

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 11:03 AM
While Jim may technically be right that the system wasn't the problem, in that it was mental mistakes or physical limitations by the players that caused the failure, he needs to be willing to admit that a different defense might be less prone to player error. Dumb it down if they can't handle your system.

Jim thinks or so he says that they now have the players who can play the system he is running this season. We'll see.

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 11:06 AM
Jim thinks or so he says that they now have the players who can play the system he is running this season. We'll see.

He is been saying that for years now, he said that when they got DJ and Watson last year.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 11:08 AM
Buck

Didnt he say roughly the saem thing after we aquired Solomon Jones, Dahanty Jones, and Earl Watson?

I am not positive but I am almost sure that he said something very simmilar that "now he had the athleticism he needed to play stronger defense (paraphrasing here)

Dr. Awesome
10-12-2010, 11:08 AM
No one cares about the facts

Are you saying you believe we were an above average defensive team last year?

Dr. Awesome
10-12-2010, 11:10 AM
While Jim may technically be right that the system wasn't the problem, in that it was mental mistakes or physical limitations by the players that caused the failure, he needs to be willing to admit that a different defense might be less prone to player error. Dumb it down if they can't handle your system.

If that was the problem he needs to change the defense instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 11:11 AM
Are you saying you believe we were an above average defensive team last year?

+1

I guess our problem was not enough offense, then.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 11:17 AM
Are you saying you believe we were an above average defensive team last year?

I would say overall we were average. We need to be better, I expect better. DFG% wasn't too bad, but too many fouls, and I've never felt that the players have completely bought into playing defense. I blame the players and coaches both for this failure.

The funny thing is everyone thinks I am always defending Jim O'Brien - but if you read what I posted in this thread, I really have not.

I thought the defense was better last season than the year before (not by a lot, but a little better - better perimeter defenders and Jim did change the requirements he placed on our bigs - they stayed at home much more) last years team was worse than the year before because of the offensive problems and chemistry issues, but defense was slightly better

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 11:21 AM
I'm not sure about this but I think that their defense was good until the end of the 3rd quarter and by the beginning of the 4th Jim would always come with a different line up by either seating Roy and putting Murphy in or by playing an small player at the guard spot and expecting them to guard the other teams best player at times(Jack on Kobe as an example) can somebody check at what quarters the defense sucks?

MagicRat
10-12-2010, 11:22 AM
I guess our problem was not enough offense, then.

The Pacers shot .443 last year. League average was .461.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 11:25 AM
I would say overall we were average. We need to be better, I expect better. DFG% wasn't too bad, but too many fouls, and I've never felt that the players have completely bought into playing defense. I blame the players and coaches both for this failure.

The funny thing is everyone thinks I am always defending Jim O'Brien - but if you read what I posted in this thread, I really have not.

I thought the defense was better last season than the year before (not by a lot, but a little better - better perimeter defenders and Jim did change the requirements he placed on our bigs) last years team was worse than the year before because of the offensive problems and chemistry issues, but defense was slightly better

I agree that the defense is better than prior years, in fact I say the problem most likely this year will be offense.

What really upset me though in Wwatching the Houston game was the back to back alley ops

Back in the day one of the Davis boys would have put Buddinger or Lee on his Azz

I would give anything for us to have a Davis like enforcer, btu they dont seem to exist anymore

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 11:32 AM
The guy is a complete joke. This is the fourth year in a row where "The emphasis is on defense"

Yet each year we are close to the bottom in the league in points allowed and defensive fg%

You're dead wrong on defensive FG%.

Last year, the Pacers were 13th in the NBA in defensive FG%. The year before that, they were 15th. The year before that, they were 10th. These are the three years O'Brien has been here. It could still be better, but I think it would see a huge improvement with a different offensive system. Rick Carlisle's last year here they were 13th in defensive FG% as well, and that was with a much slower system.

You have a very interesting definition of "close to the bottom to the league". Now I'm sure you'll accuse me of "instigating" when all I'm really doing is proving your argument wrong with facts.

Yes, the Pacers have been in the bottom 10 in points allowed, but that is due to the offense we play. I think that is pretty obvious.

My biggest problem with O'Brien is the way he coaches the offense. Our defense has actually been pretty good. Not "near the bottom of the league", I guess you could have that opinion, but saying we were at the bottom in defensive FG% is just, well flat out wrong. Our offense leads to many of the failures we see on defense, quick shots result in long misses and easy buckets. Our half court D actually did it's job probably much better than we even know, I bet you'd see our defensive FD% drop by another 1% or so if we ran a different offensive style.

Hicks
10-12-2010, 11:34 AM
+1

I guess our problem was not enough offense, then.

Actually, it was, last year. We were a mediocre defensive team, but a below-average offensive team.

Diamond Dave
10-12-2010, 11:34 AM
A huge defensive problem for the Pacers starts on offense. We take a LOT of jumpers and long distances shots. As a result there are a lot of long rebounds. The ball gets pushed off a long rebound quickly, and our guys are out of position.

If could find a way to shoot from inside the paint more often I believe that would help the defense significantly. Well that and getting rid of O'brien :devil:

Brad8888
10-12-2010, 11:34 AM
Pacers opponents shot .453 last year. Now, O'Brien says that .450 fg% defense will make the playoffs. If that is right, the opposition must make a huge amount of very effective points with the last .003, or the .008 that the Pacers were under the league average in fg% defense must not have meant as much as the last .003. Pretty silly oversimplification when you look at it that way, despite the facts of the statistics being what they were.

Obviously, the opponents fg% is determined also by how much effort they are putting in on offense against a team they don't feel threatened by because of its offensive and defensive inadequacies, not just the defense the Pacers have NOT effectively played since O'Brien got here, regardless of what the statistics show.

The Pacers continued reliance on Danny's 3's while he was injured and couldn't hit them, coupled with an ineffective dribble penetration focused attack that degenerated into a stand around missed three-fest frequently, when combined probably led our opponents to cruise even when they had their starters in unless Troy and Brandon hit enough threes to threaten them, and that may well have reduced the fg% a bit, on top of the amount of garbage time being played having increased due to the Pacers being a non-factor in many games after the usual 3rd quarter folding that at times came as a result of opponents deciding to up the intensity and take control of the game on both ends of the court. Garbage time, as has been pointed out elsewhere, while a potential learning tool for young guys, also is a time where shooting percentages are likely to go down because the players are either not as good at shooting, or the concentration level is just not there to make shots because the game has turned virtually meaningless for both sides.

IUfan4life
10-12-2010, 11:44 AM
I agree that the defense is better than prior years, in fact I say the problem most likely this year will be offense.

What really upset me though in Wwatching the Houston game was the back to back alley ops

Back in the day one of the Davis boys would have put Buddinger or Lee on his Azz

I would give anything for us to have a Davis like enforcer, btu they dont seem to exist anymore

Those days of the NBA are gone. Players are not allowed to play like that anymore. Also back in the day I'm not so sure Buddinger would sniff the floor

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Jim thinks or so he says that they now have the players who can play the system he is running this season. We'll see.


Then if Jimmy didn't have the players the 3 previous years that could work within "his system", then why was he using that system?

I would think a good coach you evaluate his players and create a system that they can use to their strengths. That applies to both offense and defense.

Others have said this in the past that he trys to put square pegs in round holes. I guess they have a case in point.

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 11:49 AM
The Pacers shot .443 last year. League average was .461.

And those are directly related to our Pace and Rebounding numbers. We're 16th in PPG, and 23rd in Opponents PPG. The game is more than shooting percentages, if not, it'd just be Horse.

MillerTime
10-12-2010, 11:53 AM
I think JOB is the only one that beleives in his defensive system

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 11:53 AM
Does everyone really think our defense is a bigger problem than our offense?

OakMoses
10-12-2010, 11:53 AM
Are you saying you believe we were an above average defensive team last year?

Our FG% defense was above average. Total points is meaningless.

The problems were that we gave up the 2nd most FTAs in the NBA and the 3rd most offensive rebounds. Even if you adjust these stats for pace, they are still bad.

I like that O'Brien is emphasizing rebounding as a part of defense. I like that he's being straight with Danny about his need for improvement. I like that Danny understands that he needs to be the guy calling people out when they screw up.

The problem with the defensive system, as I see it, is that it's a bit of an all-or-nothing scheme. It either works well and we're difficult to score on, or it fails spectacularly (Houston game) and we look like complete nincompoops. There's not a lot of middle ground, and the failures stick with us a lot longer than the success. We tend not to remember missed jump shots.

I'd like to believe that the ball pressure is really important and blame Ford for a lot of things. 82games does confirm that we were a better defensive team with Watson and Price on the floor than with Ford. It also confirms UB's assertion that Hibbert was terrible on defense. Only Solo was worse than Roy.

travmil
10-12-2010, 11:55 AM
I'm shocked to learn that O'Brien even thinks he has a defensive system, let alone believes in it.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 11:55 AM
Those days of the NBA are gone. Players are not allowed to play like that anymore. Also back in the day I'm not so sure Buddinger would sniff the floor

Good point

hence the screen name

miss those days

MLB007
10-12-2010, 11:58 AM
This is what I wanted to highlight. Jimmy's starting to remind me of Vic Fangio. Even though his defenses routinely failed, there was nothing wrong with Vic's system, it was always the players. At least Vic had an established reputation that partly excused his overinflated view of himself and his abilities.

Except that he's absolutely flipping RIGHT. ;)
If you think that are problems have been the scheme, well.. ???? :D

MLB007
10-12-2010, 12:03 PM
Then if Jimmy didn't have the players the 3 previous years that could work within "his system", then why was he using that system?

I would think a good coach you evaluate his players and create a system that they can use to their strengths. That applies to both offense and defense.

Others have said this in the past that he trys to put square pegs in round holes. I guess they have a case in point.

OR we have had a lot of players that sucked or just didn't play defense. ;)

MLB007
10-12-2010, 12:04 PM
Does everyone really think our defense is a bigger problem than our offense?

No, only those that would rather ***** about OB endlessly. :laugh:

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 12:04 PM
Actually, it was, last year. We were a mediocre defensive team, but a below-average offensive team.

Then why the hell do we play like the Warriors or the Suns?! When you look at these all important numbers, it's very simple, if you want to be a better defensive team, you slow down the game where the percentages are mitigated, not enhanced. Only an egotist of the first degree would play an Earl Watson-led team at a frantic pace where his offensive deficiences are magnified and his defensive accumen is wasted.

You can play the stat game all you want, but when you get down to it, defense is about keeping the other team from scoring more than you. When a wild 3-pointer bounces long off the rim and the other team gets an easy dunk or and-1, you can say that's simply a result of shooting percentages and offensive rebounding, but the result is the same. Don't lose sight of the forest while inspecting all the trees.

McKeyFan
10-12-2010, 12:07 PM
There's a rampant symptom in America right now across the board of people saying they will do something, and then inexplicably --- they just don't do it.

I come across it 6-7 times a day in my business dealings. And then when you point it out to them in a civil manner, they acknowledge it, and look at you and say, "You're right. I'll fix that." And guess what? They proceed to not do it.

People just don't care. It's cool to not care. It's pretty f'n lame.

I need to think about that for a while.

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 12:13 PM
Does everyone really think our defense is a bigger problem than our offense?

My problem with that rationale is it sounds like, "if we'd only shoot better, all our problems would go away." The problem isn't strictly offense, or defense, it's pace. Now, maybe Jimmy looks at the name on our jersey and thinks more is better, but if we valued possessions, on both sides of the floor, we'd be a hell of a lot better team.

BillS
10-12-2010, 12:23 PM
So, my question is, why is it that two years ago, under this same coach, we were in nearly every game until the last minute and kept things tight until the end of the season for that last playoff spot, while last year we gave away a huge number of points more than we scored, were out of a lot of games from the first quarter, and only missed a high lottery pick because of winning supposedly irrelevant games at the end of the season? IF the ONLY problem is the coach, and IF he is so stubborn he made no changes whatsoever between the two seasons, why did things fare so much worse last year?

My answer is that it isn't ALL the coaching, that defense WAS a focus last year but not effective because the offensive execution was horrible, and that the base premise of so many sound bites is not correct.

But, then, I'm an idiot :dunce:

MagicRat
10-12-2010, 12:42 PM
My problem with that rationale is it sounds like, "if we'd only shoot better, all our problems would go away." The problem isn't strictly offense, or defense, it's pace. Now, maybe Jimmy looks at the name on our jersey and thinks more is better, but if we valued possessions, on both sides of the floor, we'd be a hell of a lot better team.

1. We all know you don't watch the games, so this is all based on hearsay and conjecture.
2. The Pacers were 20-10 last season when they shot the league average FG% or better.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 12:46 PM
No, only those that would rather ***** about OB endlessly. :laugh:

How does his breakfast taste?

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 12:46 PM
I think JOB is the only one that beleives in his defensive system


Same can be said about his offense the last 3 years.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 12:47 PM
So, my question is, why is it that two years ago, under this same coach, we were in nearly every game until the last minute and kept things tight until the end of the season for that last playoff spot, while last year we gave away a huge number of points more than we scored, were out of a lot of games from the first quarter, and only missed a high lottery pick because of winning supposedly irrelevant games at the end of the season? IF the ONLY problem is the coach, and IF he is so stubborn he made no changes whatsoever between the two seasons, why did things fare so much worse last year?

My answer is that it isn't ALL the coaching, that defense WAS a focus last year but not effective because the offensive execution was horrible, and that the base premise of so many sound bites is not correct.

But, then, I'm an idiot :dunce:

Youre not an idiot Bill

I think its simple, 2 years ago the team had not tuned Jim out. I think after this ammount of time any voice wears on you. Back then he was still fresh

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 12:48 PM
I'm shocked to learn that O'Brien even thinks he has a defensive system, let alone believes in it.


Good one... it sure gave me a chuckle.

Hicks
10-12-2010, 12:54 PM
Then why the hell do we play like the Warriors or the Suns?!

Good question. I've made my point in another thread that I don't like the way we run our offense.

I believe on both sides of the ball, you dumb your system down to where your players can really grasp it and grow with it, you don't keep whipping them for not doing what they're incapable of doing. I'm not happy.

Dr. Awesome
10-12-2010, 12:58 PM
1. We all know you don't watch the games, so this is all based on hearsay and conjecture.
2. The Pacers were 20-10 last season when they shot the league average FG% or better.

That would be like me saying "Well we are undefeated when this player scores over 40 points a game." The problem with that is, if it's not something he does consistently, then it's a useless stat.

pacergod2
10-12-2010, 01:00 PM
What I really like about this article is that Jim is holding the players accountable for repetitive excellence on defense.

Our biggest priority early this season should be the improvement of our defense. We are now an offensive team that can slow the tempo and score more proficiently in the half-court, IMO. We need to adjust our defense to match our offensive tempo, which will help us become more competitive in playoff basketball. I think we are headed in the right direction.

For how bad we were a couple of years ago defensively, we are progressing towards becoming a better defensive team. Jim adjusted his defensive rotations two off-seasons ago. He prioritized the bigs rotating to force ball movement and chasing a team against the shot clock. Now, we can play more of a man scheme because the personnel we have is more athletic and conducive to playing better defense.

I think Jim is right. I think a lot of what he is saying makes sense. I know you guys don't like hearing that from anybody. Jim has got to have his best player play better defensively if he is going to get that many minutes. Granger is too good not to get the minutes, so he better improve defensively at the expense of his offensive output. We have a lot more players now that can handle some of the scoring load than we have had in the recent past. Granger needs to be the foundation for this team's defense and this team most significant area of improvement needs to be the defense.

I actually really really like this article and although many of you will point to lip service, those drills are actions that show the dedication to defense. I have more respect now for Jim's coaching after reading that article. He is bringing this ship along, but it is slow development because it has relied on the young guys getting better. It just hasn't been quick enough for the impatient fan.

Hicks
10-12-2010, 01:02 PM
That would be like me saying "Well we are undefeated when this player scores over 40 points a game." The problem with that is, if it's not something he does consistently, then it's a useless stat.

30 times out of 82 is significant.

CableKC
10-12-2010, 01:05 PM
The Pacers opponents shot .453 last year. League average was .461.
Just to augment and further this part of the discussion while adding some context to the .453 FG% allowed, here are other stats to consider:

Pacers Opponents were allowed to score - 103.8 PPG ( ranked 23rd out of 30 Teams )
League Average of Opponents allowed to score - 100.5 PPG
Median Average of Opponents allowed to score - 99.3 PPG

I'm sure that the # of 2pt FGA / 2pt FG% and 3pt FGM / 3pt FG% that we allow the opponents to take has some baring on this....but I can't seem to find those stats.

31andonly
10-12-2010, 01:10 PM
The headline is hilarious. Imagine him coming out and admitting that he doesn't believe in his defensive system...

Hicks
10-12-2010, 01:10 PM
You need to adjust PPG for pace.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:12 PM
That would be like me saying "Well we are undefeated when this player scores over 40 points a game." The problem with that is, if it's not something he does consistently, then it's a useless stat.

No the stat tells us if the pacers had shot better than the league average more often they would have had a better record. That is useful info

Since86
10-12-2010, 01:12 PM
Except that he's absolutely flipping RIGHT. ;)
If you think that are problems have been the scheme, well.. ???? :D

Then you're proving our point for us.

That Jim runs his scheme regardless of what type of players he has. Which we're told we're wrong on that too, BTW.

You can't have the argument both ways.

And quite frankly, Jim and UB have both made the same admission.

"Well this year we have the players to run the scheme, so it will be better." That means you didn't have the players to run that scheme last year, but you did it anyways..........

And like it's been pointed out. You said the EXACT same thing last year.

Hicks
10-12-2010, 01:16 PM
You need to adjust PPG for pace.

It's DefEff (opponent's points per possession over 100 possessions)

We were 14th at 104.2 last year.

Range of 100.2 (Orlando) to 110.2 (Toronto).

http://hoopdata.com/teamdefstats.aspx

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:20 PM
Then you're proving our point for us.

That Jim runs his scheme regardless of what type of players he has. Which we're told we're wrong on that too, BTW.

You can't have the argument both ways.

And quite frankly, Jim and UB have both made the same admission.

"Well this year we have the players to run the scheme, so it will be better." That means you didn't have the players to run that scheme last year, but you did it anyways..........

And like it's been pointed out. You said the EXACT same thing last year.

No, I don't buy that, he changed somewhat significantly (we can argue about that) IMO what the big guys were doing in the defense. he changed to better fit the personnel, he changed because Roy and Troy are not very quick, so Jim changed their responsibilities. The influx of D. Jones, Watson and more Rush did help the perimeter defense. But the interior defense without Foster last season was IMO the worst in the NBA personnel wise. But Jim's changes did help as much as they could. If he didn't make the changes the results would have been worse

We have a little more quickness on the inside - Roy is quicker - more Josh no Troy. So if the interior improves some the perimeter should be as good if not a little better.

BillS
10-12-2010, 01:28 PM
I think its simple, 2 years ago the team had not tuned Jim out. I think after this ammount of time any voice wears on you. Back then he was still fresh

So what you are saying is that they got worse once they tuned him out? Far cry from saying he's a horrible coach who is ruining players.

I don't agree that they tuned him out, there were too many new players for that.

One of my problems with JOB (and yes, I have them) is that I think he doesn't adapt fast enough nor does he use the strengths of his players well. That's not to go so far as to say he never adapts or never uses the strengths of his players, mind. It means they are, as has been noted, weaknesses, but that he does try to address them - albeit later rather than sooner.

I think last year he tried to address one of the weaknesses from the previous year (defense) but failed to adjust when it (or other factors) had a disproportionate effect on the offense. I stated over and over last year that we could get stops on a regular basis, we just could never take advantage of them when we did. That lead to a later stop becoming "crucial" and looking like it was the game loser, when poor offensive efficiency earlier in the game was the culprit.

Since86
10-12-2010, 01:30 PM
You don't buy it?

He clearly states that it's not changing. He clearly states that last year wasn't where he wanted it to be, and he clearly states that this year will be better because of the personel he has running it.

Quite frankly, it's pretty clear that it didn't work last year because he didn't have the right players running it.

1+1+1 always equals 3 no matter which order you list it in.

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 01:30 PM
It's DefEff (opponent's points per possession over 100 possessions)

We were 14th at 104.2 last year.

Range of 100.2 (Orlando) to 110.2 (Toronto).

http://hoopdata.com/teamdefstats.aspx

Yep, we were an average defensive team last year not "bottom of the league".

CableKC
10-12-2010, 01:36 PM
This is what I wanted to highlight. Jimmy's starting to remind me of Vic Fangio. Even though his defenses routinely failed, there was nothing wrong with Vic's system, it was always the players. At least Vic had an established reputation that partly excused his overinflated view of himself and his abilities.
If the system ain't broken and it's always been the Players......then this begs the obvious question....do we now have ( in theory ) the Players in place to actually implement the defense properly?

My guess is that we will have a primary 8 to 9 man rotation of the following:

DC/AJ
Granger/BRush/Dunleavy/Posey
Hibbert/Foster/McRoberts

My guess is that the rookies won't get any burn of significance and add in some combination of Solo, Hansbrough and TJ as a possible 10th Player.

With the above players...do we have the Players that can properly implement the Defensive system that JO'B wants to put in place?

I can accept the argument that when it comes to Players...JO'B hands were tied since we had very limited options given our SalaryCap limitations since the MurphLeavy trade. Technically, we won't really see any real change in the rotation until next season when TJ/Dunleavy/Foster/Solo comes off the books....so JO'B will still be using the majority of the same players over the last 2 seasons. At what point does it become a problem with the System as opposed to the Players...and vice versa?

Trophy
10-12-2010, 01:41 PM
Tyler's man to man defense is actually pretty good.

Danny's defense is average, not too bad and not too great.

Roy has gotten to be a more powerful guy in the paint.

Darren's pretty good man to man.

The problem is that it's never consistent which means Jim's defensive system isn't working.

EDIT: Dan Burke is big on defense so he might make a good head coach if we don't do well during the season. Plus he's been part of this organization for a while.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:42 PM
If the system ain't broken and it's always been the Players......then this begs the obvious question....do we now have ( in theory ) the Players in place to actually implement the defense properly?



No, our interior defenders are still not very good. Better yes without Murphy and better with a more mobile Roy and better with Josh getting more time. But compared to other NBA teams our interior defenders are still in the bottom third of the NBA. But keep in mind the defense as played last season is not the pure Jim O'Brien defensive system. He likes the big guys to be all over the court and he didn't ask them do to that last season and evidently not this season. If he had KG and Dwight Howard on the interior then we would see the system in its purest form.

Since86
10-12-2010, 01:45 PM
Why would you want Dwight Howard all over the floor? I want him in about a 15ft circle.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:46 PM
You don't buy it?

He clearly states that it's not changing. He clearly states that last year wasn't where he wanted it to be, and he clearly states that this year will be better because of the personel he has running it.

Quite frankly, it's pretty clear that it didn't work last year because he didn't have the right players running it.

1+1+1 always equals 3 no matter which order you list it in.

No he changed it going into training camp last season, but even with the changes the interior defenders were still bad (but not as bad as they would have been if the changes had not been made). yes this season the interior defenders are better than last season, so that will help.

You have me confused.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:48 PM
Why would you want Dwight Howard all over the floor? I want him in about a 15ft circle.

OK, my bad, when I said "all over the floor" I was using that as a hyperbole to make my point succinctly. My point is the changes in the defensive system prior to last season changed what was required of the big men. Succinctly they were to stay at home more closer to the basket - less trapping, less coming out of the lane area, less pre-rotating - less movement.......

Since86
10-12-2010, 01:50 PM
Is this the same system as last year? Yes. He says so.
Will this year be better defensively than last year? Yes, or so he say's so.
Why will this year be better than last year? Because of the players he's got to run the system.


So obviously the system last year wasn't as good because he didn't have the players to run it. They were incapable of doing so. He say's so himself.



Which is exactly what I'm saying, but looking it as a negative. Instead of realizing last year that your system doesn't match your players, and changing the system, he stayed with it regardless. Now this year he has the players to play it, or so he says, because he said the exact same thing last year at this time too.


Telling Troy he doesn't have to rotate all the way out to the wing, isn't "changing" the system. It's tweaking it. He runs the same schemes regardless of who the players are, which is what I've said going on 4 years now, but something you've always argued against.

Here it is in his very own words and you're still not buying it.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:54 PM
Is this the same system as last year? Yes. He says so.
Will this year be better defensively than last year? Yes, or so he say's so.
Why will this year be better than last year? Because of the players he's got to run the system.


So obviously the system last year wasn't as good because he didn't have the players to run it. They were incapable of doing so. He say's so himself.



Which is exactly what I'm saying, but looking it as a negative. Instead of realizing last year that your system doesn't match your players, and changing the system, he stayed with it regardless. Now this year he has the players to play it, or so he says, because he said the exact same thing last year at this time too.


Telling Troy he doesn't have to rotate all the way out to the wing, isn't "changing" the system. It's tweaking it. He runs the same schemes regardless of who the players are, which is what I've said going on 4 years now, but something you've always argued against.

Here it is in his very own words and you're still not buying it.



I guess we disagree on the definition of "changing" I think he changed the system you think he tweaked it. OK, so whatever we want to call it - i don't care. That is not the point.

I've stated my point several times I'm not sure if it doesn't make any sense or what is going on.

Is my point making any sense. Not asking anyone to agree with me, but often times after several back and forths I often figure I'm not making any sense.

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 02:09 PM
My guess is that we will have a primary 8 to 9 man rotation of the following:

DC/AJ
Granger/BRush/Dunleavy/Posey
Hibbert/Foster/McRoberts

My guess is that the rookies won't get any burn of significance and add in some combination of Solo, Hansbrough and TJ as a possible 10th Player.



Sorry, I disagree. I believe you will see Hans more than Foster. Posey will be like Dahntay and not see much playing time. I realize what I have said depends on the health of Hans, Foster, and Dunleavy plus injuries to others.

Since86
10-12-2010, 02:23 PM
I guess we disagree on the definition of "changing" I think he changed the system you think he tweaked it. OK, so whatever we want to call it - i don't care. That is not the point.

I've stated my point several times I'm not sure if it doesn't make any sense or what is going on.

Is my point making any sense. Not asking anyone to agree with me, but often times after several back and forths I often figure I'm not making any sense.

I don't think you've even made a point. You've not really tried to contradict mine, you've just said I'm wrong and that's it.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 02:31 PM
I don't think you've even made a point. You've not really tried to contradict mine, you've just said I'm wrong and that's it.

OK, my bad then.

I think he did change the system to better match the defensive personnel - he did this prior to last season when he must have figured that Troy and Roy were going to get a large % of the minutes at C and PF. You call it a tweak, OK, I can live with that.

Next part is OK, so he changed/tweaked, but did it work, did it help the defense. I say yes a little bit, it was better than it would have been if he didn't tweak it. it is just that Roy (espcially last season) and Troy were really poor defenders.

Move to this season: (I have not seen enough to have any idea) but Jim says it will be the same system as last season. But this season we have slightly better athletes at the 4 and 5, so that will help regardless of system.

This is your quote -


That means you didn't have the players to run that scheme last year, but you did it anyways..........


Maybe this is where we have a disconnect. I don't think any scheme would have been good for the our interior defenders last season. But IMO Jim did a good thing in changing from his normal system to a more stay at home system last season. You have to run something.

Last year I said we have better perimeter defenders. I think that turned out to be true. I also said once jeff went down that as a group the pacers had the worst set of defensive players at the 4 and 5 positions - worse than any other team in the NBA

Eleazar
10-12-2010, 02:34 PM
When it comes to defense I don't care about the system. The system really doesn't matter. What does matter are the players and the coaches. How much the players care and put effort into defense, and how much the coaches focus and emphasize defense.

docpaul
10-12-2010, 02:55 PM
Our FG% defense was above average. Total points is meaningless.

The problems were that we gave up the 2nd most FTAs in the NBA and the 3rd most offensive rebounds. Even if you adjust these stats for pace, they are still bad.

I like that O'Brien is emphasizing rebounding as a part of defense. I like that he's being straight with Danny about his need for improvement. I like that Danny understands that he needs to be the guy calling people out when they screw up.

The problem with the defensive system, as I see it, is that it's a bit of an all-or-nothing scheme. It either works well and we're difficult to score on, or it fails spectacularly (Houston game) and we look like complete nincompoops. There's not a lot of middle ground, and the failures stick with us a lot longer than the success. We tend not to remember missed jump shots.

I'd like to believe that the ball pressure is really important and blame Ford for a lot of things. 82games does confirm that we were a better defensive team with Watson and Price on the floor than with Ford. It also confirms UB's assertion that Hibbert was terrible on defense. Only Solo was worse than Roy.

Beautiful post. There seem to be a lot of people on the board who look at final scores, and think that when the opponent has a higher than expected score, that it relates solely to the team's poor defensive performance. You correctly helped to highlight some of the other factors that contribute to high percentage opportunities for opponents.

Look, I'm tired of J'OB, likely somewhat illogically, as I associate the losing with his tenure... but I think it'd be difficult given the hard data to suggest that we "suck" at defense or that the team can't mentally handle the scheme. We can't lay that fully at his feet.

Fouls go down as good rookies mature and get playing time, and offensive boards improve as you put in 4's that actually live closer to the paint and see tip-ins/kick-outs as part of their responsibility. JOB likely recognized that Murphy was going to get manhandled in the post, so tried to offset the lack of offensive boards with green-lighting a top of the key shooting smorgasbord. Playing to his strengths.

It will be impossible for the same game to be played by our team this year... as the complexion of the team is different in some pretty huge ways. It might not result in a better record (for a host of other reasons), but you won't be able to call it the same-old-same-old.

Since86
10-12-2010, 02:57 PM
When it comes to defense I don't care about the system. The system really doesn't matter. What does matter are the players and the coaches. How much the players care and put effort into defense, and how much the coaches focus and emphasize defense.


Really? Then I propose that we run Jim Larranaga's scramble system. That should work.

You're really going to try and argue that going under the screen or going over doesn't matter? And UB, you're really going to thank that post even though you and Jay go back and forth on such little details as to whether or not you should front the post or stay behind?

Sorry, but not true. At all.

CableKC
10-12-2010, 03:10 PM
Sorry, I disagree. I believe you will see Hans more than Foster. Posey will be like Dahntay and not see much playing time. I realize what I have said depends on the health of Hans, Foster, and Dunleavy plus injuries to others.
That's fine....I think that we can probably agree that the top 5 that will definitely get minutes ( whether it be starter or backup ) will be:

C/BRush/Granger/Hibbert/Foster

NOTE - I'm not saying that Foster will start....I'm saying that I expect him to see a decent amount of minutes in the rotation as the 1st Big Man off the bench.

with the likely next 3 Players in the rotation that makes up the 7th to 9th ( or 10th ) Players in the rotation to some combination of:

Dunleavy/AJ/McRoberts/Hansbrough/Solo/Posey/TJ ( pick 2 or 3....probably depending on the situation )

Given the top 5 and whoever else will likely fill out the rest of the regular rotation....are we still in a "similar boat" as we were in over the last 3 seasons?

My guess is that we won't be as bad as last season....but won't be as good as JO'B or Bird hopes it will be.

Eleazar
10-12-2010, 03:19 PM
Really? Then I propose that we run Jim Larranaga's scramble system. That should work.

You're really going to try and argue that going under the screen or going over doesn't matter? And UB, you're really going to thank that post even though you and Jay go back and forth on such little details as to whether or not you should front the post or stay behind?

Sorry, but not true. At all.

The only point to a system is to make sure every player is on the same page. After that it comes down to how willing the players are to actually play defense.

TheDon
10-12-2010, 04:19 PM
I would think that opponents points per game would be a more telling stat considering our rebounding prowess or more specifically lack therof, or the amount of free throw attempts per game where our opponents almost consistently had more attempts than we did. I think the defensive fg% isn't what we need to be looking at or at the very least not telling the complete story, I think the cake is a lie when it comes to that statistic. That probably is the case though when it comes to looking at one statistic and trying to say if this number changes we'll be better.

Since86
10-12-2010, 04:22 PM
The only point to a system is to make sure every player is on the same page. After that it comes down to how willing the players are to actually play defense.

That still isn't true.

No matter how much Troy Murphy wants, he will never be able to play defense like KG, or even Josh. It's just not phsyically possible. It's not about heart or desire, it's about phsyical abilities.

You can't play the same defense as you do with KG that you can with Troy. It's not possible. They could not only be on the same page, but on the exact same word, and if Troy just cannot phsyically do the job that is required the defense will not work.

MLB007
10-12-2010, 05:26 PM
Good question. I've made my point in another thread that I don't like the way we run our offense.

I believe on both sides of the ball, you dumb your system down to where your players can really grasp it and grow with it, you don't keep whipping them for not doing what they're incapable of doing. I'm not happy.

He was hired to develop a struggling team.
he's doing it.
He's been doing it.
You DO continue to expect your employees to do the job the way you want them too.

MLB007
10-12-2010, 05:28 PM
Then you're proving our point for us.

That Jim runs his scheme regardless of what type of players he has. Which we're told we're wrong on that too, BTW.

You can't have the argument both ways.

And quite frankly, Jim and UB have both made the same admission.

"Well this year we have the players to run the scheme, so it will be better." That means you didn't have the players to run that scheme last year, but you did it anyways..........

And like it's been pointed out. You said the EXACT same thing last year.

Um, I'm not OB. :laugh:

MLB007
10-12-2010, 05:30 PM
Then you're proving our point for us.

That Jim runs his scheme regardless of what type of players he has. Which we're told we're wrong on that too, BTW.

You can't have the argument both ways.

And quite frankly, Jim and UB have both made the same admission.

"Well this year we have the players to run the scheme, so it will be better." That means you didn't have the players to run that scheme last year, but you did it anyways..........

And like it's been pointed out. You said the EXACT same thing last year.

So what will your reason be when we are much improved defensively Mr.Obvious? :rolleyes:

MLB007
10-12-2010, 05:31 PM
You don't buy it?

He clearly states that it's not changing. He clearly states that last year wasn't where he wanted it to be, and he clearly states that this year will be better because of the personel he has running it.

Quite frankly, it's pretty clear that it didn't work last year because he didn't have the right players running it.

1+1+1 always equals 3 no matter which order you list it in.

Do you also think that life is always black and white?? :hmm:

Sookie
10-12-2010, 05:33 PM
Okay, here's an issue..

He wants his team to hold the opposing team to under 45 percent.

The opposing team shot 45.4 percent last season. If we assume there was about 70 attempted baskets (reasonable number)..that's about 32 made baskets (31.7)

44.9 Percent..about 31 made baskets (31.4)

Um...Quite frankly, I don't think that's going to help too much. There needs to be more to a defensive strategy than numbers.

Eleazar
10-12-2010, 05:44 PM
That still isn't true.

No matter how much Troy Murphy wants, he will never be able to play defense like KG, or even Josh. It's just not phsyically possible. It's not about heart or desire, it's about phsyical abilities.

You can't play the same defense as you do with KG that you can with Troy. It's not possible. They could not only be on the same page, but on the exact same word, and if Troy just cannot phsyically do the job that is required the defense will not work.

There is only one way to suck at defense. That is to not try. Now just putting in the effort may not make you a great defender, but it would make you a decent defender. Troy could have been a decent defender if he cared enough to put in some effort.

Now just because Troy's defense sucks doesn't mean the system doesn't work. It just means Troy's defense sucks. The system is about the team. Being a good team defender is about positioning, angles, and knowing what your teammate is going to do. If an individual player just sucks and can't stop his man, it doesn't matter what system it is it isn't going to work properly. A system can't make players play better defense, only the players can.

McKeyFan
10-12-2010, 05:47 PM
Really?MLB007, you really ought to delete that post. THere are no mods at the moment and that isn't your typical MO nor is it PD worthy.

(vnsla81 you should delete the quote as well.)

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 05:57 PM
wow

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 05:58 PM
Some of the attitudes on this board are just circling the drain...God.

The day we traded for Darren Collison seems like a distant memory.

Jizz disses? Mom disses? Where am I? 8th grade gym class?

:picard:

xBulletproof
10-12-2010, 05:58 PM
*sigh* ...

So disappointing.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 05:59 PM
*sigh* ...

So disappointing.

I agree but when attacked what can one do?

Always walk away? I guess so

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 06:00 PM
MLB007, you really ought to delete that post. THere are no mods at the moment and that isn't your typical MO nor is it PD worthy.

(vnsla81 you should delete the quote as well.)

I know some will say pot meet keetle but

seems to have anger management issues :)

OakMoses
10-12-2010, 06:11 PM
Man, I was reading through the first 3 pages of this thread thinking, "This is great, we're having a productive, meaningful, and civil discussion about things that are actually happening on the basketball court with relatively few potshots being taken." Then I got to this page, and even though the offending posts have been deleted, it totally harshed my vibe.

vapacersfan
10-12-2010, 06:13 PM
It is a shame when you need moderators on call 24 hours a day.

<O:p</O:pWe should be able to police ourselves and have the common courtesy not to bait each other and try to stir things up.<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 06:14 PM
Man, I was reading through the first 3 pages of this thread thinking, "This is great, we're having a productive, meaningful, and civil discussion about things that are actually happening on the basketball court with relatively few potshots being taken." Then I got to this page, and even though the offending posts have been deleted, it totally downed my vibe.

Its messed up

I partly blame myself for taking the bait, bottom line should be mature enough to avoid

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 06:19 PM
1. We all know you don't watch the games, so this is all based on hearsay and conjecture.

:-p

I'm trying. In 4 days I've made it through 3 quarters of Friday's game. Baby steps.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 06:21 PM
I wish I could see a game in person, to see if there is any bias in watching the game on tv vs live . Intangibles and what not

Kegboy
10-12-2010, 06:35 PM
I wish I could see a game in person, to see if there is any bias in watching the game on tv vs live . Intangibles and what not

When I first got tickets, there was lots of stuff I'd never picked up before, body language and tendancies and what not. Of course, HD helps a bit, but not being a slave to the camera helps you deepen your understanding by focusing on what you want.

Of course, spending money game in and game out can create its own biases, be it being hyper-critical because you're paying for the product, or turning a blind eye to problems because you have so much invested.

Brad8888
10-12-2010, 10:24 PM
So, my question is, why is it that two years ago, under this same coach, we were in nearly every game until the last minute and kept things tight until the end of the season for that last playoff spot, while last year we gave away a huge number of points more than we scored, were out of a lot of games from the first quarter, and only missed a high lottery pick because of winning supposedly irrelevant games at the end of the season? IF the ONLY problem is the coach, and IF he is so stubborn he made no changes whatsoever between the two seasons, why did things fare so much worse last year?

My answer is that it isn't ALL the coaching, that defense WAS a focus last year but not effective because the offensive execution was horrible, and that the base premise of so many sound bites is not correct.

But, then, I'm an idiot :dunce:

Sorry for my, as usual, longwinded response.

In my opinion, the focus on defense didn't change, nor did the basic concepts of the way it was being played in any appreciable fashion, regardless of the available talent on a given night due to injuries or banishments. That, when coupled with injuries, is why things fared so much worse last year.

The Pacers shot poorly, due in no small part to Danny Granger being played through his plantar fascia tear until it finally ruptured. Danny toughed it out, which was good for showing Danny's toughness, and Danny is to be commended for that. However, his lack of lift affected his shot and therefore his shots didn't fall, especially from deep, and when he would drive he wasn't very effective there, either, due to not having explosiveness on his first step like he used to. Also, his ability to provide passable defense was compromised due to having less lateral quickness as well, thereby weakening the team defensive concept as well due to O'Brien focusing more on the offensive aspects of Danny's contributions to the team as opposed to the overall negative impacts his play had on team performance during his injury, including on defense.

The solution was the unthinkable for O'Brien because Granger was a focal point of the offense, and that would have been to play Danny fewer minutes, and, when he did play, making sure that he took fewer threes instead of more, and instruct Danny to focus instead on at least trying to get to the line despite not being able to drive as effectively as usual.

The ongoing situation where the coach continued to play Danny big minutes despite his relative ineffectiveness had a big impact on both sides of the ball for the performance of the entire team, and that can be illustrated nicely by the improvement that occurred late in the season after Danny returned. Unlike others believe, I know there were several games in that stretch that the Pacers were playing against teams that had incentive to win for playoff seeding implications, and at times the Pacers won those games mainly due to improved offensive efficiency on Danny's part.

So, yes, in my opinion, O'Brien can be blamed for his decison making contributing to a worse performance due to his inflexibility with respect to strategy and rotations and the team losing more games by a far wider margin as a result, and that is simply taking Danny Granger into account, let alone the continued reliance on Troy "Minus" Murphy despite his inability to defend simply because he was lights out from the arc for short stretches of about 15 minutes of playing time per game, after which he no longer was effective even for that purpose.

So, what about this year?

Now, O'Brien once again has said that, once he teaches Collison how to defend like he did at UCLA, the Pacers now have personnel better suited to play his system defensively, as he has also said in the past.

Who is O'Brien referring to now? Stephenson doesn't defend well, so he can't be referring to him. Rolle may or may not end up making the team due to roster considerations so he probably isn't talking about him, and even if he is, Rolle will get very few minutes anyway. George, even according to Bird right after he was drafted let alone after what we have seen so far in preseason, won't be a contributor for a couple of years at least, so he can't be talking about him despite George at least playing some defense. Apparently Posey is also still considered to be a good defensive player according to O'Brien despite the fact that we have seen players blow by him like he is, well, Troy Murphy. Maybe Posey phones it in for preseason, I am not sure. Regardless, unless he is a large part of our interior rotation, his contributions can't have that big an impact.

So, that leaves Tyler Hansbrough who is currently behind McRoberts in the rotation due to being basically a rookie who O'Brien has said won't be a contributor for quite some time, McRoberts, who could barely sniff the floor last year even though he actually played some defense when he did play, a healthier Granger who isn't known to be a good defender, the returning Foster who will hopefully improve the rebounding in his limited minutes on the floor, and a quicker Roy Hibbert as the players who have changed in any meaningful fashion. Will that "personnel" change lead to a defensive performance change? Yes, there should be improvement, but it doesn't seem likely to be a major improvement unless the defensive schemes change to fit the available talent, which O'Brien has come right out and said is not going to happen.

Here's hoping that things improve radically due to Danny being healthier despite having a rough preseason so far after his benching on Team USA because of his overall ineffectiveness. A healthy Granger should improve the offense drastically, thereby taking pressure off of the defense as well due to better scoring efficiency and fewer rebounds required offensively for the team as a result, especially if he has been able to compensate fully for no longer having the same spring in the bottom of the foot that no longer has the support and elasticity of an intact plantar fascia, and orthotics probably cannot fully replicate that. Maybe he has, or perhaps he has not to the level assumed by most, but we will see in the very near future when the regular season starts if Danny just is having his normal preseason slump, or if the situation is more serious than we have been led to believe, as has also happened frequently in the past.

If improvement occurs during the regular season, hopefully there will be more close games like a couple of years ago, and with all of the personnel improvements maybe a few more of those will become W's instead of L's.

1984
10-13-2010, 12:21 AM
The guy is a complete joke. This is the fourth year in a row where "The emphasis is on defense"

Yet each year we are close to the bottom in the league in points allowed and defensive fg%

Folks, if you have athletes you can teach them to play team defense in a four year period. Team defense requires the least amount of "talent." That is to say, it is more or less an issue of athleticism and mental conditioning. A player must be capable to move quickly and coordinated while anticipating his opponents movement.

To be an efficient defensive team, you do not have to have Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, or Bruce Bowen. I am growing tired of the way in which he blames personnel.

I wonder if Clark Kellogg is a contingency plan. I know Larry is patient, but he certainly isn't ignorant. Certainly he has his doubts.

daschysta
10-13-2010, 01:54 AM
Okay, here's an issue..

He wants his team to hold the opposing team to under 45 percent.

The opposing team shot 45.4 percent last season. If we assume there was about 70 attempted baskets (reasonable number)..that's about 32 made baskets (31.7)

44.9 Percent..about 31 made baskets (31.4)

Um...Quite frankly, I don't think that's going to help too much. There needs to be more to a defensive strategy than numbers.

You have to take into account the fact that the pacers were not BAD defensively this year. You all keep jumping on JOB about defense, when it is our OFFENSE that blew last year. We were perfectly average defensively last year by field goal percentage defense. Had our offense been as good as it was 2 years ago with last years defense we were easily a playoff team. So yes if we slightly improve from last year on defense, and our offense improves with the new sets and collison it will make a big difference.

cdash
10-13-2010, 02:49 AM
Folks, if you have athletes you can teach them to play team defense in a four year period. Team defense requires the least amount of "talent." That is to say, it is more or less an issue of athleticism and mental conditioning. A player must be capable to move quickly and coordinated while anticipating his opponents movement.

To be an efficient defensive team, you do not have to have Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, or Bruce Bowen. I am growing tired of the way in which he blames personnel.

I wonder if Clark Kellogg is a contingency plan. I know Larry is patient, but he certainly isn't ignorant. Certainly he has his doubts.


I think Clark Kellogg is as involved with the team as he's ever going to be. He has a great gig as the lead college basketball analyst at CBS that he seems to excel at and enjoy.

Kegboy
10-13-2010, 09:20 AM
Agreed. I considered Clark taking over while watching Friday's game, but quickly dismissed it. He's never shown me the smallest inkling of interest in coaching. Even if it were temporary, I seriously doubt he'd want to interfere with his CBS gig.

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 09:31 AM
I would be shocked if Kellogg ever got into coaching - he has a great job(s) right now why mess it up.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 09:48 AM
I would be shocked if Kellogg ever got into coaching - he has a great job(s) right now why mess it up.

Money?

BillS
10-13-2010, 10:19 AM
For Brad8888, as quote-and-cut would be very tedious...

Nice response, thanks for the point of view.

Most everything you say makes sense in general. There are some items on which I differ with you in degree, meaning I come away with a little more rosy picture and also a different perspective on JOB.

To address a couple of specific ones:

I agree that one of JOB's biggest flaws is his inability to make immediate adjustments. I think that is why he adjusts entire game plans, including starting lineups, to match up with opponents - because he has to have everything prepared in advance.

This is why I think he played Troy too much, because he was more willing to go with a streaky Murphy than an unknown quantity in other players.

Whether this is part of the issue with Danny, I don't know. Danny spent too much time at the 3 for TeamUSA for me to think it was somehow something JOB told him to do. I agree that JOB should have probably told him NOT to do it, but - and this is a speculative but - if Danny was doing it because he was tentative about contact due to his foot, that might explain a lot. The solution would have been to work some more structure into the offense to get him some set screens, but I think JOB does not do that well.

In regards to this year's defense, JOB is not the only one in the league who respects Posey's defensive ability. I have only been able to follow one of the preseason games (tonight will be the first one I actually see), so I don't know if Posey is underachieving or dogging it or not up to snuff when opponents "blow by" him. However, I seriously doubt it is the same as Murphy. It COULD be one of the flaws we saw last year over and over, which is the helper rotates off his man to help someone else but no one rotates to cover the new open guy. The open guy gets the ball and drives past a player who can't get back in time. That often makes it look like he got blown away, when the reality is that no one "helped the helper" and left him with the choice either to foul or let someone go by.



A lot of this will be more clear later in pre-season, when we see a more definite move to an expected rotation. We'll then see who is on the floor at the same time and whether or not they complement each other.

flox
10-13-2010, 10:46 AM
Good question. I've made my point in another thread that I don't like the way we run our offense.

I believe on both sides of the ball, you dumb your system down to where your players can really grasp it and grow with it, you don't keep whipping them for not doing what they're incapable of doing. I'm not happy.

Doesn't Larry Brown or Pop just stop playing players if they don't get their system? I'm pretty sure when in doubt stick with the system.

For example,

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/david_aldridge/10/04/morning-tip-john-wall/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1


But Popovich knew he could not stomach another season with the Jefferson that showed up in San Antonio last season. It wasn't just that Jefferson, like any number of new arrivals in San Antonio, had a tough time adjusting to what Popovich demanded.

So Popovich gave Jefferson a choice, telling him there would be no hard feelings either way. Jefferson could agree to meet Popovich and assistant coach Chip Engelland during the summer in San Antonio to go "back to school," as Popovich put it, on regaining the fundamentals that the Spurs' coach thought Jefferson had lost over the last few seasons. He would also work with Spurs assistant Chad Forcier in New York. And he'd take part in Tim Grgurich's skills camp in Vegas in August.

Or he could refuse, and enjoy his summer.

"And I would have definitely tried to trade him on the spot," Popovich said. "I told him I would definitely go to work on getting your *** out of Dodge."

"I just think he needed somebody to demand it of him," Popovich said. "He's a smart guy and he's got great character. It was lucky for me that I could address him straight on. If he was a dumb guy or a smart *** I would probably have had to try to trick him. Overall, I hope it translates to more consistent play."

I think that any good coach sticks to his or her system and asks the players to adapt- and if they don't stop playing them or get rid of them.


So what you are saying is that they got worse once they tuned him out? Far cry from saying he's a horrible coach who is ruining players.

I don't agree that they tuned him out, there were too many new players for that.

One of my problems with JOB (and yes, I have them) is that I think he doesn't adapt fast enough nor does he use the strengths of his players well. That's not to go so far as to say he never adapts or never uses the strengths of his players, mind. It means they are, as has been noted, weaknesses, but that he does try to address them - albeit later rather than sooner.

I think last year he tried to address one of the weaknesses from the previous year (defense) but failed to adjust when it (or other factors) had a disproportionate effect on the offense. I stated over and over last year that we could get stops on a regular basis, we just could never take advantage of them when we did. That lead to a later stop becoming "crucial" and looking like it was the game loser, when poor offensive efficiency earlier in the game was the culprit.

I think midseason adjustments are tough- the Spurs couldn't do it with Jefferson last year, and they still haven't been able to adjust for him. I don't think it's easy to adjust on the fly- at least not for the more old school coaches.

Brad8888
10-13-2010, 10:55 AM
You definitely have a point regarding the breakdown of the team help schemes due to the failure of secondary help rotation. That is a difficult concept to grasp, and I suspect that very few of our young players have gotten that concept down during the O'Brien tenure here. I think that problem is to such a level at times that the players who actually follow the system properly are the ones who look as if they are not defending well or at all (as you may be suggesting with Posey, and may have been the case to a much smaller extent with Murphy), while the players who lose track of the system end up reverting to more intuitive defensive play which is often more of a man defense, leaving the team system defense to break down, and leaving those still in the system hanging.

If that is the case here and if O'Brien does focus on defense (his way), the question then becomes at what point do you alter the defense or "dumb it down" to a level that the rotation players are capable of executing consistently, especially when those players have been in a state of flux during O'Brien's tenure? Could it be that his defensive schemes are so complex that even veteran players have a difficult time grasping it and executing it?

Change, or to bull ahead because you know your system is the best? That seems to be a major issue for O'Brien in my view.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 11:24 AM
Doesn't Larry Brown or Pop just stop playing players if they don't get their system? I'm pretty sure when in doubt stick with the system .

I know you love for Jim is huge, but come on comparing him to LarryB and Pop? They got rings in their fingers, you are also again forgetting the facts that those young players were not better than the starters in the spurs case they were Manu,Tony, Duncan a whoever. (please I don't want to see more stats so you can probe your point or a least you think)

flox
10-13-2010, 11:27 AM
I know you love for Jim is huge, but come on comparing him to LarryB and Pop? They got rings in their fingers, you are also again forgetting the facts that those young players were not better than the starters in the spurs case they were Manu,Tony, Duncan a whoever. (please I don't want to see more stats so you can probe your point).

Just making a point- maybe coaches are taught to stick with their system if they believe in it and know that it can win. O'Brien has lead his teams to the playoffs before- he knows his system can win. Maybe that's why he is sticking to it. And if so- then I'm ok with that.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 11:33 AM
Just making a point- maybe coaches are taught to stick with their system if they believe in it and know that it can win. O'Brien has lead his teams to the playoffs before- he knows his system can win. Maybe that's why he is sticking to it. And if so- then I'm ok with that.

Well that is the reason why I don't like him, he hates change and he is never going to change or adapt to his players, he wants his player to adapt to his system.

flox
10-13-2010, 11:35 AM
Well that is the reason why I don't like him, he hates change and he is never going to change or adapt to his players, he wants his player to adapt to his system.

Do you hold the same hate for all coaches like that, or just Jim?

BillS
10-13-2010, 11:36 AM
Well that is the reason why I don't like him, he hates change and he is never going to change or adapt to his players, he wants his player to adapt to his system.

My concern is you attack the trait as if it is an absolute evil, then say it is OK for some coaches to use it because they win with it, then when it is pointed out that O'Brien has won at a certain level with that trait you go back to it being bad because O'Brien has it.

Peck
10-13-2010, 11:37 AM
For Brad8888, as quote-and-cut would be very tedious...

Nice response, thanks for the point of view.

Most everything you say makes sense in general. There are some items on which I differ with you in degree, meaning I come away with a little more rosy picture and also a different perspective on JOB.

To address a couple of specific ones:

I agree that one of JOB's biggest flaws is his inability to make immediate adjustments. I think that is why he adjusts entire game plans, including starting lineups, to match up with opponents - because he has to have everything prepared in advance.

This is why I think he played Troy too much, because he was more willing to go with a streaky Murphy than an unknown quantity in other players.

Whether this is part of the issue with Danny, I don't know. Danny spent too much time at the 3 for TeamUSA for me to think it was somehow something JOB told him to do. I agree that JOB should have probably told him NOT to do it, but - and this is a speculative but - if Danny was doing it because he was tentative about contact due to his foot, that might explain a lot. The solution would have been to work some more structure into the offense to get him some set screens, but I think JOB does not do that well.

In regards to this year's defense, JOB is not the only one in the league who respects Posey's defensive ability. I have only been able to follow one of the preseason games (tonight will be the first one I actually see), so I don't know if Posey is underachieving or dogging it or not up to snuff when opponents "blow by" him. However, I seriously doubt it is the same as Murphy. It COULD be one of the flaws we saw last year over and over, which is the helper rotates off his man to help someone else but no one rotates to cover the new open guy. The open guy gets the ball and drives past a player who can't get back in time. That often makes it look like he got blown away, when the reality is that no one "helped the helper" and left him with the choice either to foul or let someone go by.



A lot of this will be more clear later in pre-season, when we see a more definite move to an expected rotation. We'll then see who is on the floor at the same time and whether or not they complement each other.

Bill,

A couple of things.

1. In Posey's case, although I am not familiar with him as a player, at first glance he just looks out of shape. If you squint your eyes tonight you will have a hard time trying to determine if 41 is James Posey or LaSalle Thompson. There is just no way the guy can guard wing players that are active on a consistant basis right now. In fact vs. Orlando we had him guarding Howard (I'm not kidding) at first I wanted to make sure it wasn't a switch on defense that he just ended up there but after several trips down the floor it was obvious that this was his assignment.

2. Your description of how our defense gets picked apart is very acurate in the two games I've seen so far. It's usually not the first two options that get us it is the third.

PaceBalls
10-13-2010, 11:41 AM
I think that any good coach sticks to his or her system and asks the players to adapt- and if they don't stop playing them or get rid of them.



I think midseason adjustments are tough- the Spurs couldn't do it with Jefferson last year, and they still haven't been able to adjust for him. I don't think it's easy to adjust on the fly- at least not for the more old school coaches.

In our case, do we have enough players who are smart enough, or experienced enough to adapt? I don't think Jim has the option of getting rid of the players who do not get it or adapt. So what is the alternative? Probably to dumb it down a bit. :shrug:

BillS
10-13-2010, 11:41 AM
2. Your description of how our defense gets picked apart is very acurate in the two games I've seen so far. It's usually not the first two options that get us it is the third.

Well, there's an improvement - last year it was usually the second option that got us :-o

flox
10-13-2010, 11:42 AM
The question I have is: In the third case- is it a breakdown of the players or a flaw in the system? I'm pretty sure its a breakdown of system and that player is responsible for the mistake, not a flaw in the system itself. But I'm not 100% sure.

MagicRat
10-13-2010, 11:58 AM
In our case, do we have enough players who are smart enough, or experienced enough to adapt? I don't think Jim has the option of getting rid of the players who do not get it or adapt. So what is the alternative? Probably to dumb it down a bit. :shrug:

The problem is that the players haven't been tough-minded enough to take it on the road......

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 12:01 PM
My concern is you attack the trait as if it is an absolute evil, then say it is OK for some coaches to use it because they win with it, then when it is pointed out that O'Brien has won at a certain level with that trait you go back to it being bad because O'Brien has it.

The JOB system hasn't work out in three years and he is still going to continue with it, if you tell me that his system is taking this team to the playoffs every year and is giving them a chance to win I would not say s@@@ about him or his system.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:04 PM
I thin great coaches adjust their scheme to fit their current personel, not the other way around

Peck
10-13-2010, 12:08 PM
The question I have is: In the third case- is it a breakdown of the players or a flaw in the system? I'm pretty sure its a breakdown of system and that player is responsible for the mistake, not a flaw in the system itself. But I'm not 100% sure.

It's not really one or the other IMO it's a little of both.

If individual players continue to breakdown in the system and you continue to use that system then ultimately the system is the problem even though it may be the issue of individual players breaking down.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

This is why Hicks has been beating the drum of dumbing down the system overall on both sides of the floor.

flox
10-13-2010, 12:23 PM
I thin great coaches adjust their scheme to fit their current personel, not the other way around

I disagree.

If the players are breaking down in the system, make them learn it harder. Get the right players who can play in that system. Give playing time to people who can run the system.


I'm not anti-adaptation. I'm against abandoning a system because the players can't run it is a problem of the players. Drill the rotations until they get them down.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 12:29 PM
I disagree.

If the players are breaking down in the system, make them learn it harder. Get the right players who can play in that system. Give playing time to people who can run the system.


I'm not anti-adaptation. I'm against abandoning a system because the players can't run it is a problem of the players. Drill the rotations until they get them down.
He is been drilling the same system for three years how many more years you think they need to get it?

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:29 PM
I disagree.

If the players are breaking down in the system, make them learn it harder. Get the right players who can play in that system. Give playing time to people who can run the system.


I'm not anti-adaptation. I'm against abandoning a system because the players can't run it is a problem of the players. Drill the rotations until they get them down.

But what his Jim's "system" produced?

Nothing in Indiana

playoff apperance in Phily and Boston, fired after reaching the playoffs

I would agree more im Jim had the resume of a Sloan, Pop, etc.

flox
10-13-2010, 12:37 PM
He is been drilling the same system for three years how many more years you think they need to get it?

Well, there are only 3 players on this roster from 3 years ago that are still on this roster: Granger, Foster, Dunleavy. There are 3 players with 2 years of Jim's defense: Hibbert, Rush, Ford. Everyone else just learned it last year.

Defensive systems take time to learn. This year, we are introducing DC, PG, and Posey to this system. It should be better since a lot of players are in the second year of this system. It should get better.


But what his Jim's "system" produced?

Nothing in Indiana

playoff apperance in Phily and Boston, fired after reaching the playoffs

I would agree more im Jim had the resume of a Sloan, Pop, etc.

How many current NBA coaches have even made the playoffs?

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:38 PM
Well, there are only 3 players on this roster from 3 years ago that are still on this roster: Granger, Foster, Dunleavy. There are 3 players with 2 years of Jim's defense: Hibbert, Rush, Ford. Everyone else just learned it last year.

Defensive systems take time to learn. This year, we are introducing DC, PG, and Posey to this system. It should be better since a lot of players are in the second year of this system. It should get better.



How many current NBA coaches have even made the playoffs?

I believe 16 coaches lead their respective teams to playoffs ever year

BillS
10-13-2010, 12:41 PM
But what his Jim's "system" produced?

Nothing in Indiana

playoff apperance in Phily and Boston, fired after reaching the playoffs

I would agree more im Jim had the resume of a Sloan, Pop, etc.

How many years (heck, how many consecutive GAMES) has Jim been able to put the same players on the floor to run the system?

If an NBA system is so simple that it only takes 2 weeks of training camp to learn it, then either you have players who are so good that the system doesn't matter OR you have a system that is so simple it will be countered within the first 4 weeks of the season.

I'm not saying the system isn't flawed, nor am I saying you shouldn't have different options within the system that depend on the skills of the players. But to simply say "the system didn't work in 3 years therefore the system is completely at fault" is going back to blaming a single factor for a complex interaction. ESPECIALLY when it is defensible to say that the defense WAS better last year.

The other point would be that the criticism of Jim was that he sticks to the same system and that sticking to a system is a fail. What most opponents here are trying to say is that Jim's SYSTEM is a fail (to them), and the problem is the system, not necessarily the trait of sticking to a system.

That's how these discussions get strung out for so long. I think most of the critiquers know what it is they don't like, they just try to widen it (which invalidates the general principle) or look at the wrong part of it (which makes it easy to refute with counter-examples).

Since86
10-13-2010, 12:47 PM
Doesn't Larry Brown or Pop just stop playing players if they don't get their system? I'm pretty sure when in doubt stick with the system.

For example,

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/david_aldridge/10/04/morning-tip-john-wall/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1


I think that any good coach sticks to his or her system and asks the players to adapt- and if they don't stop playing them or get rid of them.



I think midseason adjustments are tough- the Spurs couldn't do it with Jefferson last year, and they still haven't been able to adjust for him. I don't think it's easy to adjust on the fly- at least not for the more old school coaches.

Can you point out one instance in that article where in mentions the word "system" for me please?


to go "back to school," as Popovich put it, on regaining the fundamentals that the Spurs' coach thought Jefferson had lost over the last few seasons.

I think we differ on what "system" means and what "fundamentals" means.

flox
10-13-2010, 12:51 PM
Can you point out one instance in that article where in mentions the word "system" for me please?



I think we differ on what "system" means and what "fundamentals" means.

Sorry, the reason he needs to work on his fundamentals is because his fundamentals are what is necessary for him to fit in the season. Last year because of his poor shooting stroke and his bad footwork, he was very out of place with the Spurs.


It was all basics: pivoting with the ball, jump-stopping, drills designed to improve his efficiency of movement on the court. On the defensive end, Jefferson got reinforcements on the Spurs' defensive concepts, which go into much greater detail than simply pushing everything baseline and keeping guards from dribble penetrations in the paint. He reported to camp last week with 7 percent body fat and a cut-up physique.

He really had bad footwork and looked out of place on the court last year- the way he was taught to move and defend does not fut what the Spurs are looking for him to do within the system.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:54 PM
That's how these discussions get strung out for so long. I think most of the critiquers know what it is they don't like, they just try to widen it (which invalidates the general principle) or look at the wrong part of it (which makes it easy to refute with counter-examples).

I think it boils down to simple differences of opinion. Some lay most of the blame on Jim, others the players

Its all based on perception and it's ok to have a difference of opinion

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:18 PM
Sorry, the reason he needs to work on his fundamentals is because his fundamentals are what is necessary for him to fit in the season. Last year because of his poor shooting stroke and his bad footwork, he was very out of place with the Spurs.



He really had bad footwork and looked out of place on the court last year- the way he was taught to move and defend does not fut what the Spurs are looking for him to do within the system.


And again, that has nothing to do with Pops' system. It has everything to do with fundamentals. Pops isn't telling him that it's his system or else, he said get back to the basics or else.

You're completely misrepresenting what the article said to fit your original claim, and it's just not there.

Hicks
10-13-2010, 01:48 PM
It's not really one or the other IMO it's a little of both.

If individual players continue to breakdown in the system and you continue to use that system then ultimately the system is the problem even though it may be the issue of individual players breaking down.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

This is why Hicks has been beating the drum of dumbing down the system overall on both sides of the floor.

Exactly. It's (usually, probably) the players' fault first, but if it becomes clear that they will continue to fail the system more often than not, and the coach doesn't change the players (be that by choice, or lackthereof), then eventually it becomes the system's fault, too, if the coach doesn't change it, because as long as those are the players on the floor, your only choice left is to change the system to try to salvage the situation.

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:55 PM
Excellent point. I think you nailed the disconnect that we're having from one side to the other.

flox
10-13-2010, 05:56 PM
And again, that has nothing to do with Pops' system. It has everything to do with fundamentals. Pops isn't telling him that it's his system or else, he said get back to the basics or else.

You're completely misrepresenting what the article said to fit your original claim, and it's just not there.

No, I'm not. The reason he needs to work on his fundamentals is because his fundamentals are contributing to his bad play on the Spurs and in general in the Spurs defensive scheme- he isn't rotating well or moving well on the floor. Just look at him play defense and you'll understand.

His sudden lack of confidence in his shot and his poor shooting lead to him camping out at or around 15-20 on the corner in the 09-10 playoff series- when the Spurs offensive system is designed for the person on the baseline to camp out at the corner 3- remnants of the Bruce Bowen sweetspot for 3- it didn't work out for Jefferson because he could not hit that three, so he had to move into the 15-20 range because that is where he was comfortable. Look at the footage of Jefferson in the playoffs last year and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. This really hurts the Spurs spacing.



The drawback, of course, is that this puts Richard Jefferson’s defender a few feet closer to Tim Duncan, which helps opposing doubles and, sometimes, eliminates Duncan’s ability to pass the ball into the corner. This change in how the Spurs space the floor can also effect the driving lanes of perimeter players. Lane clogging help defenders don’t have the same ground to cover.

This is not to say the Spurs have made a change in their offensive theory, just that there is often a disconnect between thought and expression. The Spurs lack the same quality of three point shooter they’ve enjoyed in past years. And the shooters they do have are not as helpful at spacing the floor.


Read more: http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/05/05/phoenix-suns-san-antonio-spurs-three-point-shots/#ixzz12HHrKFj8

I would pull my data from NBA hotspots but it's not loading player data for me right now, and that blog seems to have that hotspot chart I was looking for.

flox
10-13-2010, 05:57 PM
Exactly. It's (usually, probably) the players' fault first, but if it becomes clear that they will continue to fail the system more often than not, and the coach doesn't change the players (be that by choice, or lackthereof), then eventually it becomes the system's fault, too, if the coach doesn't change it, because as long as those are the players on the floor, your only choice left is to change the system to try to salvage the situation.

When do you change? When the players fail after the first year in the system? After 10 games? After 20?

cordobes
10-13-2010, 06:43 PM
His sudden lack of confidence in his shot and his poor shooting lead to him camping out at or around 15-20 on the corner in the 09-10 playoff series- when the Spurs offensive system is designed for the person on the baseline to camp out at the corner 3- remnants of the Bruce Bowen sweetspot for 3- it didn't work out for Jefferson because he could not hit that three, so he had to move into the 15-20 range because that is where he was comfortable. Look at the footage of Jefferson in the playoffs last year and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. This really hurts the Spurs spacing.


So true. It was painful to watch him spotting up 2 steps inside the 3 point line and taking those 18ft jumpers. By the end of the playoffs, his self-confidence was non-existent, he was scared of taking 3 point shots.

His lack of confidence was well justified though, he was horrible all season with the long shot. I have no idea why that happened, his catch and shooting was improving in recent seasons. He had already lost his first-step before joining the Spurs, he doesn't get out on transition as he used to do with Kidd, if he also loses the spot up ability, his offensive game will be reduced to his cuts to the basket and contested midrange shots (two things he's really good at), which would make him a fairly mediocre player.

It's a huge problem for the Spurs because they really need the spot-up shooting from their forwards to make things work. It's the reason Popovich kept playing Finley's corpse and Matt Bonner so many minutes. They need Jefferson to turn his game around.

flox
10-13-2010, 06:57 PM
So true. It was painful to watch him spotting up 2 steps inside the 3 point line and taking those 18ft jumpers. By the end of the playoffs, his self-confidence was non-existent, he was scared of taking 3 point shots.

His lack of confidence was well justified though, he was horrible all season with the long shot. I have no idea why that happened, his catch and shooting was improving in recent seasons. He had already lost his first-step before joining the Spurs, he doesn't get out on transition as he used to do with Kidd, if he also loses the spot up ability, his offensive game will be reduced to his cuts to the basket and contested midrange shots (two things he's really good at), which would make him a fairly mediocre player.

It's a huge problem for the Spurs because they really need the spot-up shooting from their forwards to make things work. It's the reason Popovich kept playing Finley's corpse and Matt Bonner so many minutes. They need Jefferson to turn his game around.

Haha Finley's corpse- so sad yet so true. Bonner was missing all those threes in the playoffs- that was really worrying and a reason I was pushing for Brackins to be drafted, he probably could hit the wing threes that Horry used to hit, and that Manu hits now.

This year they have Neal, but he looks really small and really not that good, but his stroke looks nice.

As for Jefferson..he's been missing a lot in the preseason. It's something I'm really worried about- whatever championship window that is open for them depends on how well Jefferson shoots that corner three. The 18ft range jumper is just so painful to watch. The way he runs the floor when he's with the Spurs always looks so forced too. I'm glad for the offseason work he put but it hasn't translated so far.

I'm also excited to get my first look of Splitter in the NBA..if Blair continues his level of play, Hill emulates last year, and Splitter is good then things might be ok for the Spurs this year..but all of that begins with RJ hitting that three and playing good D.

Sookie
10-13-2010, 07:05 PM
When do you change? When the players fail after the first year in the system? After 10 games? After 20?

In O'brien's case.

I'd say sooner rather than later. He's got to be on a short leash, and if what he's preaching isn't working (after three years..) he ought to change it pretty quickly if it's clearly not working again.

flox
10-13-2010, 07:06 PM
Three years...we've been an average defensive team, and last year we only had 6 players with 1+ season of Jim O"brien's defensive scheme under their belt.

Does that count for anything?

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 07:11 PM
Three years...we've been an average defensive team, and last year we only had 6 players with 1+ season of Jim O"brien's defensive scheme under their belt.

Does that count for anything?

nope

cordobes
10-13-2010, 07:21 PM
Okay, here's an issue..

He wants his team to hold the opposing team to under 45 percent.

The opposing team shot 45.4 percent last season. If we assume there was about 70 attempted baskets (reasonable number)..that's about 32 made baskets (31.7)

44.9 Percent..about 31 made baskets (31.4)

Um...Quite frankly, I don't think that's going to help too much. There needs to be more to a defensive strategy than numbers.


You have to take into account the fact that the pacers were not BAD defensively this year. You all keep jumping on JOB about defense, when it is our OFFENSE that blew last year. We were perfectly average defensively last year by field goal percentage defense. Had our offense been as good as it was 2 years ago with last years defense we were easily a playoff team. So yes if we slightly improve from last year on defense, and our offense improves with the new sets and collison it will make a big difference.

Exactly, daschysta.

More: a FG% allowed below 45% is an extremely good number. Only an handful of teams reach that threshold every season (and I'm pretty sure every single one of them makes the playoffs).

Where the Pacers have more room to improve defensively, it seems to me, is defending the 3pt line and rebounding. Due to the law of diminishing returns, their improvement on FG% allowed will always be minimal.


When it comes to defense I don't care about the system. The system really doesn't matter. What does matter are the players and the coaches. How much the players care and put effort into defense, and how much the coaches focus and emphasize defense.

I agree with this (almost totally).

Analysts and fans tend to overestimate the importance of defensive schemes. If the roster is short on defensive talent, there's no system in the world that will make that team a good defensive squad. Coaches can try to hide the deficiencies of certain players (like having Hibbert dropping down on the p'n'r instead of showing up) and some systems/tweaks/line-ups may do that better than the others, but it won't transform a bad defensive squad into a good one.

During the 08/09 season the Celtics had the best defense in the league... till the moment Kevin Garnett went down with a (season ending) injury. In the last third of the season, they were barely above average defensively - not really better than the Pacers last season. Yet, I wouldn't question how savy are Doc Rivers/Thibodeau extracting defensive production out of their teams.

A team may max out their defensive production at an average level and there's no system that can make them improve from there and no line-up chances that won't cause larger deterioration offensively than gains defensively. Only way of improving is an infusion of talent.

flox
10-13-2010, 07:25 PM
nope

No explanation as to why?

Hicks
10-14-2010, 12:18 PM
When do you change? When the players fail after the first year in the system? After 10 games? After 20?

How ever many games it takes to convince you they're not likely to get it right in the future.

Day-V
10-14-2010, 12:19 PM
Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Cherokee
10-14-2010, 12:39 PM
<green>Of course our defense is weaker -- we don't Murphy back there playing the role of stopper. (I don't know how to make text green)
</green>

pacergod2
10-14-2010, 12:54 PM
I don't think it can be understated how bad our defensive talent has been the last three years.

Focusing on last year: Outside of Rush, we didn't have anybody that great defensively. DJones is a one-dimensional player so his playing time won't increase. Earl and Hibbert were both good at aspects of defense last year. Earl did a good job of deterring the offensive pressure by the opposing PG. He didn't always stay with his man, but he used his smarts to directionally manipulate defensively, which is what I pray we get out of Dunleavy this year. Hibbert blocks a lot of shots with his length. A lot of his fouls were not exclusively his fault. He interferes with the other team's ability to score from close proximity. He struggled a lot last year in pick and roll defense and in man-to-man post defense. He has clearly worked hard on those two phases from what I have seen so far this year, although it has not been a lot. Granger was a combination of hurt and too focused on offense, which was needed because of our poor offensive production outside of Granger.

We are a much LONGER, MORE ATHELTIC team this year than we were last year. We seem to be quicker and stronger collectively, which will only help our defense. I think we have the players to more effectively utilize Jim's systems. Granger can focus more defensively and we clearly upgraded defensively at the PG and PF positions. The most interesting thing for me from an individual defensive perspective is how well does Collison adapt to his role defensively in Jim's system. I think that is the biggest key to our defense this year. Hibbert has improved and we are way more athletic at PF. We already know that Rush and Granger can be very good on the perimeter and they need to prove that they can get better as well.

Edit: When I say we have the players now, much of that progress has come from the development of our young guys. The additions of George, Stephenson, and Rolle will help our depth, but will take a year or two to get them into form for defensive assignments at the NBA level. And we get Foster and Dunleavy back to health, where they will contribute defensively instead of being liabilities due to injury.

flox
10-14-2010, 02:02 PM
How ever many games it takes to convince you they're not likely to get it right in the future.

How good did you expect our defense to be last season? I think our defense is still fine- we can win games and compete for the playoffs if we have average offense and average defense. I think we'll still have average or maybe above average defense this year, but I think our offense will be worse since we will give up more shots and get less rebounds and therefore less attempts, and losing Murphy as a safety valve offsets any improvement with Collison and Hibbert.


Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Yes. I think this doesn't fit since this time we aren't doing the same things with the same people.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 02:18 PM
Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

OK, lets say O'Brien runs this same exact system, but he has the following players in his starting 5

Chris Paul
Kobe
Lebron
Garnett
Dwight Howard.

OK then is it insane expect different results? I think not.

So really that quote which is often referenced in this forum I think is irrelevant

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 02:21 PM
Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Yeah but wasnt he techincally insane as well? :)

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:23 PM
Well then maybe we should just have open try-outs to find players that can do it. The first three seasons worked out so well, why not just let him have 3 more?



How many players do you need to go through before you realize that maybe it's not the players?

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 02:42 PM
Well then maybe we should just have open try-outs to find players that can do it. The first three seasons worked out so well, why not just let him have 3 more?



How many players do you need to go through before you realize that maybe it's not the players?

Apparently all

This is such a heated debate that it makes me laugh. I think there was a reason others turned the Pacer job down and Obie didnt. I really think he would be assistant now, if not hired by the Pacers , and if he is let go at the end of the year, I dont see him having another NBA head coaching job

I mean he has produced nothing after the first year, Bird has went out of his way to get the players that jimmy likes and yet he has an excuse for everything

I just plain and simple cant see how you can defend him (not you 86)

flox
10-14-2010, 02:48 PM
Well then maybe we should just have open try-outs to find players that can do it. The first three seasons worked out so well, why not just let him have 3 more?

Why are people talking like we had a bad defensive season last year?

Blowing plays and looking like we played bad defense with some blown assignments does NOT equal bad defense.

We had perfectly fine defense last year. We've been 15th, 19th, and 14th in defensive rating for the past 3 seasons. What more do you expect from a club with as little talent as ours?

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:52 PM
Now who's the one that isn't reading? Please point out where I talked about defense.

flox
10-14-2010, 03:06 PM
Now who's the one that isn't reading? Please point out where I talked about defense.

Please point out how your sentence makes sense in any other context other than his defense. This is a thread about his defensive system. The quote by Einstein is about the definition of insanity. The previous posts in this thread implied O'Brien is insane because he still is using his defensive system and still using it.

Your post states


Well then maybe we should just have open try-outs to find players that can do it.The first three seasons worked out so well, why not just let him have 3 more?

How many players do you need to go through before you realize that maybe it's not the players?

The third sentence suggests that the first sentence is about not the players. This is a thread about the coach and his defensive system.

Therefore, the most relevant meaning of your post in this specific thread for this specific line of discussion, it most likely refers to defense. Because the it is ambiguous in this case.

Since86
10-14-2010, 03:33 PM
Well if this thread can only be about defensive systems, then I would like to see Einstein's thoughts on the PnR.

I was making a general, overall, statement about my feelings with regards to Jim.

But if you want to talk specifically about defense, and my reponse to your response we can.

Blown plays and missed assignments most definately is bad defense. Just as much as not having the care to play good defense.

Bad defense is 100% blown assignments and blown plays. That's why it's bad. If those aren't part of the equation that makes up bad defense, then what is?

flox
10-14-2010, 03:44 PM
Well if this thread can only be about defensive systems, then I would like to see Einstein's thoughts on the PnR.


I was making a general, overall, statement about my feelings with regards to Jim. I apologize for assuming you wouldn't post a grand statement about your feelings to Jim. From the way you usually post you usually don't make a random statement out of the blue in a very focused topic. It would seem like a non-sequitur. My bad.



But if you want to talk specifically about defense, and my reponse to your response we can.

Blown plays and missed assignments most definately is bad defense. Just as much as not having the care to play good defense.

Bad defense is 100% blown assignments and blown plays. That's why it's bad. If those aren't part of the equation that makes up bad defense, then what is?

I think our defense only looks bad because when we blow up, we really blow up. When our defense works, and on average, we are an average defensive team. Our team isn't bad defensive given our talent level.

I challenge the assertion that our defense is bad. I claim our defense just looks bad and when we miss a rotation with our defensive scheme it looks really bad, but the results and the numbers, and my general belief- is that when it executes it works well.

Since86
10-14-2010, 04:07 PM
I had a longer post but accidently deleted it. I'll sum it up this way.

I don't actively participate in threads about his defense, because I really don't disagree with his defensive philosophy. I have my disagreements with it, but there isn't anything major.

The biggest problem I have with it, is that it shows why his offensive scheme is a complete joke.

His defense tries to keep the ball out of the middle and force outside shots, as it should. His offensive scheme is designed around taking open long shots, and when you make them it softens up the middle to allow pentration. He's an outside in guy, when outside in makes players settle for outside and never actually get to the "in" part of the system.

That's why I make general overall statements about my disagreements with him, when it comes to defense.

And I just thought it was odd that you say even though it looks like bad defense, it isn't. Bad defense always looks like bad defense.

cordobes
10-14-2010, 04:31 PM
How many players do you need to go through before you realize that maybe it's not the players?

It has to be the players, hasn't it? If it's not the players, how do you explain O'Brien coaching top-5 defenses in the past?

Since86
10-14-2010, 04:35 PM
It has to be the players, hasn't it? If it's not the players, how do you explain O'Brien coaching top-5 defenses in the past?

Uh, becaue it's the past?

MJ was once the best player in the NBA. Because he was in the past do I expect it out of him now? No...... Whether you like it or not, in professional sports you're evaluated on what you've done recently, not with what you've done with other franchises.

cordobes
10-14-2010, 04:42 PM
Uh, becaue it's the past?

It's always the past. When you were saying the system hasn't worked it was because of its results in the past.

We're discussing a system that has worked with some players (and still does) & hasn't worked with other players - which is pretty much the record of every other system in the history of basketball. The only logic conclusion is that it's about the players.

The other possible explanation one could think of is that it's about the jerseys or the name of the team.

flox
10-14-2010, 06:41 PM
The biggest problem I have with it, is that it shows why his offensive scheme is a complete joke.

His defense tries to keep the ball out of the middle and force outside shots, as it should. His offensive scheme is designed around taking open long shots, and when you make them it softens up the middle to allow pentration. He's an outside in guy, when outside in makes players settle for outside and never actually get to the "in" part of the system.

I think the main difference is that when it comes to O'Brien's system- it tries to make the opposing team take lower percentage shots- which is why he is adamant about FG% defense and paint defense. In this sense I think he likes giving up midrange and long 2's, and prevents 3's and paint shots.

Whereas I think his offense is about taking the best overall open shot- to me this is different because I think inherently an open shot is a higher percentage shot than a non-open shot.

So when I think of his offensive/defensive system- I think of how it makes sense to me in the following way:

His defense is to force the ball to move to a place where the other team takse lower percentage shots.

His offense is to allow his players to take the first open (good) percentage shot. To me that isn't a problem.

Although I would like him to go inside out- when our best player is a better outside than inside player I think I can live with our offense going outside than in- even though it seems he wants his ball movement to go inside than out.



And I just thought it was odd that you say even though it looks like bad defense, it isn't. Bad defense always looks like bad defense.

I think it's just a breakdown of the players which causes the defense to look really bad when its bad. Hence the bad image sticks in our head- causing this perception of bad defense- because we remember the bad but don't get to often see the good.


It's always the past. When you were saying the system hasn't worked it was because of its results in the past.

We're discussing a system that has worked with some players (and still does) & hasn't worked with other players - which is pretty much the record of every other system in the history of basketball. The only logic conclusion is that it's about the players.

The other possible explanation one could think of is that it's about the jerseys or the name of the team.

I agree with you cordobes- but we could argue that maybe the dominant player makeup of the league has changed- maybe when he was coaching the best players in the league were shut down by his defense.

Now, a few years later- different superstars, different style of play- his defense is flawed because the players play differently. So maybe it isn't our players but the opposing team's players.