PDA

View Full Version : So What Are Your Expectations For The Pacers?



Pages : [1] 2

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 11:03 AM
http://www.indycornrows.com/2010/10/12/1746442/so-what-are-your-expectations-for-the-pacers
By Tom Lewis



Last week I was out of town and only saw three quarters of the three preseason games before watching the Houston game last night. But I've been astounded by the venom and despair in my email box, not to mention some comments and various FanPosts with folks freaking out over the performance of the team during the three preseason losses.

So I have a question: What are your expectations for this season?

Recently, I previewed the season and figured a middle-of-the-road win total would be 36 games which I think leaves a margin for error of about +/- 7 games depending on health issues and players performing to their career averages.

That's not real good, but I felt the team could certainly improve this year while not necessarily winnng many more games than last year.

For me the excitement of this season centers around the different storylines and how they emerge. The Pacers could've kept Troy Murphy around, hoped everyone stayed healthy and made a solid run at 45 wins, while likely winning closer to 40. Instead they've finally turned over some responsibility to youth with an eye toward developing the young core.

Consider the starting lineup for the current roster the Pacers are taking into the season. Darren Collison, Roy Hibbert and Josh McRoberts are all 23 years old and still in the process of developing their NBA games. Do you really think they're going to deliver cosistent production through an 82-game season?

Another area of interest is Paul George and the playing time he may earn as a rookie. The 20-year-old rook has shown some defensive acumen that may get him on the court for more than spot minutes this year. Personally, I wasn't expecting George to play much as he developed his body and game for the NBA, but it looks like he'll have a chance to play early in the season. Now if he can just make a shot or two he may be a regular.

But I'd rather see George out there playing and missing shots in an NBA crash course than have him going months at a time without any significant minutes. That's not good for the Pacers win/loss record, though.

Of course, these are practice games (as Mark Boyle would put it) that the Pacers are losing and Jim O'Brien is giving the young players, especially George, a good chunk of the playing minutes despite how well they are playing. I still expect Mike Dunleavy to play more minutes in the regular season as the team tries to win, but if George can sneak into the tail end of the rotation I'll be quite happy.

The other mystery to me is how people are so split on Josh McRoberts. McRoberts seems like the least of the Pacers' worries right now and I'm wondering if those who complain simply haven't seen him play. His game has developed by leaps and bounds since he arrived here as trade filler and effort is never an issue nor has his production when he's on the court. I'm not saying he's the final answer for the team's power forward of the future, but I also wouldn't completely rule it out. Energy/effort guy off the bench would be wonderful, but again, that's not where the team is right now.

One last thing to consider is the coaching situation. There's going to have to be a player mutiny for Jim O'Brien to be fired this year. Larry Bird stated over the summer that with the team in a state of transition, waiting on a coaching change is prudent considering that the roster will be drastically different next year combined with the NBA labor situation which will impact how they can put the future roster together. It would be kind of hard to attract a quality coach who doesn't know which players he'll be coaching.

Not to mention, Bird is in the last year of his contract so he's not sure if he'll be back whether by his choice or the team's. A new leader in the front office would want to choose the coach, so any coaching change this year, including Bird coming down from the front office, would be an interim situation at best.
So when you consider these few issues, alongwith other unmentioned issues (trade talk, injuries, adversity), we're dealing with a situation that is ripe for frustration. I realize I may be more numb to some of this than most, but we're just three practice games into the preseason schedule and from some of the reaction thus far, we're trending toward a complete meltdown before Thanksgiving. My hope is that's not the case, because even a frustrating season can still be interesting to follow.

While I felt the need to serve up a little sanity check on everyone's expectations, this is by no means intended to discourage discussion, debate or dissent among the community about each game or the day's events. In fact, quite the contrary.

Identifying problems is easy, but offering a take on those problems with potential solutions is intriguing. Let me encourage you to dig deeper into the issues. Instead of blanket statements about certain players or the coaching, offer some details or examples for others to chew on. Many of you are fabulous at just this, so please continue sharing your thoughts and observations. Also, I continue to appreciate how the community can police itself through heated debate and keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

Look, we're all in this together so we might as well make it interesting. Hopefully the Pacers will do their part and make things more interesting than expected.

Dr. Awesome
10-12-2010, 11:15 AM
Honestly, I expect O'Brien to ruin the season like he has the last 3 years.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 11:22 AM
Honestly, I expect O'Brien to ruin the season like he has the last 3 years.

I agree 110%

But then when I , God forbid, express these setiments, I get a "witch hunt mentality" that seems to want to defend Jim at every opportunity, even vehemently

I honestly dont understand how anyone can defend this man

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 11:25 AM
I'm not expecting much

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm not expecting much

Can you cahnge your avatar to replace the soccer ball with Jims head? :)

Kid Minneapolis
10-12-2010, 11:35 AM
Ya, .500 ball if we're lucky. We got some pieces, but we don't have a system that I have much confidence in.

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 11:39 AM
Yay, another thread about how much we hate Jim O'Brien. Do the Pacers even have players anymore?

Diamond Dave
10-12-2010, 11:46 AM
I had said before preseason that I felt that going .500 was a good possibilty, with a playoff berth at either 7th or 8th.

I'd be lying if I said that the preseason isnt squashing my hopes be the game. And its not because we're losing, its how we're losing. It looks like last season's team, just a some new hopeless faces. My opinion of Danny is going down like the Hindenburg. He has become a no defense playing chucker. Roy is still weak and soft. And JOB continues to say one thing and then do another. Our offense is lost, our defense is non-existent. Lord help our Pacers.

BillS
10-12-2010, 12:09 PM
Yay, another thread about how much we hate Jim O'Brien. Do the Pacers even have players anymore?

No, just the worst coach in the history of organized basketball, as well as the stupidest Front Office because they don't recognize that we could be a 100-win team if they just had a different coach.

Oh, and a collection of the stupidest basketball fans in the known universe, since we keep asking for specifics and denying that things like 2-4 on 3-pt shots is EXACTLY the same as 5-12 and therefore proves the ruin of another All-NBA first team player by insidious forces of E-vil.

BillS
10-12-2010, 12:13 PM
And JOB continues to say one thing and then do another. Our offense is lost, our defense is non-existent. Lord help our Pacers.

This I don't understand. If enough of a practice is being spent on defense that the media comments on it, how is this somehow that JOB really doesn't want to emphasize defense?

There are valid statements that he should be changing how the defense is doing things instead of trying the same old thing, but he never said he was changing how he viewed defense or how he expected it to be played. Therefore, the criticism should be that his defense continues to be unworkable, not that he's saying he wants more defense but that he really somehow doesn't.

I continue to cry into the wilderness that people should bash the guy for the things he really is or isn't doing, rather than picking the handy sound bite and piling onto it.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 12:52 PM
This I don't understand. If enough of a practice is being spent on defense that the media comments on it, how is this somehow that JOB really doesn't want to emphasize defense?

There are valid statements that he should be changing how the defense is doing things instead of trying the same old thing, but he never said he was changing how he viewed defense or how he expected it to be played. Therefore, the criticism should be that his defense continues to be unworkable, not that he's saying he wants more defense but that he really somehow doesn't.

I continue to cry into the wilderness that people should bash the guy for the things he really is or isn't doing, rather than picking the handy sound bite and piling onto it.

How about simply looking at a win loss record that has gotten worse in three consecutive years?

Now we are only looking at facts, not opinoins

It is a fact he has complied a losing record in each season as head coach. It is a fact that the record has gotten even worse the last two years

Thereby this can not be a bashing of a coach but merely a factual record

Trophy
10-12-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm expecting to be in the playoffs even with Jim.

Hopefully this won't just be wishful thinking and we actually do get in.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 01:10 PM
How about simply looking at a win loss record that has gotten worse in three consecutive years?

Now we are only looking at facts, not opinoins

It is a fact he has complied a losing record in each season as head coach. It is a fact that the record has gotten even worse the last two years

Thereby this can not be a bashing of a coach but merely a factual record

OK, so you think any and every coach who had the same record in years 1 and 2 and then worse record in season #3 by 4 games should be fired regardless of anything else that is going on. And every coach that has done the opposite shouldn't be fired, regardless of other factors?

PaceBalls
10-12-2010, 01:24 PM
Lord knows I really do not like Jim, but he hasn't exactly been handed a decent team of smart players. I think other coaches could do alot better, but I doubt that any of them would take the job this year. This team is more young and raw than old and savvy...

Larry Bird IS walking through that door, but, alas, he is not suiting up.

My biggest concern is the rotation. That is Jim's biggest problem IMO, he doesn't seem to see which players gel together well. I expect alot of Posey at the 4 and Mike D at the 2. Which of course is disastrous, but they are the vets who seem to understand the NBA game.

I was pretty sunshiney after the trade, but seeing how raw these guys are... which is the majority of the roster... I think we are going to be worse than last year. I can see us getting a top 3 pick in next years draft.

PaceBalls
10-12-2010, 01:26 PM
OK, so you think any and every coach who had the same record in years 1 and 2 and then worse record in season #3 by 4 games should be fired regardless of anything else that is going on. And every coach that has done the opposite shouldn't be fired, regardless of other factors?

Ever seen the Pet Detective? Where he talks out of butt? I see that alot around here

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DrRE1LDY_U?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0xcc2550&amp;color2=0 xe87a9f"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DrRE1LDY_U?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0xcc2550&amp;color2=0 xe87a9f" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 01:28 PM
This I don't understand. If enough of a practice is being spent on defense that the media comments on it, how is this somehow that JOB really doesn't want to emphasize defense?

There are valid statements that he should be changing how the defense is doing things instead of trying the same old thing, but he never said he was changing how he viewed defense or how he expected it to be played. Therefore, the criticism should be that his defense continues to be unworkable, not that he's saying he wants more defense but that he really somehow doesn't.

I continue to cry into the wilderness that people should bash the guy for the things he really is or isn't doing, rather than picking the handy sound bite and piling onto it.

We're lost like Moses.

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 01:30 PM
OK, so you think any and every coach who had the same record in years 1 and 2 and then worse record in season #3 by 4 games should be fired regardless of anything else that is going on. And every coach that has done the opposite shouldn't be fired, regardless of other factors?

That is the way the NBA works, how long do you want to keep JOB until you figure that his plan is not working? He is been here for three years already and that is more than enough to see if he is the right coach and as you know I don't think he is.

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 01:33 PM
I don't know everyone is so eager to throw a new coach into a situation that probably won't produce more than 42 wins anyway...

If we brought a new coach in, you guys would just be complaining about him by the end of this season as well. It's not a good situation to bring a new coach into.

Wait til next offseason, and then make the move.

BillS
10-12-2010, 01:34 PM
How about simply looking at a win loss record that has gotten worse in three consecutive years?

Now we are only looking at facts, not opinoins

It is a fact he has complied a losing record in each season as head coach. It is a fact that the record has gotten even worse the last two years

Thereby this can not be a bashing of a coach but merely a factual record

The problem is that every other reason for such a thing is tossed out as an excuse, which makes it a tautology: "the only valid reason for losing is a bad coach, the team was losing, therefore the coach is bad".

That is the reason I want specific "why" about how come JOB is the sole reason for those losses, and the "why" needs to be grounded in something other than a sound bite. Lord knows I wrangle with Seth, but he gives sound reasons for his poor, misguided opinions :zip:

At a certain point calling everything but what supports your own opinion an "excuse" is just an excuse...

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 01:43 PM
OK, so you think any and every coach who had the same record in years 1 and 2 and then worse record in season #3 by 4 games should be fired regardless of anything else that is going on. And every coach that has done the opposite shouldn't be fired, regardless of other factors?

in this particular case absolutley yes

There are always going to be room for "excuses" but judging the Jim O'Brien era as a whole, I think he should have been let go at the all star break last year

I also think if he were in a bigger market he would have been fired at minimum, 2 years ago

I struggle to see anything in the last two years that would leave me to believe there is progress, in fact I seen a downward spiral

Please remeber it was Larry Bird himself who said after firing RC that "coaches get tuned out by their players after 3 years" so Bird essentially went against his own beliefs in extending Jim

I do think, however, that might have been more of a Simon call though

Trophy
10-12-2010, 01:45 PM
I think we have more defense at PF with Tyler and maybe Josh plus we have PG leadership in Darren.

It's important to have Danny's team leadership at SF because he can do almost everything every positon is supposed to do.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 01:46 PM
The problem is that every other reason for such a thing is tossed out as an excuse, which makes it a tautology: "the only valid reason for losing is a bad coach, the team was losing, therefore the coach is bad".

That is the reason I want specific "why" about how come JOB is the sole reason for those losses, and the "why" needs to be grounded in something other than a sound bite. Lord knows I wrangle with Seth, but he gives sound reasons for his poor, misguided opinions :zip:

At a certain point calling everything but what supports your own opinion an "excuse" is just an excuse...

I never said Jim was the entire reason, but this is a results orientated business, and judging by the lack of progress in my opinion, Jim needs to go. Again I take it back to sales, if my revenue stream is increasingly going downward, regardless of circumstances, I am ultimetly responsible, and will be judged on thsoe numbers regardless. In using this methology, Jim would be relieved of his duties

Tom White
10-12-2010, 01:50 PM
We're lost like Moses.

I once had a woman tell me that Moses' big problem was that he was like most men. He wouldn't stop and ask for directions. :laugh:

Part Timer
10-12-2010, 02:24 PM
I never said Jim was the entire reason, but this is a results orientated business, and judging by the lack of progress in my opinion, Jim needs to go. Again I take it back to sales, if my revenue stream is increasingly going downward, regardless of circumstances, I am ultimetly responsible, and will be judged on thsoe numbers regardless. In using this methology, Jim would be relieved of his duties

The part of your metaphor that you don't consider is that if the product isn't good (or there are better products available), it's a tough sell. In this case you are blaming the salesman for everything and overlooking the fact that the product itself has to improve.

BillS
10-12-2010, 02:28 PM
I never said Jim was the entire reason, but this is a results orientated business, and judging by the lack of progress in my opinion, Jim needs to go. Again I take it back to sales, if my revenue stream is increasingly going downward, regardless of circumstances, I am ultimetly responsible, and will be judged on thsoe numbers regardless. In using this methology, Jim would be relieved of his duties

But IS Jim ultimately responsible? If the FO hasn't given him the players, or if you grant that some of those excuses are really valid reasons, and if you wouldn't be able to replace him with anyone useful for the same money, you might not let him go even if the results aren't what you want.

Not every job is measured solely by the bottom line, and those which are often shouldn't be.

In my business, if the numbers match or are better than the forecast, and if the forecast was agreed upon by management and those responsible for making the numbers, then those responsible for making the numbers have done their jobs.

By your methodology, if a great coach is suddenly given an all-rookie team, he'd be fired because his numbers went down and he is ultimately responsible. It's more complex than that.

What you are saying, I think, is that you believe that there were available coaches at no major salary increase who wanted the job with the Pacers who would have done a better job. To say you could get a coach for the same money who would do the same would essentially be advocating change for change's sake.

Since86
10-12-2010, 02:35 PM
But IS Jim ultimately responsible? If the FO hasn't given him the players, or if you grant that some of those excuses are really valid reasons, and if you wouldn't be able to replace him with anyone useful for the same money, you might not let him go even if the results aren't what you want.

Not every job is measured solely by the bottom line, and those which are often shouldn't be.

I agree with you, but let's not act like that's what has happened or is happening.

Jim has gotten how many new players in the past 3 years?

EDIT: And I think we would see a better Pacers team with a different coach, obviously depending on the coach. But even Jim's offensive system doesn't mesh well with his players.

If Mark Jackson, because he isn't proven and isn't willing to prove himself, is the other option I'd rather stay with Jim. (Ouch that hurts.) But a change does need to be made, and as soon as possible. If that means after this season due to contract reasons, then so be it, but he should have never had his option picked up in the first place.

Hicks
10-12-2010, 02:40 PM
Were the new players any good? Were the new players better than the ones they replaced?

BillS
10-12-2010, 02:45 PM
Were the new players any good? Were the new players better than the ones they replaced?

Were they better in the areas they were picked up for but worse in other areas?

BillS
10-12-2010, 02:48 PM
If that means after this season due to contract reasons, then so be it, but he should have never had his option picked up in the first place.

Who would we have picked up for a single year? Who would want to take the team not knowing who would be GM if he signed a multi-year contract and therefore not know what players he'd have to work with after his first year?

As I've said, there are more reasons than just that bottom line.

The real irony is that I don't particularly care for JOB as a coach, but the circumstances aren't such that there were better or more effective coaches waiting in the wings without other highly probably disadvantages or problems.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 02:48 PM
The part of your metaphor that you don't consider is that if the product isn't good (or there are better products available), it's a tough sell. In this case you are blaming the salesman for everything and overlooking the fact that the product itself has to improve.

I understand not having top talent, what I dont understand is not improving , but in fact going backwards

BillS
10-12-2010, 02:54 PM
I understand not having top talent, what I dont understand is not improving , but in fact going backwards

What if the factory is retooling and the product itself gets worse before it gets better? Is that still the salesman's fault?

What you'd expect from a competent management - granted, so few of those seem to exist - is that, once everyone agrees those are no longer factors, the ball is in the salesman's court.

This, I think, is what Bird has been saying. He believes the product has not been stable enough to fairly judge the salesman for sales problems, and rather than simply firing him because it would be the easy or most visible change he is trying to fix the real problem. Now the real problem is, if not fixed, expected to be significantly ameliorated. Given that and given no recurrence (the factory suddenly burns down (the starters all go down to major injuries)), this is the time for it to be on the shoulders of the sales team.

Looking at it another way, maybe management's real forecast and expectation was so low that getting these numbers, no matter the year-to-year change, has been considered as "keeping the company afloat" - would you dump the sales guy who does that?

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 02:54 PM
What you are saying, I think, is that you believe that there were available coaches at no major salary increase who wanted the job with the Pacers who would have done a better job. To say you could get a coach for the same money who would do the same would essentially be advocating change for change's sake.

What I am saying Bill is that regardless of if their is a better coach willing to take the job is speculation, we dont really know who was offferd or who turned it down

Why not try someone who HASNT been given a chance , instead of one like Obie who has been given multiple chances

an example could be Mark Jackson, Tyrone Corbin, or other who have paid their dues as assistant coaches but are overlooked when a coaching position becomes open and they would rather recycle the same tired candidates

I dont know if a new coach would make a difference, but I do know that in my opinion Jim has been given more than ample time to produce better results and has failed

You can go all day talking about the players, but even if we had the roster as NJ Nets, I would expect some improvement. I dont think Jim should have taken this squad to the ECF , but I do think its weak to say because of the palyers he had it justifies his win loss record consistently going down

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 02:57 PM
Were the new players any good? Were the new players better than the ones they replaced?

But how does this excuse Jim from showing progress? What any employer wants to see is progress, to know the company is moving in the right direction. I dont think Jim is soley responsible for the outcome, but I do think to expect to see a better record in year 4 of his tenure then year 1. If the trend is more losses than the prior year, to me that shows the team moving in the wrong direction

Since86
10-12-2010, 03:02 PM
Who would we have picked up for a single year? Who would want to take the team not knowing who would be GM if he signed a multi-year contract and therefore not know what players he'd have to work with after his first year?

As I've said, there are more reasons than just that bottom line.

The real irony is that I don't particularly care for JOB as a coach, but the circumstances aren't such that there were better or more effective coaches waiting in the wings without other highly probably disadvantages or problems.

I would have been content with hiring Mark prior to this season. He could have been signed relatively cheap, and if not then the deal would have been off. He would have gotten his stripes, you would have found out if we was worth a darn as a coach, and you still would of had a throw away season, trying to get your house in order.

And as far as Hicks question. Jim complained he didn't have enough athletic defenders. He got what he asked for when Bird signed Earl, DJones, and Solo. Especially DJones. He was signed specifically for defensive reasons, and that can be said for Solo really.

BillS
10-12-2010, 03:02 PM
What I am saying Bill is that regardless of if their is a better coach willing to take the job is speculation, we dont really know who was offferd or who turned it down

Why not try someone who HASNT been given a chance , instead of one like Obie who has been given multiple chances

an example could be Mark Jackson, Tyrone Corbin, or other who have paid their dues as assistant coaches but are overlooked when a coaching position becomes open and they would rather recycle the same tired candidates

I dont know if a new coach would make a difference, but I do know that in my opinion Jim has been given more than ample time to produce better results and has failed

You can go all day talking about the players, but even if we had the roster as NJ Nets, I would expect some improvement. I dont think Jim should have taken this squad to the ECF , but I do think its weak to say because of the palyers he had it justifies his win loss record consistently going down

So, you have a product you know is flawed.

You have a salesman who isn't increasing his numbers while you are trying to rework the product.

You have experienced salesmen who refuse to come work for you because they know how flawed your product is.

Your solution is to hire guys who either have never been salesmen before (though they've used the product a lot), or who have very little experience in sales, because they might do better?

I'd have to say this completely boggles my quality control analysis mind. If the next year is a complete flop, how do you know if it was the product or the new sales guy?

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 03:05 PM
So for those that keep saying that JOB did not have the right players to win, please tell me how many more years you think he needs? two more? Five more? Ten?

Since86
10-12-2010, 03:06 PM
But how does this excuse Jim from showing progress? What any employer wants to see is progress, to know the company is moving in the right direction. I dont think Jim is soley responsible for the outcome, but I do think to expect to see a better record in year 4 of his tenure then year 1. If the trend is more losses than the prior year, to me that shows the team moving in the wrong direction

That is more more point. What progress has been shown?

Danny isn't a better player. We complained all season last year about how players like Rush, Roy, AJ, etc were used. We complained that Josh couldn't even see the floor until the end of the season, and when he did play good it was "irrelevant" to the head coach.

Sure the team got more talented, but they got more talented in spite of Jim, not because of him.

We still have the same complaint with Jim, as we did the very first day he was signed as coach. His system. His system, both offensively and defensively, just does not fit the players on the roster. And I don't think it would fit any NBA team, but it is designed as a college scheme where he can pick and choose what types of players he can get.

If he's a babysitter for the time being, then fine. But I'm afraid he's not looked on like that from the top.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 03:07 PM
So, you have a product you know is flawed.

You have a salesman who isn't increasing his numbers while you are trying to rework the product.

You have experienced salesmen who refuse to come work for you because they know how flawed your product is.

Your solution is to hire guys who either have never been salesmen before (though they've used the product a lot), or who have very little experience in sales, because they might do better?

I'd have to say this completely boggles my quality control analysis mind. If the next year is a complete flop, how do you know if it was the product or the new sales guy?

Bill

if you are going to try and twist everything around then there is no pint in contuining dialogue

I disagee with you that the "product" is so inferrior, and even if we had the worst team in the entire NBA, why would you not expect to at least slightly improve year after year., or better yet except going backwards

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 03:12 PM
Thomas out with one year left on contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1604235
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.


INDIANAPOLIS -- Evidently, it didn't take long for Larry Bird to find a replacement for Isiah Thomas.

Sources have told ESPN's David Aldridge that Bird, the Indiana Pacers' president of basketball operations, has decided to hire Rick Carlisle as the club's next head coach. An announcement could come as early as Thursday.

Thomas was fired by the Pacers on Wednesday.

Carlisle spent the past two seasons as coach of the Detroit Pistons before being fired in May. Carlisle spoke with Bird on Tuesday night and said he was interested.

"He's my first choice," Bird said.

Carlisle told Aldridge on Wednesday that "nothing's done, but hopefully we can work something out."

Sources now indicate things have been worked out.

Carlisle and Bird's relationship dates to the 1980s when the two were teammates with the Boston Celtics. Carlisle also was an assistant for Bird during 1997-2000, but was passed over by current Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh in favor of Thomas.

Carlisle earned 2001-02 NBA Coach of the Year honors during his brief tenure in Detroit.

As for the firing of Thomas, Bird insisted that he took his new job less than two months ago with an open mind about Thomas' future.

But he wasted little time in making his first major move, firing Thomas.

"I just had a gut feeling this wasn't going to work," Bird said of a surprise move that came only two months before the start of the season.

Thomas told Aldridge that the Pacers called him Tuesday night in San Juan, where Thomas was attending the Olympic qualifying tournament, and asked him to return to Indianapolis to meet with Pacers management.

"I definitely still want to coach, and I know I can coach," Thomas told Aldridge. "I guess I'm disappointed that Larry and I didn't get a chance to work together. I'm disappointed he didn't give that a chance, for us to work together."
Bird said he didn't feel comfortable with the Pacers' direction after a second-half swoon that knocked them out of first place in the Eastern Conference and into third.
Bird also said there were other problems with Thomas.

"I spoke to him one day in a meeting, and I talked to him one day on the phone. The communication wasn't really there," Bird said.

Thomas arrived in Indianapolis early Wednesday and went straight to Conseco Fieldhouse, where he met with Bird.

"I said I'm disappointed he didn't give himself an opportunity to know me," Thomas told the Associated Press about his conversation with Bird. "I think he would have liked me had he got to known me."


Bird said he would have fired Thomas even if Carlisle was not available.

Bird and Thomas were contentious rivals from their days of leading the Celtics and Pistons to NBA titles in the 1980s.

When he was hired July 11, Bird walked off the podium at a news conference and shook hands with Thomas -- but neither smiled.

The Pacers were 131-115 in the regular season under Thomas, making the playoffs all three seasons but never advancing past the first round. Speculation swirled toward the end of the season that Thomas would not be back for the final year of his four-year contract.

Walsh, however, said Thomas would return, though they wouldn't discuss an extension. Walsh said on Wednesday he agreed with Bird on the decision to fire Thomas.

Walsh said Thomas would "possibly" have remained on if Bird had not been hired, though he had similar concerns the Pacers wouldn't regroup under Thomas.

"I would have been very worried about going into the season because I would agree that I think that it could blow up early," Walsh said. "And if it did, then we'd be in a worse situation."

The team said it would honor the final year of Thomas' contract.

Bird guided the Pacers to the 2000 NBA Finals and had the best three-year record in their NBA history during his time as coach.

"I've always said, three years and you need a new coach," Bird joked.

Indiana had the best record in the Eastern Conference at the All-Star break this past season, making Thomas the All-Star coach, but went 14-19 the rest of the season and lost in the first round of the playoffs to Boston.

Pacers players had continued to voice support for Thomas. Jermaine O'Neal said before he re-signed with the team last month that he would not play for anybody but Thomas with the Pacers.

The re-signing of O'Neal and free-agent Reggie Miller, along with the trade of All-Star Brad Miller all fell on Walsh as he eased out of his role as head decision maker.

This one was Bird's.

"I think a new coach coming in is going to bring some freshness, a new style and hopefully he can play the game the way I like it to be played," Bird said.

Bird said the new coach would likely bring in his own assistants.

The biggest criticism of Thomas was his inconsistent rotations. While most players preferred a set role, Thomas made his decisions on his own feelings for a particular game and team matchups.

Thomas, who led Indiana to the 1981 NCAA championship, retired as a player after the 1994 season, averaging 19.2 points and 9.3 assists over his 13-year NBA career, all with the Pistons. He won NBA titles in 1989 and 1990.

He then became vice president and part-owner of the Toronto Raptors and later worked as an NBC analyst on NBA games before joining the Pacers.

"Now we have to look at our team and see if we have the chemistry on the team that can win together and work together," Bird said. "This is just starting."

Now Bill , please enlighten me on how Bird can keep Jim after the treatment of Isiah who had a much better record? Do you see the contridictions in bold?

Isiah took over after the season in which MJ, Dale, Smits were gone and we still made the playoffs.

By your methology if Obrien did this he would deserve a five year extension

BillS
10-12-2010, 03:14 PM
I would have been content with hiring Mark prior to this season. He could have been signed relatively cheap, and if not then the deal would have been off. He would have gotten his stripes, you would have found out if we was worth a darn as a coach, and you still would of had a throw away season, trying to get your house in order.

But if you hire Mark (who, as I recall, adamantly did not want the job, but we'll let that go) and the season turns out EXACTLY the same, how do you KNOW if Mark is or is not a good coach? Even a great chef can't make a ****** sandwich into a gourmet meal.


And as far as Hicks question. Jim complained he didn't have enough athletic defenders. He got what he asked for when Bird signed Earl, DJones, and Solo. Especially DJones. He was signed specifically for defensive reasons, and that can be said for Solo really.

And my contention is that the defense did improve but the offense collapsed because no one could hit a wide open shot. A valid criticism is that JOB didn't find a way to get guys hitting shots, maybe by shooting from closer range or implementing a more structured offense, but it isn't valid to say that from 08-09 we needed defenders, from 09-10 we got those defenders and nothing else at all changed.

Now, I've seen nothing to say that Jim thinks ONLY defensive improvement is needed. I've only seen an article that focused on defense that asked him and quoted him about defense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Most people in this argument would be shocked JOB even tried to work on defense, so we might take it as granted that he'll work on offense as well.

If I was to say why I think the group we have this year is capable of better than last year, it would be to say that we have defenders who are not one-dimensional, so we don't lose the offense when focusing on defense. The problem with judging Jim on this is that we have no idea for the purposes of this article whether or not he said anything more than what was quoted, which could have been selected as much because it was simple rather than because it was the most accurate.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 03:22 PM
Thomas out with one year left on contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1604235
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.



Now Bill , please enlighten me on how Bird can keep Jim after the treatment of Isiah who had a much better record? Do you see the contridictions in bold?

Isiah took over after the season in which MJ, Dale, Smits were gone and we still made the playoffs.

By your methology if Obrien did this he would deserve a five year extension

The pacers in isiah's last season maybe were the most talented team in the NBA. (The following season they won 61 games minus Brad Miller) Plus IMO Isiah had clearly lost the team as the pacers had the best record in the NBA at the AS break but then finished the season in bad fashion and lost in the first round to an inferior Celtics team coaches ironically enough by Jim O'Brien.

I will never forget the disparaging comments both Slick and Mark made about isiah after he was fired.

IMO O'Brien is a better coach than Isiah

BillS
10-12-2010, 03:26 PM
Thomas out with one year left on contract
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1604235
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.



Now Bill , please enlighten me on how Bird can keep Jim after the treatment of Isiah who had a much better record? Do you see the contridictions in bold?

Isiah took over after the season in which MJ, Dale, Smits were gone and we still made the playoffs.

By your methology if Obrien did this he would deserve a five year extension

That last claim is ridiculous and serves to trivialize the argument.

To address the rest, it is about expectations from the front office.

Isiah started with a team that was better, was expected to take the team to the next level, and did not. The players replacing Dale, Jackson, and Rik were not simply draft picks or one-dimensional players. Isiah also pretty much had the same tools to work with his entire time here, including no major injuries.

JOB started with a team that was in a funk and was only expected to keep things going until the cap situation was worked out and the next phase began. JOB had valid reasons why one or more of his three years blew up for reasons over which he had no control. He wasn't expected to do more than get the team into a situation where it could get more competitive.

Last but not least, when Isiah was coaching there were a number of coaches available who actually wanted the Pacers job for a long term stretch. They don't exist now.

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 03:26 PM
We should rename this thread,

"So what are your expectations for Jim O'Brien?"

And we should rename PD,

"Jim O'Brien Digest"

Part Timer
10-12-2010, 03:37 PM
The pacers in isiah's last season maybe were the most talented team in the NBA. (The following season they won 61 games minus Brad Miller) Plus IMO Isiah had clearly lost the team as the pacers had the best record in the NBA at the AS break but then finished the season in bad fashion and lost in the first round to an inferior Celtics team coaches ironically enough by Jim O'Brien.

I will never forget the disparaging comments both Slick and Mark made about isiah after he was fired.

IMO O'Brien is a better coach than Isiah

I think it goes further than this. Bird/Walsh were under contract. They could make a decision at that time and be around to live with it. This time around Bird is not under contract after this coming year. Heck, there's even a legitimate question about ownership.

I'm not going to shed tears over O'brien being jettisoned, but i understand why he is still here for this year.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 03:39 PM
JOB started with a team that was in a funk and was only expected to keep things going until the cap situation was worked out and the next phase began. JOB had valid reasons why one or more of his three years blew up for reasons over which he had no control. He wasn't expected to do more than get the team into a situation where it could get more competitive.

Isiaha's tenure

Season 1 41-41, Finished 4th in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Isiah Thomas (41-41)

Season 2 42-40, Finished 3rd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Isiah Thomas (42-40)

Season 3 48-34, Finished 2nd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Isiah Thomas (48-34)

Then he was fired

Jim O'Brien

Season 1 36-46, Finished 3rd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Jim O'Brien (36-46)

Season 2 36-46, Finished 4th in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Jim O'Brien (36-46)

Season 3 32-50, Finished 4th in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Jim O'Brien (32-50)

Then his contract option for year 4 was picked up

So please tell me why Isiaha is a worse coach and deserved to be fired, but somehow magically O'Brien gets a pass after after contiously posting a record that gets worse every year

BillS
10-12-2010, 03:40 PM
Bill

if you are going to try and twist everything around then there is no pint in contuining dialogue

I disagee with you that the "product" is so inferrior, and even if we had the worst team in the entire NBA, why would you not expect to at least slightly improve year after year., or better yet except going backwards

I'm not sure how I am twisting everything, I am trying to expand on the analogy that you yourself return to over and over again. If the analogy is that strong, either all of it is strong or you need to point out the parts that aren't and explain why not.

If I have a product that is inferior I certainly don't expect my salesman to be the only one responsible for improving it, nor do I blame him solely if it gets worse.

But it seems our disagreement is on the quality of that product. You believe that it was inherently unchanging or better from year to year and that therefore JOB was the major cause of diminishing returns, while I believe - totally aside from my opinions of his coaching flaws - that he got about what they were able to do (if not a little more) due to those same circumstances that you choose to dismiss.

I don't see how we resolve that, because frankly there is no way to know. However, it means that absolutes also fail, and comparing numbers in one area with what would happen with the same numbers in another is a fairly useless exercise because they are NOT the same thing.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 03:42 PM
IMO O'Brien is a better coach than Isiah

I understand you feel that way but the record of each coach does not support that

I do understand though you can say one had more talent etc, etc

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 03:44 PM
I'm not sure how I am twisting everything, I am trying to expand on the analogy that you yourself return to over and over again. If the analogy is that strong, either all of it is strong or you need to point out the parts that aren't and explain why not.

Bill please address these two things

1. Why after 3 years, regardless of player personel, should the coach show no improvement in the win loss record

2. Why does Bird say "after 3 years the coach should be replaced "

Thanks

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 03:45 PM
I think it goes further than this. Bird/Walsh were under contract. They could make a decision at that time and be around to live with it. This time around Bird is not under contract after this coming year. Heck, there's even a legitimate question about ownership.

I'm not going to shed tears over O'brien being jettisoned, but i understand why he is still here for this year.

I agree, plus the 2003 team was ready to win now. The current team is not ready to win now. Maybe in two years, but not now.

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 03:46 PM
I think it speaks loads that O'Brien has consistently gotten coaching jobs.

Isiah has not. His time in New York was a failure and they only let him sit on the bench once the ship was already in flames and sinking. There is a reason the guy will probably never have another coaching job.

Whereas, I could see O'Brien getting another job in the NBA after the Pacers. He's already done that twice. Isiah hasn't.

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 03:47 PM
So for those that keep saying that JOB did not have the right players to win, please tell me how many more years you think he needs? two more? Five more? Ten?

I didn't get an answer :(

Part Timer
10-12-2010, 03:48 PM
So please tell me why Isiaha is a worse coach and deserved to be fired, but somehow magically O'Brien gets a pass after after contiously posting a record that gets worse every year

You might also explain how in direct competition, a Thomas coached team lost to an O'brien coached team, while having superiorior talent and home court advantage.

Putnam
10-12-2010, 03:49 PM
I continue to cry into the wilderness that people should bash the guy for the things he really is or isn't doing, rather than picking the handy sound bite and piling onto it.



We're lost like Moses.



A small niggle: The voice crying in the wilderness was John the Baptist, not Moses.


Otherwise . . . carry right on!








.<!-- / message -->

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 03:50 PM
A small niggle: The voice crying in the wilderness was John the Baptist, not Moses.


Otherwise . . . carry right on!<!-- / message -->

I know.

Moses however did wander through the desert for 40 years as he led the Jews out of Egypt, and you could argue that he was lost.

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 03:55 PM
So for those that keep saying that JOB did not have the right players to win, please tell me how many more years you think he needs? two more? Five more? Ten?

Simply put it isn't a matter of "right" players, Jim hasn't had anywhere close to good enough players

Give Jim O'Brien the Orlando Magic and he would win 58 games or so.

You win in the NBA with talent, talented vets and a few talented young players. pacers last season when all is taken into account were IMO one of the least talented teams in the NBA and even where there was some talent, either they were too young to be winning players yet or they were injured.

if SVG had been coaching the pacers the past three seasons, I think the Pacers would be essentially in the same exact position they are right now, except everyone would be critical of SVG instead of JOB

Part Timer
10-12-2010, 03:55 PM
I didn't get an answer :(

I have yet to read anybody suggest that O'brien deserves a free pass and an indefinite contract extension, only that some seek to acknowledge that there are more variables at play to success/failure than a coach, especially in a professional league.

pacers74
10-12-2010, 03:56 PM
Isiah had teams that were ready to compete to go deep into the playoffs. He under achived by a long shot. He had about a milion different lineups and the players didn't know their rolls.
I don't know if JOB is a better or worse coach. He is just different bad. His teams are less talented, but still under achive. Should he be fired, yes of course. 3 years and your record is getting worse, than don't let the door hit you in the arse. This summer there were also a lot of good coaches available.

BillS
10-12-2010, 03:57 PM
So please tell me why Isiaha is a worse coach and deserved to be fired, but somehow magically O'Brien gets a pass after after contiously posting a record that gets worse every year

I can't say this any more simply.

Because Isiah had a different team and a different set of expectations.

Isiah did less with more even though the record improved.

Do you really think Isiah would have had this set of guys winning championships, or that the 2007-2010 teams were in any way comparable to or even as stable as the 2000-2003 teams?

Since86
10-12-2010, 04:00 PM
But if you hire Mark (who, as I recall, adamantly did not want the job, but we'll let that go) and the season turns out EXACTLY the same, how do you KNOW if Mark is or is not a good coach? Even a great chef can't make a ****** sandwich into a gourmet meal.


You know better than this. I was using Mark as an example, saying I would take a chance on a first year coach when you asked who would want the job when they didn't know who was going to be on the roster.

You know perfectly well that I'm not saying Mark is the only answer, just an example of the type of coach I would have been willing to see come in.

Hicks
10-12-2010, 04:01 PM
Isiaha's tenure

Season 1 41-41, Finished 4th in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Isiah Thomas (41-41)

Season 2 42-40, Finished 3rd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Isiah Thomas (42-40)

Season 3 48-34, Finished 2nd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Isiah Thomas (48-34)

Then he was fired

Jim O'Brien

Season 1 36-46, Finished 3rd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Jim O'Brien (36-46)

Season 2 36-46, Finished 4th in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Jim O'Brien (36-46)

Season 3 32-50, Finished 4th in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Coached by: Jim O'Brien (32-50)

Then his contract option for year 4 was picked up

So please tell me why Isiaha is a worse coach and deserved to be fired, but somehow magically O'Brien gets a pass after after contiously posting a record that gets worse every year

Player talent was vastly different between Isiah's rosters and Jim's. That's why Jim is treated differently.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:03 PM
You might also explain how in direct competition, a Thomas coached team lost to an O'brien coached team, while having superiorior talent and home court advantage.

Great point

and I cant even argue that one

although I could say we were a very young team , and the celtics had more veterans, but that would be an excuse

so nice play my man

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Bill please address these two things

1. Why after 3 years, regardless of player personel, should the coach show no improvement in the win loss record

To say "regardless of player personnel" begs the question. You are more or less asking "If nothing else other than coaching matters, then why should the coach show..." - I disagree with the premise that nothing else but coaching matters.


2. Why does Bird say "after 3 years the coach should be replaced "


"I've always said, three years and you need a new coach," Bird joked.

Bird joked.

But we can continue to ignore that and also explain that it is a bit tough to say that guys tune a coach out after 3 years if most of those guys aren't THERE after 2.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:06 PM
Simply put it isn't a matter of "right" players, Jim hasn't had anywhere close to good enough players

Give Jim O'Brien the Orlando Magic and he would win 58 games or so.

You win in the NBA with talent, talented vets and a few talented young players. pacers last season when all is taken into account were IMO one of the least talented teams in the NBA and even where there was some talent, either they were too young to be winning players yet or they were injured.

if SVG had been coaching the pacers the past three seasons, I think the Pacers would be essentially in the same exact position they are right now, except everyone would be critical of SVG instead of JOB

But again , regardless of the players, don't you want or expect to see improvement?

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:07 PM
You know better than this. I was using Mark as an example, saying I would take a chance on a first year coach when you asked who would want the job when they didn't know who was going to be on the roster.

You know perfectly well that I'm not saying Mark is the only answer, just an example of the type of coach I would have been willing to see come in.

So substitute any first year coach and the premise is identical. IF the record is EXACTLY the same, how do you know if it is the roster or the new coach? You would probably assume it is the new coach, which is why as a potential new coach I stay so far away from that I wouldn't see it with the Hubble Telescope.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:08 PM
I can't say this any more simply.

Because Isiah had a different team and a different set of expectations.

Isiah did less with more even though the record improved.

Do you really think Isiah would have had this set of guys winning championships, or that the 2007-2010 teams were in any way comparable to or even as stable as the 2000-2003 teams?

Ok but Bill I have repetedly asked one question that you seem to avoid :

Regardless of the player personel, why should we not expect improvment after 3 years?

I mean a suburau might never be as good a car as a Mercedes, but that doesnt mean they cant improve their porduct

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 04:09 PM
But again , regardless of the players, don't you want or expect to see improvement?

What about injuries?

Everyone seems to ignore that as well.

Year 1, healthy Granger and Dunleavy, better record.

Year 2, healthy, more assertive Danny Granger (misses 15 games) and hurt Dunleavy, same record.

Year 3, hurt Danny Granger (misses 20 games, but was clearly playing some games he shouldn't have) and recovering Dunleavy, worse record.

That's not rocket science.

Year 4 the chips are on the table, Granger is healthy, Dun is healthy, Collison is here, Hibbert has improved. This is Jim's make or break year and has been since year 2 and Dunleavy's injury problem.

Mackey_Rose
10-12-2010, 04:11 PM
Back to the OP, regardless of the record, I expect things to be a lot more fun at the Fieldhouse than it was last year.

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:12 PM
But again , regardless of the players, don't you want or expect to see improvement?

It's the players that have to execute. How can you have improvement WITHOUT the players?

I have seen far too many times a competent coach take a rebuilding team and have a record, a worse record, and then (and only then) begin building on that worse record. You nearly always take a step back after the first step, because you begin adjusting and new problems crop up. If, and pretty much only if, the personnel stay the same and are capable of improving from that point, you finally settle in and begin moving forward.

In my opinion, last year's team improved in one area (general defense) but couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a string bass when standing wide open at the FT line and given a Mulligan. "Wide open" means "Not 100% Jim O'Brien's Fault".

Had circumstances been different and I really thought the players hated JOB (in which case why not completely tank at the end of last season, it wasn't a contract year for any of them) or that they were on the verge of a breakthrough, I'd have been more upset at the extension. As it is I don't think a change would have hurt but I don't think it is killing the team, either.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:12 PM
Player talent was vastly different between Isiah's rosters and Jim's. That's why Jim is treated differently.

I understand but why cant , regardless of the personel, expect improvement?

Even if Isiaha had the current Heat roster, and Obie had the Current Net roster, is it impossible to think they cant improve on their record?

Do you think NJ will win more than 12 games this year?

If so will it be the Murphy aquisition that got more wins, or the new coach in Avery Johnson?

My point is always no matter who you have on the team a ggod coach can make eeven the slightest improvement

The college ranks and even pro's are full of teams that had bad records, then had a coaching change (not personel) then had a much better record the following year

Why/ a better coach

Trader Joe
10-12-2010, 04:13 PM
I understand but why cant , regardless of the personel, expect improvement?

Even if Isiaha had the current Heat roster, and Obie had the Current Net roster, is it impossible to think they cant improve on their record?

Do you think NJ will win more than 12 games this year?

If so will it be the Murphy aquisition that got more wins, or the new coach in Avery Johnson?

My point is always no matter who you have on the team a ggod coach can make eeven the slightest improvement

The college ranks and even pro's are full of teams that had bad records, then had a coaching change (not personel) then had a much better record the following year

Why/ a better coach


Injuries.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:14 PM
To say "regardless of player personnel" begs the question. You are more or less asking "If nothing else other than coaching matters, then why should the coach show..." - I disagree with the premise that nothing else but coaching matters.





Bird joked.

But we can continue to ignore that and also explain that it is a bit tough to say that guys tune a coach out after 3 years if most of those guys aren't THERE after 2.

I will admitt I dont agree necessarily with Birds assesment

I dont see anyone bailing out on : Jerry Sloan, Greg Popovich, or Phill Jackson

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:15 PM
[QUOTE=BillS;1073533]It's the players that have to execute. How can you have improvement WITHOUT the players?


Bill ,

You and I both know that there has been plenty of examples in all sports were the only change from the prior season was the coach, yet they expereienced a dramtic turn around in their record

True?

Pacers4Life
10-12-2010, 04:16 PM
I agree 110%

But then when I , God forbid, express these setiments, I get a "witch hunt mentality" that seems to want to defend Jim at every opportunity, even vehemently

I honestly dont understand how anyone can defend this man

(I'm not talking to you, this is just what happened to set w/e follows off. I'm just talking)
From my POV.. I'd say there are an equal number of 'haters" and for lack of a more appropriate term "lovers." I think there are far more of us who either A. don't post or B. post very little and quite frankly just DON'T GIVE A **** anymore. I care more about the Pacers than you. I'm such a fan that I can say that and believe it. I just flat out don't care about the coaching aspect of it anymore. I care who is the coach and I do wish we had someone else by now but I just want to watch them play. I think everything will work itself out no matter what I say/do... so I've stopped stressin it.

Do i wish things were different? Sure do. But it's just in bad taste to dwell on things. I haven't had an opinion on JOB in at least 2 years. You watch, things will be different this year... the year after... and after that. And will have had nothing to do with anything I've said or thought. Just ride the P train boysss... thats why we're here.

As for my expectations... I may as well be consistent in every thread... 44-38 record. And in what is sure to be a wild year in the East this year, an 8 seed. I want the Heat. Sooooo badly.
Danny - I expect him to MAN THE EFF UP and play. Both sides of the ball.
Roy - If he can be anything close to what most of expect he can be this year, we'll be set at the C for quite a few years. 18 ppg 8 rpg (needs to improve) 1.7 bpg
DC - Screw what people (coaches) say. Play YOUR game. Get after your man on D and YOU set the pace for US. Not for the opponent.
Paul G - Why won't that shot fall? It looks sooo smooth and easy. I do expect to round out our rotation my the all-star break.
McRob - I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan. But why isn't EVERYONE? Hans looked good in that ONE preseason game... but I still think Josh can do everything Hans can except better. He's just off doing things Tyler can't when everyone is expecting him to be posted up down low

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:18 PM
Ok but Bill I have repetedly asked one question that you seem to avoid :

Regardless of the player personel, why should we not expect improvment after 3 years?

I mean a suburau might never be as good a car as a Mercedes, but that doesnt mean they cant improve their porduct

But improving the product takes more than just polishing the tires to be more shiny, if you'll let me reduce it to an absurdity.

If in the effort to improve the Subaru you make a mistake that causes the car to run badly, you fix that mistake, you don't fire the guys who can't sell badly running Subarus.

So I keep trying to answer the question by saying you make the changes that will fix the problem, you don't blame it all on one guy and fire him for the sake of firing him. You keep coming back to "but the other things aren't part of the problem."

So, fine. IF coaching is the only reason for a team failing to improve, you fire the coach if he doesn't improve the team. But I DISAGREE that coaching is the only reason..

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:21 PM
I will admitt I dont agree necessarily with Birds assesment

I dont see anyone bailing out on : Jerry Sloan, Greg Popovich, or Phill Jackson

It was a joke referring to his opinion that he himself would only have been listened to for 3 years. It was never, an any context, meant to say that no coach should ever coach for more than 3 years under any circumstances.

Heck, Carlisle was here for a fourth year.

Will Galen
10-12-2010, 04:23 PM
How about simply looking at a win loss record that has gotten worse in three consecutive years?

Now we are only looking at facts, not opinoins


If you have to drag us into yet another Job thread, get your facts straight! The Pacers did not have a won lost record that got worse three years in a row!

I know I'm splitting hairs but you're the one that was stating facts, and you were wrong!

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 04:24 PM
So for those that keep saying that JOB did not have the right players to win, please tell me how many more years you think he needs? two more? Five more? Ten?

Bill I know you keep Talking about the pacers maybe leaving in two years, do you really think that by the pacers sticking with Jim this is going to change? the fan base is tired of his bs and even if the record is not 100% his fault at the end nobody is gonna go to the fieldhouse and buy tickets making it easier for the pacers to leave.

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:26 PM
[QUOTE=BillS;1073533]It's the players that have to execute. How can you have improvement WITHOUT the players?


Bill ,

You and I both know that there has been plenty of examples in all sports were the only change from the prior season was the coach, yet they expereienced a dramtic turn around in their record

True?

Sure. And sometimes they get one key player and they experienced a dramatic turnaround in their record.

Just because you have lots of factors doesn't mean they are always non-zero. And just because you have examples where all factors but one are 0 doesn't mean they are always 0.

So, if this boils down to the idea that you think, absent any coaching influence, the teams would have been better (or at worst the same) every year, then fine. I definitely disagree, but that's why it's an opinion.

Where we are arguing here is some general idea that every team will be the same or better every year and anything that disturbs it must be a coaching influence. I simply can't accept that. There are too many factors.

1984
10-12-2010, 04:28 PM
Honestly, I expect O'Brien to ruin the season like he has the last 3 years.

I was on a LA Lakers forum a few days ago. I was curious to see what fans from a knowledgeable fanbase thought about our team. Many users posted positive comments about Roy Hibbert, and some shared their opinion that Jim O'Brien is the Pacer's greatest obstacle.

I hope Jim O'Brien proves many spectators and fans wrong. I feel like he has the tools to compete this season. There is little to no room for an excuse about "why" we won't make the playoffs this year. If you disagree with that point simply look around. There are teams with less talent than the Pacers who make the playoffs.

Since86
10-12-2010, 04:31 PM
So substitute any first year coach and the premise is identical. IF the record is EXACTLY the same, how do you know if it is the roster or the new coach? You would probably assume it is the new coach, which is why as a potential new coach I stay so far away from that I wouldn't see it with the Hubble Telescope.

What are you talking about? You're getting way off base.


Who would we have picked up for a single year? Who would want to take the team not knowing who would be GM if he signed a multi-year contract and therefore not know what players he'd have to work with after his first year?

As I've said, there are more reasons than just that bottom line.

The real irony is that I don't particularly care for JOB as a coach, but the circumstances aren't such that there were better or more effective coaches waiting in the wings without other highly probably disadvantages or problems.

That's your original post that started it off.

Hiring Mark Jackson, as an example, of saying I would have been willing to see what a first year coach could do was answering your question about who would you get to coach the team when they didn't know who was going to be on the roster.

If Mark Jackson, or another coach, isn't making progress in areas you want to see, then fire them. That's why I said a cheap two year deal.



Jim O'Brien isn't, and never was, the long term solution. At some point in time you have to turn the page and start looking for just that. A long term solution.

EDIT: And I think that time is now, or definately at the end of this season. While I can't stand Jim as the coach, I don't really care to see him fired right this moment. I don't like the way he coaches, because it's pretty opposite of what I would like to see, and what I think the next coach will do. He's not really developing players, he's trying to force them into his style of basketball, and his style isn't what they need to be doing in order to get better.

I want to see a coach try and better his players during transition periods, and that's exactly what the Pacers have been doing. Transitioning or rebuilding, whatever you want to call it.

Emphasis should have been on player development from day 1. Not just strict wins and losses. If another coach came in and gave a lot of time to AJ last year, and it resulted in 3 or 4 less wins, I would have been a lot happier about the situation.

Instead we got a coach telling us how great he was in practice, then we get to see him perform pretty well on the court, only to go back to the bench later with a quote of "now we know what we got."

Well we would have known back in Jan. or earlier if you would have played him then, instead of freaking March and April.

You guys can talk about Wins/Losses like they paint the picture of a successful season all you want. No one would have won a lot of basketball games with that roster last year, and I think it's dumb to argue over that point alone like it would have made a difference.

The Pacers were in no position to be competitive. And if they can't be competitive I want them working on the future of the franchise.

I don't care about today, I care about tomorrow. Who cares if we squeak into the playoffs and get swept in the first round? What a great accomplishment. Congrats.

Pacers4Life
10-12-2010, 04:33 PM
I edited this part to another one of my posts on page 3... but I highly doubt it gets noticed anymore. And this was the whole point of the article, so here we go:

As for my expectations... I may as well be consistent in every thread... 44-38 record. And in what is sure to be a wild year in the East this year, an 8 seed. I want the Heat. Sooooo badly.
Danny - I expect him to MAN THE EFF UP and play. Both sides of the ball.
Roy - If he can be anything close to what most of expect he can be this year, we'll be set at the C for quite a few years. 18 ppg 8 rpg (needs to improve) 1.7 bpg
DC - Screw what people (coaches) say. Play YOUR game. Get after your man on D and YOU set the pace for US. Not for the opponent.
Paul G - Why won't that shot fall? It looks sooo smooth and easy. I do expect to round out our rotation my the all-star break.
McRob - I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan. But why isn't EVERYONE? Hans looked good in that ONE preseason game... but I still think Josh can do everything Hans can except better. He's just off doing things Tyler can't when everyone is expecting him to be posted up down low
Dun Dun - He's gonna make us go. Danny can be danny. Roy can be Roy. Darren can be... well you get it. As long as Mike is Mike. Smooth. Consistent. Smart. You can't double anyone or sag off Mike if he's hittin the sweet mid-range game. Look out if he gets that 3 going...

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:34 PM
Bill I know you keep Talking about the pacers maybe leaving in two years, do you really think that by the pacers sticking with Jim this is going to change? the fan base is tired of his bs and even if the record is not 100% his fault at the end nobody is gonna go to the fieldhouse and buy tickets making it easier for the pacers to leave.

My reasons for being concerned about the future of the team are more complex than the coaching.

However, I seem to remember that 2 years ago there was, in fact, an increase in excitement because the team was in nearly every game and was competitive down to the end.

Last year was a step backward. I don't blame it all on JOB. It cut the momentum.

I don't think most of the fan base knows enough about JOB's actual coaching to know if he is at fault or if someone else is at fault. They just blame the coach because that's what you do. It is the reason why I get so embroiled in the arguments here when folks trot out the old sound bite criticisms, that "JOB's offense consists of jacking up 3 point shots" and "JOB never wants his players to play defense". On this forum, we should be better than that. We should be able to be more specific, to recognize when things seem to be different instead of jumping to the same old conclusions from drastically different data points.

No, keeping JOB is not the way to keep the team here. However, firing JOB and replacing him without doing anything else isn't going to do that, either.

Gamble1
10-12-2010, 04:40 PM
I don't want to jump into the fray here but IMO Jim is just Jim. An average coach with an average record.

I could come up with a million reasons why coaches with losing records should be kept if results are on the table. Results like player development or a superior offensive and defensive schemes or maybe just great scouting and preparation.

I just don't see that many reasons why Jim should be the coach of the Pacers. I could be wrong but if Collison's game regresses and this team once again fails I am not going to blame it on Jim not having enough talent. IMO we have the talent to win 40+ games.

BillS
10-12-2010, 04:43 PM
Hiring Mark Jackson, as an example, of saying I would have been willing to see what a first year coach could do was answering your question about who would you get to coach the team when they didn't know who was going to be on the roster.

If Mark Jackson, or another coach, isn't making progress in areas you want to see, then fire them. That's why I said a cheap two year deal.



Jim O'Brien isn't, and never was, the long term solution. At some point in time you have to turn the page and start looking for just that. A long term solution.

OK, I answered one question with my answer to another question. The problem is that trying to simplify this thing is what causes people to get crazy.

I'll try to answer why I think those guys weren't available.

First, I stand by my idea that we can talk all we want to about hiring a first year coach, but we have no evidence that one would take the job. My rationale for why they would not is exactly as I stated.

Second, a 2-year deal vs a 1-year deal is part of the issue. If Bird goes and by extension most of the FO goes in the middle of a 2-year contract, that leaves the coach in a very precarious position. Again, I think that makes it less likely that you get a new coach.

Third, anyone with a lick of sense is going to look at the situation and know that it is one that is difficult to succeed in. In this position you would have to make a drastic improvement with a team that really doesn't look like it will do that. A new coach, without experience, isn't likely to come into the league and both learn the ropes AND revolutionize things his first year.


We can say over and over "well, if this guy or that guy was available I'd hire him" but we don't know he was. However, so many of these arguments seem to proceed from the premise that they WERE available.

Now, the other part of the question, which is that I would not hire them because I don't think they'd be more effective and I would have no way to evaluate them if they weren't significantly more effective. Which fixed the problem, a new coach or having Darren Collison? Which didn't fix the problem, a new coach or Danny Granger getting injured?

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 04:49 PM
I only stand by one point, and that is why should we not expect to see progress after 3 years of coaching the team?

Why, even if there are 150 excuses, should a coach not be held accountable to improve the record after 3 years ?

Obrien came on board with Troy and Mike already on the team. There have been players added and players removed alll role players at best, but we didnt have a radical makeover nor traded away a star player

So why should we not expect improvement after 3 years of chances to improvce the team?

graphic-er
10-12-2010, 04:56 PM
I expect them to at least challenge for the last playoff spot, and not one of those seasons where we suck the whole year long and decide to win 9 of 12 to close out the season and finish 2 games behind. I want us to be in the mix all year long. If they enter all-star break 10 games under .500, then I expect the coach will not be JOB the following week. I dont' care if Dan Burke is named interm coach at that point.

Since86
10-12-2010, 04:58 PM
OK, I answered one question with my answer to another question. The problem is that trying to simplify this thing is what causes people to get crazy.

I'll try to answer why I think those guys weren't available.

First, I stand by my idea that we can talk all we want to about hiring a first year coach, but we have no evidence that one would take the job. My rationale for why they would not is exactly as I stated.

Second, a 2-year deal vs a 1-year deal is part of the issue. If Bird goes and by extension most of the FO goes in the middle of a 2-year contract, that leaves the coach in a very precarious position. Again, I think that makes it less likely that you get a new coach.

Third, anyone with a lick of sense is going to look at the situation and know that it is one that is difficult to succeed in. In this position you would have to make a drastic improvement with a team that really doesn't look like it will do that. A new coach, without experience, isn't likely to come into the league and both learn the ropes AND revolutionize things his first year.


We can say over and over "well, if this guy or that guy was available I'd hire him" but we don't know he was. However, so many of these arguments seem to proceed from the premise that they WERE available.

Now, the other part of the question, which is that I would not hire them because I don't think they'd be more effective and I would have no way to evaluate them if they weren't significantly more effective. Which fixed the problem, a new coach or having Darren Collison? Which didn't fix the problem, a new coach or Danny Granger getting injured?


Well **** it then. Jim O'Brien will be the coach for as long as there is an Indiana Pacers team, or until he decides to step down.

Because there will not be one season where there isn't injuries, players just don't play consistantly, or whatever other excuse you can come up with.

I know that's not what you're saying, but my point still stands. It will always come down to a "is it the coach or is it XXXX reason?"

I don't blame Jim for not having a good PG. I never will. I will blame him for how he handled AJ. I'm not dumb enough to suggest AJ would have put them in the playoffs.


The question is this "Is Jim O'Brien the coach you want when the team gets the players in order to be competitive?" My answer is no. And while the next coach might not be the answer either, you still have to make the switch to find out. You can't hide back on the excuse that you just don't know what you will get, or that there might not be another coach. There will always be another coach.

Jim isn't the answer, and because he isn't the answer, it's time to move on.

BillS
10-12-2010, 05:00 PM
Jim O'Brien isn't, and never was, the long term solution. At some point in time you have to turn the page and start looking for just that. A long term solution.

EDIT: And I think that time is now, or definately at the end of this season. While I can't stand Jim as the coach, I don't really care to see him fired right this moment. I don't like the way he coaches, because it's pretty opposite of what I would like to see, and what I think the next coach will do. He's not really developing players, he's trying to force them into his style of basketball, and his style isn't what they need to be doing in order to get better.

I want to see a coach try and better his players during transition periods, and that's exactly what the Pacers have been doing. Transitioning or rebuilding, whatever you want to call it.

Emphasis should have been on player development from day 1. Not just strict wins and losses. If another coach came in and gave a lot of time to AJ last year, and it resulted in 3 or 4 less wins, I would have been a lot happier about the situation.

Instead we got a coach telling us how great he was in practice, then we get to see him perform pretty well on the court, only to go back to the bench later with a quote of "now we know what we got."

Well we would have known back in Jan. or earlier if you would have played him then, instead of freaking March and April.

You guys can talk about Wins/Losses like they paint the picture of a successful season all you want. No one would have won a lot of basketball games with that roster last year, and I think it's dumb to argue over that point alone like it would have made a difference.

The Pacers were in no position to be competitive. And if they can't be competitive I want them working on the future of the franchise.

I don't care about today, I care about tomorrow. Who cares if we squeak into the playoffs and get swept in the first round? What a great accomplishment. Congrats.

I'll answer this separately instead of as an edit, and it will take me back to another rehash of old posts.

First, I think this should be JOB's last year no matter how he does. If he continues to fail, the reason should be obvious. If he succeeds, it means to me that we are ready for the next step and I don't think he's the coach for that next step.

To the rest of it, I just fall back on my old line that you don't teach players how to win by putting them into a position to be clobbered.

You don't teach players to respect ability by benching it in favor of someone just because they are younger.

Now, if you argue that the players who should have been being developed were in fact the better players, I am not sure I completely disagree. Certainly I think Troy got too many minutes, and I wish I understood what JOB means when he talks about "good in practice" because it doesn't seem to match most people's expectations.

The bottom line is that they are things to disagree with JOB about in the course of his coaching. I don't think, however, that they mean he failed to develop anyone or that he ruined anyone. One could make the argument that the reason so many of our players came into this season looking different and with different skillsets that they worked in the offseason was BECAUSE of the way they were brought along last year, and that they were given lots of opportunities to see what they needed. Rather than being subjected to it over and over, they were able to be put into situations where they built some confidence and had a single goal.

Could another coach have done it differently? I don't know, but I see few coaches in the NBA who play rookies heavily who don't step onto the court as top-3 draft picks or fillers of immediate needs. Certainly no coach of the Pacers since the 90s did so more than JOB.

And, on your final point - yes, there's a point where getting to the playoffs IS important, even if you are first round and out. I know of few teams that either fail to make the playoffs or win a championship with no time in between. I would say that if this team makes the playoffs through effort and hard work, the city will start to support them. Fine, falling into the playoffs because the 8th seed tanks it is no good, but getting there by being a better team than we have been in 3 years isn't going to be seen as some "failure to develop".

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 05:03 PM
First, I think this should be JOB's last year no matter how he does. If he continues to fail, the reason should be obvious. If he succeeds, it means to me that we are ready for the next step and I don't think he's the coach for that next step.

I think that was well put Bill

Since86
10-12-2010, 05:04 PM
I thanked your post, but honestly I don't know why you're arguing with everyone about it then.

We're all in agreement that Jim needs to be shown the door. (except maybe UB, because he's said only if a top 5 coach is available......) I don't think the question of when is enough of a contrast that 4 pages needed to be dedicated to it.

BillS
10-12-2010, 05:05 PM
I only stand by one point, and that is why should we not expect to see progress after 3 years of coaching the team?

Why, even if there are 150 excuses, should a coach not be held accountable to improve the record after 3 years ?

Obrien came on board with Troy and Mike already on the team. There have been players added and players removed alll role players at best, but we didnt have a radical makeover nor traded away a star player

So why should we not expect improvement after 3 years of chances to improvce the team?

Why is 3 years a magic number to blame it on the coach? Because of Bird's joke?

IF you can point to the coach as the major reason and you have a better alternative, fire him (or don't renew him).

If not, why is sticking with him another year more of a risk than an untried alternative?

When things don't work to forecast, I expect to see changes made. Logical changes that can be justified as either moving forward or at least holding one area the same so as to be able to emphasize another.

So, to the general question, do I expect to see the team improve after 3 years? Sure, I do. If it doesn't improve, I want to know what they are doing about it. I don't want a scapegoat.

BillS
10-12-2010, 05:10 PM
I thanked your post, but honestly I don't know why you're arguing with everyone about it then.

We're all in agreement that Jim needs to be shown the door. (except maybe UB, because he's said only if a top 5 coach is available......) I don't think the question of when is enough of a contrast that 4 pages needed to be dedicated to it.

I ask myself that question constantly. My WIFE asks me that question when I boil over with frustration.

Maybe I just like to hear myself type :lol:

:buddies:

Seriously, though, my frustration is usually at the reasoning not the endpoint. Ironically, the ones who engage in the long discussions (like you and 90sNBARocked) are usually the ones with arguments worth trying to refute.

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 05:28 PM
we don't have a system that I have much confidence in.


Neither do I, thus the reason I don't feel the Pacers are going to achieve a .500 season. I wish I could be that optimistic, but the reality of the past 3 seasons just won't allow it.

Peck
10-12-2010, 05:29 PM
Expectations vs. wants in this case may be two different things but I will try and merge them together for the moment.

1. I expect them to compete every night. That does not mean that I expect them to win every game or even the majority of game but I don't want to see 4 out of 5 games us be down 20 plus points in the 2nd quarter and never have the ability to recover.

2. I expect to see progression from players who have been here a couple of years and hopefully some meaningful time for the rookies although I understand that the ability to have them on the floor will be limited due to the depth of our roster.

3. I expect to see a new offense. While I have always understood that the 3 point shot has been a tool to open up the floor for other players to penetrate it often times has not worked that way. With a new direction I would like to see the post play and penetration set up some open three's. In other words reverse the style of play, not eliminate it.

4. I expect to see Roy, Jeff, Josh & Tyler play physical defense all year long.

5. I expect Danny to lead, on both sides of the court.

6. I expect Darren to improve our offense and stabilize the defense.

7. I expect A.J. to push to be the main backup and actually make it a debate as to whether or not he or Darren should start.

8. I expect Brandon Rush to not stand in one place on offense. This is the year that he has to show us that he is either our s.g. that we need, a valued backup or someone we should look to use as trade bait.

9. I expect Jim to be patient with Roy and understand that he has to give him time to adjust to the new offense and responsibility.

10. I expect the front court to continue to look for ways to improve the roster.

Notice not once did I say I expect a winning record. In fact I am not going to base this seasonís success on W/L alone. Don't get me wrong a 20 win season is not acceptable. But I just want to see improvement from the players and versatility from O'Brien to stick with something that is not his preferred style. He can do it, I've seen him do it. This time I am going to try and believe he will do it.

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 05:31 PM
My opinion of Danny is going down like the Hindenburg. He has become a no defense playing chucker. Roy is still weak and soft. And JOB continues to say one thing and then do another. Our offense is lost, our defense is non-existent. Lord help our Pacers.


Well, I guess I'm not the only one that feels that way. Misery loves company.

indianapolismarkus
10-12-2010, 05:34 PM
This season is a win-win situation.

Weíre on the cusp of the playoffs. If we donít have any major injuryies weíll be in the hunt.

Miami, Orlando, Boston are the eastern conference cream of the crop. Atlanta, Chicago, Milwaukee are solid playoff teams. That leaves Charlotte, Cleveland, Indiana and New York fighting for the last two spots. We may be able to steal a game from the Magic in a series but it would be hard not to get swept by the Celtics or Heat.

This is the season that we see our young core guys develop. Collison, Rush, Granger, McRoberts & Hibbert are a good young starting five. Price, Stephenson, George, Hansbrough & Rolle are another five good young pieces. Our veterans are Ford, D. Jones, Dunleavy, Posey & Foster. They fill out the roster but have no future with the team.

Our main weakness is shooting guard. Rush looks like a career backup. D. Jones is a shooting guard that canít shoot. Dunleavy is a smart ball player but canít guard. Stephenson and George are going to be good but are rookies.

The other weakness is big man. Hibbert and Foster will tag team at center but if one goes down we canít depend on S. Jones. The same thing with power forward. If McRoberts or Hansbrough goes down it will be hard on the rookie Rolle. The less we have to use Posey as a stretch four the better.

Next year we will shore up our weaknesses and be in the playoffs for years to come. The three year plan is on track and looking good.

If we make the playoffs this year we will get the fans back at the Fieldhouse and have a better chance of getting a top free agent in a slim class next year. If we donít make the playoffs we will get another lottery pick, new coach and cap space for the future. win-win

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE=Trader Joe;1073503]

I could see O'Brien getting another job in the NBA after the Pacers. /QUOTE]


Sorry, I disagree. For 2 years, I've said JO'B will never coach an NBA team again after the Pacers, and I firmly believe it. There is a reason why Jimmy sat idle from not coaching in the NBA for those 3 years prior to Bird calling.

90'sNBARocked
10-12-2010, 06:02 PM
Expectations vs. wants in this case may be two different things but I will try and merge them together for the moment.

1. I expect them to compete every night. That does not mean that I expect them to win every game or even the majority of game but I don't want to see 4 out of 5 games us be down 20 plus points in the 2nd quarter and never have the ability to recover.

2. I expect to see progression from players who have been here a couple of years and hopefully some meaningful time for the rookies although I understand that the ability to have them on the floor will be limited due to the depth of our roster.

3. I expect to see a new offense. While I have always understood that the 3 point shot has been a tool to open up the floor for other players to penetrate it often times has not worked that way. With a new direction I would like to see the post play and penetration set up some open three's. In other words reverse the style of play, not eliminate it.

4. I expect to see Roy, Jeff, Josh & Tyler play physical defense all year long.

5. I expect Danny to lead, on both sides of the court.

6. I expect Darren to improve our offense and stabilize the defense.

7. I expect A.J. to push to be the main backup and actually make it a debate as to whether or not he or Darren should start.

8. I expect Brandon Rush to not stand in one place on offense. This is the year that he has to show us that he is either our s.g. that we need, a valued backup or someone we should look to use as trade bait.

9. I expect Jim to be patient with Roy and understand that he has to give him time to adjust to the new offense and responsibility.

10. I expect the front court to continue to look for ways to improve the roster.

Notice not once did I say I expect a winning record. In fact I am not going to base this seasonís success on W/L alone. Don't get me wrong a 20 win season is not acceptable. But I just want to see improvement from the players and versatility from O'Brien to stick with something that is not his preferred style. He can do it, I've seen him do it. This time I am going to try and believe he will do it.

Good points ,

Just curious on how many of those you think will actually come to fruition?

Thanks

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 06:11 PM
I know.

Moses however did wander through the desert for 40 years as he led the Jews out of Egypt, and you could argue that he was lost.


No, Moses wasn't lost he was where God put him.

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 06:29 PM
Simply put it isn't a matter of "right" players, Jim hasn't had anywhere close to good enough players

Give Jim O'Brien the Orlando Magic and he would win 58 games or so.

You win in the NBA with talent, talented vets and a few talented young players. pacers last season when all is taken into account were IMO one of the least talented teams in the NBA and even where there was some talent, either they were too young to be winning players yet or they were injured.

if SVG had been coaching the pacers the past three seasons, I think the Pacers would be essentially in the same exact position they are right now, except everyone would be critical of SVG instead of JOB


Yeah, how much talent did Brown have last year. O'Brien never would have gotten the Bobcats the record they had last year of 44-38 and into the playoffs.

And yes, I believe SVG could have had a better record with the Pacers team last year than Jimmy. SVG is a far better coach. Coaching and coaches DO make a difference.

BringJackBack
10-12-2010, 07:38 PM
This is what I expect and why I believe and why I expect it:

1. Darren Collison is an amazing talent with an uncanny knack to get everyone involved in our offense, ala Chauncey Billups. In our motion offense niether DC nor AJ will get assists, so it is important for them to get the ball to:

A. The high post. McRoberts, Hibbert, and Foster are good (Foster is decent) passers in the high post. Especially McRoberts who has an almost elite ability to find someone in the paint, or do the simplest of fakes to free himself, or a perimeter player.

B. The low post. Most of the time you'll find Hibbert down there along with occasionally Danny or Lance. Hibbert is obviously our guy in the low post and that is where he should be. We should be running our offense mostly through Hibbert and McRoberts as they find the best guys for open shots.

C. Into the pick 'n roll or pop. Hibbert and Hansbrough have recently displayed very significant improvement on their mid-range games.


I mean, wow Roy can do damage to what has been doing damage to him. If he can get Luis Scola's touch at mid range that will make him a huge weapon in the pick 'n pop and he will direct more attention than DC! That means DC will have more of an opportunity to get to the line and just finish at the basket.

D. Dribble penetration. If all else fails, I wouldn't let Danny go iso because he isn't so great as iso so I would just have Collison go into the paint and see what he can do from there.

2. Roy Hibberts soft touching mid range game is going to be HUGE for him to make him a HUGE problem at the high post. If he learns how to take the ball off the dribble from a pump-fake into some pivot spin up and under I'll go streaking.

But until then I am glad to have Big Roy with the nice low post moves with offense and soft touching mid range jumper. I would be very happy if he averages 16 and 7.5 this year.

3. Josh McRoberts athleticism and offensive rebounding is something that we have needed for the longest time at his respective position. His nice stroke with great passing makes him difficult to guard because it is hard to tell what he is going to do when he gets the ball at either the 3 point line or the high post.

He is the perfect power forward for our offense and defense and its about damn time. Just hope he is ready for tomorrows game.

4. Expiring contracts. We have Mike, TJ, and Tinsley coming off the books this summer which is great news for Pacers fans. We can trade some of the expiring contracts any time this season until the All Star Break or we can wait and realistically pursue Al Horford, Carl Landry, or Greg Oden (which I could see both the upsides and downsides as that).

Plus we get another first round pick and another second round pick which should do us well.

So, I think that if we win anywhere from 38-44 wins this year we will be in fantastic shape for future years. I can say with confidence that we can be better than Philly, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington, Charlotte, New Jersey, and Detriot. Its all a matter of being consistent and healthy. We have a chance to squeak by New York and Milwaukee (however I think last season was a one and done deal for them).


My stand on Jim O'Brien:

Jim coached awfully last season. However, as everyone can agree that last year was a disaster, whether or not Jim should be here right now is irrelevant (really didn't try to do that there) because he is and it seems as if he is trying some new things such as: high and low post. Right now everything besides giving Dahntay or Solo minutes has been fine in the preseason and I hope they dont play at all this season

Heres to a great and healthy season!:buddies:

Unclebuck
10-12-2010, 08:41 PM
I only stand by one point, and that is why should we not expect to see progress after 3 years of coaching the team?

Why, even if there are 150 excuses, should a coach not be held accountable to improve the record after 3 years ?

Obrien came on board with Troy and Mike already on the team. There have been players added and players removed alll role players at best, but we didnt have a radical makeover nor traded away a star player

So why should we not expect improvement after 3 years of chances to improvce the team?

Ok, The Pacers traded away JO and got a point guard who didn't work out, sure they got roy, but it has taken him a full two seasons to be ready to play and ready to help the team win.

We lost tinsley out right

because TJ did not work out, the coach played two journeyman back up point guards as the starters.

The teams second best player missed an entire season and then last year was not effective as he tried to regain his form

The teams best rebounder and interior defender Jeff Foster missed the whole season last year.

From Jim's first season until his third season the pacers became a much younger team, and a much more inexperienced team. A team not ready to win

With the injuries and young inexperienced players who besides Granger do other teams fear or had to gameplan for. I think most oppoenents will say the pacers were a pretty easy team to play.

I could go on and on. But I think the pacers have shed talent in each of Jim's three seasons. It was necessary for the longterm health of the franchise, but it made it more difficult for the coach no matter who it was. Disclaimer: when i reference talent in this sentence i am talking about current on the floor talent. We hope roy, tyler, Brandon will turn into players that can lead teams to winning - but they weren't there last season. (In fact Tyler played very little)

I'll say what I have said for three seasons. I think Jim did a very good job his first two seasons maximizing wins. Last season was different, I feel they probably should have had a few more wins and certainly not been blown out so often and thet makes me think the player chemistry was not good. I thought for awhile last season that maybe Jim had lost the team, but the March and April records proved to me that was no the case.

vnzla81
10-12-2010, 09:29 PM
My reasons for being concerned about the future of the team are more complex than the coaching.

However, I seem to remember that 2 years ago there was, in fact, an increase in excitement because the team was in nearly every game and was competitive down to the end.

Last year was a step backward. I don't blame it all on JOB. It cut the momentum.

I don't think most of the fan base knows enough about JOB's actual coaching to know if he is at fault or if someone else is at fault. They just blame the coach because that's what you do. It is the reason why I get so embroiled in the arguments here when folks trot out the old sound bite criticisms, that "JOB's offense consists of jacking up 3 point shots" and "JOB never wants his players to play defense". On this forum, we should be better than that. We should be able to be more specific, to recognize when things seem to be different instead of jumping to the same old conclusions from drastically different data points.

No, keeping JOB is not the way to keep the team here. However, firing JOB and replacing him without doing anything else isn't going to do that, either.

Bill, I think you are underestimating the Pacers fans, I been talking to regular fans and been reading their comments and I think they have the same concerns we have, their reasons don't come from their a$$ they actually have a point in why they don't support the team, remember that the majority of people that supports the pacers and the NBA product in general are casual fans that are attracted by a good product and when you have two years of PR problems(Tinsley,Jackson, etc) and three years of mediocre basketball is hard to bring those fans back.

This year those same fans were hoping to come back and support the team, they liked the Troy Murphy trade for Collison and most fans love the guys that were brought via draft, the issue is that the paying costumer is getting tired of the same bs, remember that all the JOB comments are posted in the only newspaper of the state, they know that most of the stuff that comes from his mouth is not the same thing he does in the court.

I think at this point we can only hope that this season is not the same as the last three, because if that happen we are going to be in big trouble.

Infinite MAN_force
10-12-2010, 09:57 PM
Ok, The Pacers traded away JO and got a point guard who didn't work out, sure they got roy, but it has taken him a full two seasons to be ready to play and ready to help the team win.

We lost tinsley out right

because TJ did not work out, the coach played two journeyman back up point guards as the starters.

The teams second best player missed an entire season and then last year was not effective as he tried to regain his form

The teams best rebounder and interior defender Jeff Foster missed the whole season last year.

From Jim's first season until his third season the pacers became a much younger team, an inexperienced team. A team not ready to win

With the injuries and young inexperienced players besides Granger who else on the playing roster were players that teams feared or had to gameplan for.

I could go on and on. But I think the pacers have shed talent in each of Jim's three seasons. It was necessary for the longterm health of the franchise, but it made it more difficult for the coach no matter who it was. Disclaimer: when i reference talent in this sentence i am talking about current on the floor talent. We hope roy, tyler, Brandon will turn into players that can lead teams to winning - but they weren't there last season. (In fact Tyler played very little)

I'll say what I have said for three seasons. I think Jim did a very good job his first two seasons maximizing wins. last season was different, I feel they probably shot have had a few more wins and certainly not been blown out so often and thet makes me think the layer chemistry was not good. I thought for awhile last season that maybe Jim had lost the team, but the March and April records proved to me that was no the case.

This is a pretty great post, I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to the recent arguments about Obrien, which have gotten way off base. However, he is not without fault either...

He has done some baffling things with the lineups at times. He played D. Jones (a shooting guard) at the power forward spot when we had a perfectly healthy McRobert's who could have assumed those minutes. You will have a hard time convincing me Josh was so bad that he couldn't get off the bench in that situation, to now being the "best player in training camp" and the penciled in starter. Thats a lot of improvement in one off season.

Some of those small ball lineups were plain ugly to watch, Troy Murphy starting at center ugly.

And lets not forget the AJ Price benching, or the Mcrelevent comment. At times it seemed like he was almost TRYING to antagonize the fan base. He burned a lot of bridges with people who don't feel ready to give him a second chance.

Ultimately it may not have made a huge difference in win/loss total, but I do think he has held back player development at times, for players who WERE ready to play. I know he made the team hard to watch for me at times.

So far he has said all the right things this off season so I am taking a wait and see approach, but if things end up differently... It wouldn't be the first time Jim's actions didn't reflect his words.

Just saying...

Justin Tyme
10-12-2010, 10:23 PM
At times it seemed like he was almost TRYING to antagonize the fan base. He burned a lot of bridges with people who don't feel ready to give him a second chance..


Nail meet hammer.

To be honest I feel Jimmy really could care less what the fans think. To me it seems he feels the fans are a bi-product of the game, but not an essential part to the game. It's like he looks down his nose at the fans b/c they have nothing to do with what he does as a coach. The fans are just something that get in his way and know nothing about BB. How dare that a fan ever question his coaching.

Sookie
10-12-2010, 10:31 PM
And lets not forget the AJ Price benching, or the Mcrelevent comment....

Yea..those seem a bit silly now, don't they...

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 09:19 AM
He has done some baffling things with the lineups at times. He played D. Jones (a shooting guard) at the power forward spot when we had a perfectly healthy McRobert's who could have assumed those minutes. You will have a hard time convincing me Josh was so bad that he couldn't get off the bench in that situation, to now being the "best player in training camp" and the penciled in starter. Thats a lot of improvement in one off season.

Some of those small ball lineups were plain ugly to watch, Troy Murphy starting at center ugly.




There are a number of things that Jim does that I don't like or agree with. I could make a pretty long list, of things larry brown did that I didn't like, same with every coach the pacers have ever had. As die-hard pacers fans we see things in our coaches that we never see from coaches of other teams. We see those things because we watch every game and discuss every move they make. And that is why generally coaches are better liked outside of their home market.

I think we would be shocked at the criticism coaches like Popovich, Jackson, Sloan.... receive in their home towns.

disclaimer: I am not suggesting that the criticism that Jim gets in this forum is normal and similar to criticism every coach receives.

I will say though for my friends, family and co-workers who aren't really pacers fans, maybe they watch a few games a year, maybe they go to a couple of games per year - they don't see anything really wrong with O'Brien. I often ask them what they think of him, they will say he is OK - he's not the problem, but he isn't a great coach either. (Isiah got a lot more critisicm from the people I know)

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 10:28 AM
I'll say what I have said for three seasons. I think Jim did a very good job his first two seasons maximizing wins. Last season was different, I feel they probably should have had a few more wins and certainly not been blown out so often and thet makes me think the player chemistry was not good. I thought for awhile last season that maybe Jim had lost the team, but the March and April records proved to me that was no the case.

Every coach has to deal with injuries and other intangibles. I like how the colts have a "next man up" phillosphy. They dont make excuses when they have injuries, they just keep it moving.

I agree that I thought 2 years ago Jim did a good job , all things considered. I also remember how the team was excited and seemed to be happy. I think back to Troy's tip in to beat the Lakers

I believe things started to change the following year, and last year was a disaster. Not so much record wise, but the team looked uninspired and unhappy.

The one thing I do think as a coach it is your job to make improvements, regardless of talent level, hence the word overachieve.

There is talk that bringing in a new coach doesnt guarantee anything, and I understand. I would jut like a new coach if nothing else but to provide a fresh new voice. I also believe that had we not hired Jimmy, at the most he would be an assistant today. I think if he is relieved of his duties after this year, it will be his last head coaching job

BillS
10-13-2010, 10:39 AM
Every coach has to deal with injuries and other intangibles. I like how the colts have a "next man up" phillosphy. They dont make excuses when they have injuries, they just keep it moving.

Much easier to do when your roster is that big. Get down 2 guys in the NBA and, unless you have depth that is being completely wasted by sitting on the bench out of the rotation, you are hurting.

BillS
10-13-2010, 11:01 AM
Bill, I think you are underestimating the Pacers fans, I been talking to regular fans and been reading their comments and I think they have the same concerns we have, their reasons don't come from their a$$ they actually have a point in why they don't support the team, remember that the majority of people that supports the pacers and the NBA product in general are casual fans that are attracted by a good product and when you have two years of PR problems(Tinsley,Jackson, etc) and three years of mediocre basketball is hard to bring those fans back.

This year those same fans were hoping to come back and support the team, they liked the Troy Murphy trade for Collison and most fans love the guys that were brought via draft, the issue is that the paying costumer is getting tired of the same bs, remember that all the JOB comments are posted in the only newspaper of the state, they know that most of the stuff that comes from his mouth is not the same thing he does in the court.

I think at this point we can only hope that this season is not the same as the last three, because if that happen we are going to be in big trouble.

Are those the same commenters who post that the Pacers are still a bunch of thugs?

Two years ago, the comments were pretty well split between people who still hated the team because they thought they were violent drug offenders and people who had noticed the team was competitive and working hard every game. That was not a year where we were losing people, we'd already lost them and we just weren't getting people back.

Last year, yep, there was very little to look forward to because everything was ugly. However, the "thugs and criminals" comments were still there (sorry, I gotta disregard those, clearly not casual fans who pay any attention), and the others mostly focused on the sound bites. While I can accept that fans are unhappy with JOB, I can't accept that most of them have their own reasons - many just parrot what other people say and focus on the coach because that is what you do. I don't think firing JOB would bring a drove of people back any more than trading Troy - who was actually very popular - would. Unless we start winning, they'll blame the new coach or another player or Larry Bird.

The thing is that last year was like the middle book of a trilogy - not very exciting, weaker than the first in many ways, sometimes even bad, but necessary to get to the third book.

flox
10-13-2010, 11:13 AM
How about simply looking at a win loss record that has gotten worse in three consecutive years?

Now we are only looking at facts, not opinoins

It is a fact he has complied a losing record in each season as head coach. It is a fact that the record has gotten even worse the last two years

Thereby this can not be a bashing of a coach but merely a factual record

Ok. The Spurs have had a worse record from the season before in the past 5 seasons. By this logic, the revenue stream is lower, and Pop should be fired. Right?

63-19
58-24 (champs)
56-26
54-28
50-32

Pop is terrible. A better coach would have seen improvement every season.


I never said Jim was the entire reason, but this is a results orientated business, and judging by the lack of progress in my opinion, Jim needs to go. Again I take it back to sales, if my revenue stream is increasingly going downward, regardless of circumstances, I am ultimetly responsible, and will be judged on thsoe numbers regardless. In using this methology, Jim would be relieved of his duties

So would Popovich. So would Rick Aldeman. Lets fire them too!


I understand not having top talent, what I dont understand is not improving , but in fact going backwards

See above.


So for those that keep saying that JOB did not have the right players to win, please tell me how many more years you think he needs? two more? Five more? Ten?

When the Pacers team has as much talent as his other playoff teams. That's when.


But again , regardless of the players, don't you want or expect to see improvement?

No. See my examples above.


Nail meet hammer.

To be honest I feel Jimmy really could care less what the fans think. To me it seems he feels the fans are a bi-product of the game, but not an essential part to the game. It's like he looks down his nose at the fans b/c they have nothing to do with what he does as a coach. The fans are just something that get in his way and know nothing about BB. How dare that a fan ever question his coaching.

To be honest, screw what the fans think. His job is to coach the team, not to listen to fans. Could you imagine how a pro sports team would look if it was run by the fans. It'd be terrible.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:09 PM
Much easier to do when your roster is that big. Get down 2 guys in the NBA and, unless you have depth that is being completely wasted by sitting on the bench out of the rotation, you are hurting.

So right after the brawl, where we clearly lost our top 3 players (JO, Ron, Reggie)

Carslyle kept the team afloat with a bunch of role players and still managed to win enough games to put the Pacers in the playoffs

Do you think Jimmy could have done that? Meaning RC adjusted his plays to fit the current personel, made no excuses and got the team into the playoffs

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:11 PM
[QUOTE=BillS;1073905]Are those the same commenters who post that the Pacers are still a bunch of thugs?

Two years ago, the comments were pretty well split between people who still hated the team because they thought they were violent drug offenders

Why would someone think they are "violent drug offenders" I don't recall any Pacers that ever fit that description

But this is Indiana were talking about

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:14 PM
The main difference between Adleman/Pops and Jim Obrien

Is they posted wining records and got their teams in the playoffs prior to having a bad year

Jim has never got this team to even an 8 seed and his record of 32 wins or so the last two yers is weak

Sometimes I feel the intent is not to defend Jim , but rather instigate mindless chatter to upset people who righttfuly so feel Jim is a weak coach who has produced nothing but losing records with the Pacers

Peck
10-13-2010, 12:16 PM
This thread long ago lost its meaning.:(

flox
10-13-2010, 12:16 PM
So right after the brawl, where we clearly lost our top 3 players (JO, Ron, Reggie)

Carslyle kept the team afloat with a bunch of role players and still managed to win enough games to put the Pacers in the playoffs

Do you think Jimmy could have done that? Meaning RC adjusted his plays to fit the current personel, made no excuses and got the team into the playoffs

That roster had a healthy O'neal for 50 games, Jackson for 81, and Peja for 40.

They were all +15 ppg scorers, and had 4 +15ppg scorers.

Meanwhile O'Brien's best teams have had 2 +15 ppg scorers.

flox
10-13-2010, 12:18 PM
The main difference between Adleman/Pops and Jim Obrien

Is they posted wining records and got their teams in the playoffs prior to having a bad year

Jim has never got this team to even an 8 seed and his record of 32 wins or so the last two yers is weak

Sometimes I feel the intent is not to defend Jim , but rather instigate mindless chatter to upset people who righttfuly so feel Jim is a weak coach who has produced nothing but losing records with the Pacers

But we are sticking to your model, which is increasing wins or same wins in 3+ years. SO they would get axed in your model.

And Jim hasn't had a good enough team to make the playoffs in a long time. At least never with the pacers.

Since86
10-13-2010, 12:32 PM
UB, all that might be true, but it still doesn't excuse JOb for how he dicked around AJ, or the fact that he played either Mike or DJones at the 4 when he had Josh and Solo on the bench, etc.


The whole problem with you're post is how your talking about maximizing wins. Does it really matter if they win 37 games and miss the playoffs or if they win 30? I don't think getting even 7 more wins out of your schedule is a positive when you consider how crappy he was in other areas.

And I still think the wins would have came in just about the same total playing a different system. I still cannot fathom why a coach would put in a system that calls on his players weaknesses, rather than their strengths.

Danny doesn't even properly fit into the system. It's absurd when your best player doesn't even fit it.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:40 PM
That roster had a healthy O'neal for 50 games, Jackson for 81, and Peja for 40.

They were all +15 ppg scorers, and had 4 +15ppg scorers.

Meanwhile O'Brien's best teams have had 2 +15 ppg scorers.

They did not have jackson for 81 games, there is only 82 games in a season and if I am not mistaken he was suspended for at least 20 games , Ron was suspended for the entire year, JO had his redeced to 15 I think

flox
10-13-2010, 12:41 PM
UB, all that might be true, but it still doesn't excuse JOb for how he dicked around AJ, or the fact that he played either Mike or DJones at the 4 when he had Josh and Solo on the bench, etc.

It shouldn't matter that he dicked around with AJ- no one expected him to be the point guard of the future, and he might not even be on the team in 2 years. AJ is at best going to be our long term backup PG last year and if people are upset about how he didn't get enough playing time even though he wasn't going to be our PG of the future..I don't know what to say.



The whole problem with you're post is how your talking about maximizing wins. Does it really matter if they win 37 games and miss the playoffs or if they win 30? I don't think getting even 7 more wins out of your schedule is a positive when you consider how crappy he was in other areas.

And I still think the wins would have came in just about the same total playing a different system. I still cannot fathom why a coach would put in a system that calls on his players weaknesses, rather than their strengths.

Danny doesn't even properly fit into the system. It's absurd when your best player doesn't even fit it.

To be fair, our team doesn't even have any real strengths- we are at best an above average passing team at all positions and that's really the only strength we have. We suck at everything else. Granger is our only scorer.

Hicks
10-13-2010, 12:42 PM
That roster had a healthy O'neal for 50 games, Jackson for 81, and Peja for 40.

They were all +15 ppg scorers, and had 4 +15ppg scorers.

Meanwhile O'Brien's best teams have had 2 +15 ppg scorers.

Woah, woah, woah.

First of all, Jack was suspended around 30 games.

Second of all, Ron was suspended the entire season after the brawl. He wasn't traded for Peja until after he requested a trade publicly the next season.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:44 PM
It shouldn't matter that he dicked around with AJ

I disagre strongly with that staement

Who of us would want our employer to "dick" them around

How does that motivate anyone?

flox
10-13-2010, 12:44 PM
Woah, woah, woah.

First of all, Jack was suspended around 30 games.

Second of all, Ron was suspended the entire season after the brawl. He wasn't traded for Peja until after he requested a trade publicly the next season.
My bad looked at the wrong season. I didn't really pay that much attention to the Pacers or basketball until after the brawl.

That season however, now that I'm looking at the right season, we still had more 15+ ppg scorers than we've ever had with O'Brien.

flox
10-13-2010, 12:48 PM
I disagre strongly with that staement

Who of us would want our employer to "dick" them around

How does that motivate anyone?

Well, I really don't believe he dicked AJ around which is why I'm ok with it. But even if he did, it's understandable- he's a 2nd round pick, a rookie, and sometimes they have to pay their dues before they start. AJ still got a stretch where he consistently got 20 minutes a game. It's just a part of the system

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 12:50 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-brawlanniversary111909
By Peter May, Special to Yahoo! Sports


Donnie Walsh still remembers his mindset right up to the moment that Ron Artest(notes) leapt off the press table at the Palace of Auburn Hills and into the stands, forever changing the immediate and soon-to-be longer fortunes of the Indiana Pacers.

“We were up by 15, on the road, against the defending champs. We were kicking their butts. It looked to me that we had a team that was more than capable of making it to the NBA Finals,” said Walsh, then the president of the Pacers. “And then, just like that, everything changed.”


The brawl started when Ron Artest charged into the stands after a fan threw beer on him.

That might be the understatement of the times.

Other Yahoo! Sports ContentPresident Obama plays some Thanksgiving football NBA team unveils its new 'Mardi Gras' uniforms More From Yahoo! Sports StaffTurkish team offers Iverson $2 million deal Oct 11, 2010 Four-team trade for Anthony officially dead Sep 28, 2010 It was five years ago Thursday night that Artest and teammate Stephen Jackson(notes) charged into the stands at the Palace, initiating one of the blackest moments in NBA history. Teammate Jermaine O’Neal(notes) delivered an on-court haymaker to a charging fan. Chairs were thrown. Beer was tossed. The game never officially ended, as the referees called off the final 45.9 seconds and the Pacers left the floor with a 97-82 victory.

In the locker room afterward, coach Rick Carlisle assembled his players and tried to put a positive spin on what he knew was going to be a major blow to the team and the franchise.

“I knew there were going to be major consequences for the organization,” Carlisle recalled. “What I told the players, was that regardless of what happens, we’re going to use this to strengthen us as a group. And you know what? That’s what we did.”

With Artest (the season), Jackson (30 games) and O’Neal (25 games, later reduced to 15 on appeal) unavailable for awhile, the crypto-Pacers won three of their next four games, averaging just 1,000 shy of capacity at Conseco Fieldhouse. The fans warmed to the scrappy group, some of whom were plucked from the minors and tossed into the starting lineup without so much as a single practice. Twenty players suited up for Indiana that season. Carlisle lost count of how many starting lineups he used. With the eventual return of O’Neal and Jackson, Indiana would go 44-38, stun the favored Boston Celtics in the first round of the playoffs and take the Detroit Pistons to six games in the second round before succumbing.

“I think beating Boston for us made the year a huge success, all things considered,” Carlisle said. “To me, the incident is one of the most enigmatic events in the history of pro sports. So much happened, yet there wasn’t one significant injury.”

Not personally. But try telling Walsh, or his deputy at the time, Larry Bird, that the franchise didn’t suffer. True, Indiana added to its woes in the ensuing months and years with a number of embarrassing off-the-court incidents involving its players (strip clubs and guns are never a good mix). The fans turned away in droves; in 2006-07 the Pacers were 28th in attendance and, the following season, fell to rock bottom, No. 30.

But to Walsh and Bird, it all started on Nov. 19, 2004, a night which will forever live in Indy Infamy.


“It really hurt us in so many ways,” Walsh said. “We had a championship-caliber team that year. Then, for the next few years, our guys had to go to court, had to deal with the legal stuff. That fractured the organization.”

Walsh made trips to New York to appeal for leniency from the commissioner. There was none forthcoming. “I thought we were singled out,” he says now. “No other team got punished. But they said they had to come down hard on us. And they did.”

Bird said through team mouthpiece David Benner that he would prefer not to revisit the moment. “We’ve moved on,” he said. Who can blame him? Carlisle (Dallas) and Walsh (New York) have moved on as well. Artest (three teams), Jackson (two teams) and O’Neal (two teams) have moved on, too. It’s Bird’s baby now, and he is trying to rebuild the team, brick by brick, starting with the public image and extending to the actual performance on the court.


Despite playing with a depleted roster for a good part of the 2004-05 season, the Pacers went on to reach the second round of the playoffs before losing to the Pistons.

(NBAE/Getty)

But as he said to Yahoo! Sports last winter, “I knew it was going to be long time [to recover]. The problem for us here is we lived it every single day. Other teams, they saw it and then went about their business. It didn’t affect them. They forgot about it. But we didn’t. We couldn’t. It hurt this franchise big-time.”

The Pacers had hoped for a seamless transition the following season, with everyone back. Bird posed with Artest for a Sports Illustrated cover piece. But Artest, who had been publicly backed by his teammates, soon was demanding a trade. “That was it,” said Walsh, who basically benched Artest for a month before shipping him to the Sacramento Kings for Peja Stojakovic(notes). “That really bothered me.” O’Neal returned and promptly got hurt – again. He would miss 83 games – more than a full season – over the next three years before being traded to Toronto. Jackson returned and lasted only one more full season before being traded to the Warriors. He was dealt to the Charlotte Bobcats earlier this week after, yup, demanding to be traded.

And as the players went, so, too, did the franchise’s image and sustained record of excellence. In Carlisle’s penultimate season, the year after the incident, the Pacers finished 41-41 and lost in the first round of the playoffs. That was the year of the Artest trade, the year that O’Neal could go only 51 games and the franchise’s first season since 1987-88 without Reggie Miller, who had retired. That season marked the 16th time in 17 years Indiana had qualified for the playoffs, highlighted by the 2000 trip to the NBA Finals. The Pacers haven’t come close to the postseason since, winning 35, 36 and 36 games the last three seasons.


To this day, Carlisle sees the fight and suspensions as costing the Pacers dearly that season – but not much beyond that. “It [the incident] set the franchise back, sure, but the immediate impact it had was that it compromised our ability to win a championship that year,” Carlisle said. “But long term, what had an even greater impact on the team was the retirement of Reggie Miller and Jermaine O’Neal’s injury issues. You can’t oversell the impact of great players in your organization. Reggie helped us get through that year. Going forward, it was more about Reggie being gone and Jermaine being hurt. That’s my honest belief.”

The players might have moved around, but they have done so with fat wallets and bank accounts. Artest lost around $5 million in pay from that season, but he hit the free-agent market this past summer and signed a five-year, $34 million deal with the Lakers that even includes a 15 percent trade kicker. Jackson, for reasons unknown to most, was awarded a three-year, $28 million extension by Warriors ownership which kicks in next season. O’Neal is in the final year of a megadeal signed with the Pacers (when he actually could really play) which pays him nearly $23 million this season.

Two other Pacers, Anthony Johnson(notes) (five games) and Miller (one game), also received suspensions from the NBA for actions stemming from the brawl. Ben Wallace(notes), whose shove of Artest got things headed in the wrong direction, was suspended for six games. (One of the many what-ifs from that night was the presence of Artest in the game, in the final minute, with his team leading by 15 points.) Chauncey Billups(notes), Elden Campbell and Derrick Coleman were also suspended for one game each. Of all the players who were suspended, only one, Wallace, is still with the team for which he played that night. And actually it is his second run with the Pistons.

Carlisle is in his second season coaching the Mavericks. Walsh is in his second full season trying to rebuild the New York Knicks. They have their own problems (especially Walsh). The Pacers, meanwhile, just had a five-game winning end with Wednesday’s loss to the Knicks. There’s a Most Improved Player (Danny Granger(notes)) on the roster and a beast-in-the-making in the middle (Roy Hibbert(notes)). They’re playing small ball and playing it pretty well.

No, they’re not where they were five years ago when the season began. Not even close. But they’re probably better off now than they were five years ago today, when everything unraveled for a team, and a franchise, that had every reason to expect a long, successful run.

Since86
10-13-2010, 12:56 PM
It shouldn't matter that he dicked around with AJ- no one expected him to be the point guard of the future, and he might not even be on the team in 2 years. AJ is at best going to be our long term backup PG last year and if people are upset about how he didn't get enough playing time even though he wasn't going to be our PG of the future..I don't know what to say.

Sorry to say this, but what a dumb argument. I bet Spurs fans are glad they don't have that type of attitude towards their players or Tony Parker would have never became their starting PG.

It doesn't matter what expectations were when they drafted him. They realized that he was better than TJ, and when you're better, you should play. Period.

Someone HAS to be the backup, so why not play your second best PG? You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well they're not good enough to start, or they're not good enough to be our long term solution, so pick and spot on the bench and stay there."






To be fair, our team doesn't even have any real strengths- we are at best an above average passing team at all positions and that's really the only strength we have. We suck at everything else. Granger is our only scorer.

And the system asks him to score in ways that he's not really all that proficient in.

Same goes with Rush, same goes with Roy. There's 3 out of your 5 starters that the system doesn't match.

I think we've all pretty much agreed that Danny is one of the players that really isn't happy with Jim. Our star player isn't all that enamored with our coach, but you think everything is hunky dory? Makes perfect logical sense.

BillS
10-13-2010, 01:00 PM
So right after the brawl, where we clearly lost our top 3 players (JO, Ron, Reggie)

Carslyle kept the team afloat with a bunch of role players and still managed to win enough games to put the Pacers in the playoffs

Do you think Jimmy could have done that? Meaning RC adjusted his plays to fit the current personel, made no excuses and got the team into the playoffs

We were 7-2 at the end of the brawl game.

In the 20 games after the brawl, we were 9-11.

In the next 20 we were 7-13.

If none of those guys come back and we finish out the season on that pace, we miss the playoffs by a mile.

We also went 13-7 in the last 20 games, which is the only thing that put us over .500 (.512 was the 8th seed Nets in 2005).

So, it isn't like RC pulled some miracle and made scrubs play like superstars.

flox
10-13-2010, 01:02 PM
Sorry to say this, but what a dumb argument. I bet Spurs fans are glad they don't have that type of attitude towards their players or Tony Parker would have never became their starting PG.

Parker got treated much worse. He was benched for Claxton and Beno, and was humiliated and Pop didn't trust him with the ball, and was told that Jason Kidd was wanted more than he was. AJ got a cakewalk by comparison. Go to any spurs forum and ask them how badly Parker got dicked around by Pop. The answer will surprise you.


It doesn't matter what expectations were when they drafted him. They realized that he was better than TJ, and when you're better, you should play. Period.

Someone HAS to be the backup, so why not play your second best PG? You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well they're not good enough to start, or they're not good enough to be our long term solution, so pick and spot on the bench and stay there."

Parker was more talented than Claxton or Beno but he still got pulled for them. Van Exel and Smith were played more than Udrih even though Udrih was better after Parker finally got the starting PG. It happens to all organizations across the NBA.








And the system asks him to score in ways that he's not really all that proficient in.

Same goes with Rush, same goes with Roy. There's 3 out of your 5 starters that the system doesn't match.

I think we've all pretty much agreed that Danny is one of the players that really isn't happy with Jim. Our star player isn't all that enamored with our coach, but you think everything is hunky dory? Makes perfect logical sense.

hmmm. I must have missed the consensus that Danny isn't happy with Jim. Flew way over my head- must have been one of the periods when I was concentrating on school. I would have loved to be a part of that debate.

Rush will never be an offensive weapon. Roy is being used more.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 01:04 PM
In the 20 games after the brawl, we were 9-11.

considering the talent level of the competiton we faced, and the players that played intially, I think to go 9-11 is one hell of an accomplishment

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:06 PM
Tony Parker started 72 games his rookie season and averaged 29.5 mins per game. Yeah, he really got dicked around.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tony_parker/career_stats.html

EDIT: And the Danny discussion was right when JOb had his option picked up by the franchise, and it's still referenced often around here.

EDIT2: And I still have no idea what you're talking about with Tony Parker. Speedy Claxton nor Beno (Udrih?) was on that team. Maybe you're thinking of Anthony Parker that played for the Raptors?

http://www.basket-stats.info/nba/2001-2002/teams/west/san-antonio.htm

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 01:06 PM
Much easier to do when your roster is that big. Get down 2 guys in the NBA and, unless you have depth that is being completely wasted by sitting on the bench out of the rotation, you are hurting.

My point is the colts DON"T make excuses, and I admire that, while a lot of people have a million in one excuses why Jim is not at fault

BillS
10-13-2010, 01:07 PM
UB, all that might be true, but it still doesn't excuse JOb for how he dicked around AJ, or the fact that he played either Mike or DJones at the 4 when he had Josh and Solo on the bench, etc.

In my case, at least, if you keep listing what you see as flaws you are going to list some things thatI don't argue with.

I would have liked to see AJ get more time, but we don't know why it happened (and AJ and other players don't seem to have bit*hed about it, which given what we thought of the locker room and those watching it like vultures would have been reported). I also thought he went small too much and that Josh should have had more time.

Those aren't enough, though, to make me cast out JOB as an evil influence.

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:14 PM
I'm not saying it should. I'm saying when you want to highlight how awful the roster is, either through injuries or whatever, you better be able to acknowledge when he purposely made the roster worse.

Playing Dunleavy or DJones at the 4 for mutliple games is a on the spot fireable offense, as far as I'm concerned. That's just insane asylum level crazy.

BillS
10-13-2010, 01:15 PM
My point is the colts DON"T make excuses, and I admire that, while a lot of people have a million in one excuses why Jim is not at fault

In fact, the weakness of the Colts' defense against the rush this year IS being attributed to injuries and young players, which I guess are only excuses when the Pacers use them.

BillS
10-13-2010, 01:17 PM
I'm not saying it should. I'm saying when you want to highlight how awful the roster is, either through injuries or whatever, you better be able to acknowledge when he purposely made the roster worse.

Sure. I never said JOB was NOT AT ALL at fault, I'm just trying to point out the other things that are. I have no problem acknowledging where he IS at fault.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 01:17 PM
I'm not saying it should. I'm saying when you want to highlight how awful the roster is, either through injuries or whatever, you better be able to acknowledge when he purposely made the roster worse.

Playing Dunleavy or DJones at the 4 for mutliple games is a on the spot fireable offense, as far as I'm concerned. That's just insane asylum level crazy.

Don't forget Murphy as center :lol:

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:19 PM
Sure. I never said JOB was NOT AT ALL at fault, I'm just trying to point out the other things that are. I have no problem acknowledging where he IS at fault.

I didn't say you, which is why I addressed UB's post.;)

You and UB are on two completely different levels, as far as I'm concerned. I completely agree with you on saying Jim needs to stay around for the rest of the season. I wish he wasn't here to start the season, but he is, and I don't think a mid-season switch would do any good, so it's a moot point.

But UB will defend Jim to the death, and I'm actually serious about that. I think UB will put something in his will about the fact that Jim is a good coach, etc, just to get the last word in on this one. (not really serious, but you get my point.)

BillS
10-13-2010, 01:22 PM
considering the talent level of the competiton we faced, and the players that played intially, I think to go 9-11 is one hell of an accomplishment

We lost to the Clippers, Warriors, Bucks (twice) out of those 9. We had some interesting wins against strong teams, but if you are going to say that was successful you have to drop 2008-2009 from the list of JOB's horrible years, considering the number of upsets we had that year.

You are essentially allowing extenuating circumstances for the guy you like and disallowing them for the guy you don't.

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 01:28 PM
UB, all that might be true, but it still doesn't excuse JOb for how he dicked around AJ, or the fact that he played either Mike or DJones at the 4 when he had Josh and Solo on the bench, etc.


The whole problem with you're post is how your talking about maximizing wins. Does it really matter if they win 37 games and miss the playoffs or if they win 30? I don't think getting even 7 more wins out of your schedule is a positive when you consider how crappy he was in other areas.

And I still think the wins would have came in just about the same total playing a different system. I still cannot fathom why a coach would put in a system that calls on his players weaknesses, rather than their strengths.

Danny doesn't even properly fit into the system. It's absurd when your best player doesn't even fit it.


The system is made perfectly for danny Granger - this is the best system for him. He cannot post, he isn't good isolated on the wings or top of the key - he isn't a good ballhandler. Jim O'Brien's system as it is has greatly enhanced Granger's career. (I'm talking offensively)

As to your first point - I pointed out number of wins because a few of the posters in this thread keep saying there has been no improvment, no improvement, how can you keep the coach if there is no improvement. And in that line of discussion it makes a huge diofference if the team this year wins 37 vs 30 wins. (It will show improvement)

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:44 PM
The system is made perfectly for danny Granger - this is the best system for him. He cannot post, he isn't good isolated on the wings or top of the key - he isn't a good ballhandler. Jim O'Brien's system as it is has greatly enhanced Granger's career. (I'm talking offensively)

You and I are about as polar opposites as can be. Danny taking five 3pters a night isn't what is best for him.

And if it is such a perfect fit, then why do we discuss how Danny is one of the players that wasn't happy when JOb's option was picked up? You would think he would be HAPPY to play for a coach that coached his style of basketball.





As to your first point - I pointed out number of wins because a few of the posters in this thread keep saying there has been no improvment, no improvement, how can you keep the coach if there is no improvement. And in that line of discussion it makes a huge diofference if the team this year wins 37 vs 30 wins. (It will show improvement)

Getting extra wins while playing Murphy at the 5, and DJones as the 4 shows improvement rather than playing Solo at the 5 and McRoberts at the four? (And I'm not necassarily talking simultaneous play)

Instead of getting Josh playing time back when Hans went out for good, and even seeing what Josh would bring isn't improvement? It wouldn't have actually been benefical for this year? Is that your argument?

That the possible starting PF for the Pacers in the 10-11 season should have sat on the bench and watched DJones play at the 4 improved the team?

So conversely playing the possible starting PF last year, and actually getting him experience, would have hurt the team because they didn't win the extra 3-4 games? (I'm cutting it in half because no one expected him to get playing time while Hans was still around)

Call me crazy, but for some reason I think improving the team would be improving the players. Not just piecing in a ridiculous lineup to manage to get through.

I mean seriously, you're saying playing DJones or Dunleavy at the 4 IMPROVED this team?

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 01:46 PM
In fact, the weakness of the Colts' defense against the rush this year IS being attributed to injuries and young players, which I guess are only excuses when the Pacers use them.

So you hear the Colts players making excuses?

MagicRat
10-13-2010, 01:50 PM
So they won 32 games last year. Given the best coach in the league, how many games would that roster, with the same injuries,etc., have won?

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 01:56 PM
You and I are about as polar opposites as can be. Danny taking five 3pters a night isn't what is best for him.

And if it is such a perfect fit, then why do we discuss how Danny is one of the players that wasn't happy when JOb's option was picked up? You would think he would be HAPPY to play for a coach that coached his style of basketball.






Getting extra wins while playing Murphy at the 5, and DJones as the 4 shows improvement rather than playing Solo at the 5 and McRoberts at the four? (And I'm not necassarily talking simultaneous play)

Instead of getting Josh playing time back when Hans went out for good, and even seeing what Josh would bring isn't improvement? It wouldn't have actually been benefical for this year? Is that your argument?

That the possible starting PF for the Pacers in the 10-11 season should have sat on the bench and watched DJones play at the 4 improved the team?

So conversely playing the possible starting PF last year, and actually getting him experience, would have hurt the team because they didn't win the extra 3-4 games? (I'm cutting it in half because no one expected him to get playing time while Hans was still around)

Call me crazy, but for some reason I think improving the team would be improving the players. Not just piecing in a ridiculous lineup to manage to get through.

I mean seriously, you're saying playing DJones or Dunleavy at the 4 IMPROVED this team?


No, I'm talking about improving this seaosn. Last season the pacers won 32 games. if they win more than 32 games that will show imprvovement and end one of the arguments that every year Jim has been our coach he loses more game than the previous season. (that was the context of my discussion of an improving record)


On the granger vs the system. There is more to the offensive system than shooting threes. Is that all you see. I see a free flowing system (perfect for danny) a system that doesn't ask Danny to isolate and create a shot (he's not good at that) the system is designed around Danny he is one of the primary reasons why we run this system. Just as O'Brien designed his offense around Pierce and Walker in Boston and Iverson in Philly, Jim has designed this offense around Danny (and Mike Dunleavy also)

I have never seen any evidence that Danny isn't happy with Jim O'Brien - I haven't seen it and I watch everything.

Since86
10-13-2010, 01:57 PM
38.

EDIT: Answering MR's question.

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 02:00 PM
We were 7-2 at the end of the brawl game.

In the 20 games after the brawl, we were 9-11.

In the next 20 we were 7-13.



No one ever remembers: sure the Pacers won the night after the brawl, but then they lost 6 straight games thereafter

No, I am way wrong. I'll blame the stupid website i was looking at. I should have trusted my memory.

Since86
10-13-2010, 02:02 PM
The number of wins isn't all inclusive of showing "improvement."

Yes, the did improve. But they didn't improve nearly enough. Why? Because players that should have played sat on the bench. Instead of getting their stripes when it really didn't matter, we now have to go through that process with a fresh new season.

They were never going to make the playoffs, so what is your goals for the end of the season? To win as many games, or improve your players so you can win as many games next season?

I shouldn't have to explain this to you UB, I've interacted with you long enough and in other areas to know that you know that sometimes living in the present isn't what you should be doing.

It's like saving money. You can't buy what you want while your saving money (You can't win as much while you play young players) but in a few months you go out and you purchase that brand spanking new 55 LED TV that you want.

You sacrifice the present in order to get to your goal down the road.

Wins and losses last year don't mean a damn thing. Unless you're on the edge, wins and losses just don't matter. Developing players means more than eeking out a couple of extra wins.

Putnam
10-13-2010, 02:07 PM
My hat is off the BillS, and to UncleBuck and flox, for fighting the good fight here.



.

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 02:11 PM
The number of wins isn't all inclusive of showing "improvement."




Stop - we are discussing totally different things. I must be getting really bad at all this (making my points clearly)

I was specifically referencing the number of wins in response to either Vnzla81 (I think) or maybe it was 90'sNBARocked (I apologize I forget who). But they were making the point that every year Jim has been here the pacers record has gotten worse from one year to the next. (last year being the worst at 32 wins) That was proof that Jim was a bad as it showed that things were getting worse not better. (That was the context in which I mentioned the number of wins) I wasn't discussing anything that you are talking about

OK, please let me know u understand my point before we move on



Originally Posted by 90'sNBARocked
So please tell me why Isiaha is a worse coach and deserved to be fired, but somehow magically O'Brien gets a pass after after contiously posting a record that gets worse every year

Since86
10-13-2010, 02:13 PM
Fully understood.

Then, without discussing W/L, please tell me how the team improved.

Hicks
10-13-2010, 02:14 PM
No one ever remembers: sure the Pacers won the night after the brawl, but then they lost 6 straight games thereafter

Actually, didn't they lose to Orlando that game after the brawl?

Since86
10-13-2010, 02:16 PM
Yes, then they won their next 3, then lost their next 7.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2005_games.html

BillS
10-13-2010, 02:17 PM
No one ever remembers: sure the Pacers won the night after the brawl, but then they lost 6 straight games thereafter


Actually, didn't they lose to Orlando that game after the brawl?

Lost to Orlando, won 3 straight (including Boston), then lost 7 straight.

Why, yes, I had my Media Guide out, why do you ask?

(gotta tell you, finding old standings and things on any of the nba.com sites is ridiculous. Archiving is not a strength.)

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 02:17 PM
Fully understood.

Then, without discussing W/L, please tell me how the team improved.

The didn't improve. I never said or suggested that they did. Not only was their record worse last season (4 fewer wins) but they also lost a number of games where they were blown out. The team regressed last season


(Oops sorry on the record right after the brawl, my bad)

BillS
10-13-2010, 02:19 PM
So you hear the Colts players making excuses?

I've heard Colts' spokespeople (don't know if it was players as such) on radio and TV saying that the rush defense is having problems due to injuries.

Are you agreeing with me that it is a reason and not an excuse, or are you saying that it is only an excuse if a player says it?

kester99
10-13-2010, 02:23 PM
Around and round....JOB is not going to be fired this season, for all the reasons IndyCornrows cited in the OP.

The question is: Does anyone expect JOB to be retained as the coach of the future, once the CBA is settled, all the available money has been spent, and whichever players we're going to pick up to round out this core of youngsters have been obtained?

Will we keep JOB to take that bunch forward? Is anyone afraid that might happen? If not, then all this JOB discussion is just writing the history books in advance...like we have to decide now what posterity will say about his tenure here. But if he's not going anyplace this year, no matter what happens, and won't be around after that, then this ongoing and any-thread-dominating JOB argument is pointless.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:24 PM
We lost to the Clippers, Warriors, Bucks (twice) out of those 9. We had some interesting wins against strong teams, but if you are going to say that was successful you have to drop 2008-2009 from the list of JOB's horrible years, considering the number of upsets we had that year.

You are essentially allowing extenuating circumstances for the guy you like and disallowing them for the guy you don't.

hmm so JIm gets a pass according to your logic?

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:27 PM
I've heard Colts' spokespeople (don't know if it was players as such) on radio and TV saying that the rush defense is having problems due to injuries.

Are you agreeing with me that it is a reason and not an excuse, or are you saying that it is only an excuse if a player says it?

Neither

I am saying the Colts players , to mu knowledge, rarely if ever, use injuries as an excuse, they win 12 games or more every year.

When poeple defend Jim, they have excuses up the wazu

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:29 PM
Around and round....JOB is not going to be fired this season, for all the reasons IndyCornrows cited in the OP.

The question is: Does anyone expect JOB to be retained as the coach of the future, once the CBA is settled, all the available money has been spent, and whichever players we're going to pick up to round out this core of youngsters have been obtained?

Will we keep JOB to take that bunch forward? Is anyone afraid that might happen? If not, then all this JOB discussion is just writing the history books in advance...like we have to decide now what posterity will say about his tenure here. But if he's not going anyplace this year, no matter what happens, and won't be around after that, then this ongoing and any-thread-dominating JOB argument is pointless.

Better yet, what would it take for the supporters of Jim to think he deserves to be fired?

10 , 20 , 30 wins or less

Just curious

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:30 PM
I will say one thing,

I wish , in my curent job, I reported to UB, Bill, Flox, etc

I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

That would be sweet

BillS
10-13-2010, 02:34 PM
I will say one thing,

I wish , in my curent job, I reported to UB, Bill, Flox, etc

I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

That would be sweet

you know, I've tried to keep this from being personal, but I resent the H**L out of the idea that because I look at more factors than a single number I am an incompetent business or people manager.

The difference between us is that I don't automatically consider a reason an excuse. I'm sorry if you've only worked for managers who think bottom line numbers are the only thing, and I wish you luck finding someone reasonable, but don't EVER take it on yourself to think I'm an incompetent boob because I use more insight into the reasons for sales and forecast misses.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 02:35 PM
The didn't improve. I never said or suggested that they did. Not only was their record worse last season (4 fewer wins) but they also lost a number of games where they were blown out. The team regressed last season


(Oops sorry on the record right after the brawl, my bad)

So there was not improvement, I wonder if it was because guys like Rasho and Watson were playing most of the minutes not giving enough playing time to the young players and with that improve, I wonder if it was because Murphy, dunleavy and Jones were playing power forward and center even when he had young guys in the bench that could have replace them and develop.(I'm talking about all three years)

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 02:35 PM
I will say one thing,

I wish , in my curent job, I reported to UB, Bill, Flox, etc

I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

That would be sweet

You don't think that is comparing apples to oranges at least a little bit

BillS
10-13-2010, 02:37 PM
Neither

I am saying the Colts players , to mu knowledge, rarely if ever, use injuries as an excuse, they win 12 games or more every year.

When poeple defend Jim, they have excuses up the wazu

So why did they lose the two games this year? What have they been saying to you? According to your analysis, Jim Caldwell must be the only reason and he should be fired before they lose another game. Heaven forbid he should say that injuries are a problem and then trie to deal with them, not always successfully so far.

We're done here.

count55
10-13-2010, 02:37 PM
So they won 32 games last year. Given the best coach in the league, how many games would that roster, with the same injuries,etc., have won?

Ultimately, that doesn't matter.

If you tell me that I can have the best coach in the league (whoever you may choose that to be), I take him tomorrow.

By definition, the best coach in the league is preferable to all other coaches.

Win total is a little spotty, too. Hitting on all cylinders - no injuries, no problems - it was probably high-30's, low-40's talent. Clearly that didn't happen. However, the Pacers played so poorly overall through mid-March of last season that they could have played much, much better, and not had many, if any more wins.

As with Buck, my opinion is that O'Brien did a good job the first two years, and a poor job last year. I also thought that he may have "lost" the players last year, but changed my mind late. I was OK with him coming back this year, because, quite simply, nobody of any consequence would be willing to take the job.

Regarding the system, it fits the players just fine. In fact, it's a really good system for Hibbert, though Peck is absolutely correct when he says O'Brien does a poor job of demanding discipline - particularly from Granger. If he wants to run the offense through Hibbert in the High/Low post, he's going to need to sit on Danny.

What the system doesn't fit is the fans.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:38 PM
but don't EVER take it on yourself to think I'm an incompetent boob because I use more insight into the reasons for sales and forecast misses

Bill,

You are really off base here, I never ever said anything remotley like that

Please pull up a post where I questioned your intelligence or called you ignorant

Thats really unfair

as far as careers, I dont know what field you work in, but I do know that probably 90% of comapnies judge your abilities in sales by your revenue

As a manager once told me "You dont get paid to dig ditches , you get paid to sell."

kester99
10-13-2010, 02:40 PM
Better yet, what would it take for the supporters of Jim to think he deserves to be fired?

10 , 20 , 30 wins or less

Just curious

I think you might find that UB, BillS, flox or any number of others here would be quite willing to see Jim gone now, just based on past performance...if there were a replacement available that we KNEW for a fact would be the guy to take the 2011-2012 team forward (which would require magical powers none of us have)...if it made sense to take on that extra contract at this point, considering all the uncertainty there is going into this and next season, while still paying Jim (which it doesn't)...if this were 2011/2012 (it's not).

The Pacers have decided to retain him in this last transition year, waiting for that 2011/2012 watershed. It's understandable, even if it's not ideal.

IF, I say IF, they decided to keep him going forward after all the player acquisitions coming up, then there'd be a revolt.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:45 PM
You don't think that is comparing apples to oranges at least a little bit

of course, maybe not the best analogy but sales to me is much like professional sports

All about results

BillS
10-13-2010, 02:46 PM
You are really off base here, I never ever said anything remotley like that

Please pull up a post where I questioned your intelligence or called you ignorant

Thats really unfair

as far as careers, I dont know what field you work in, but I do know that probably 90% of comapnies judge your abilities in sales by your revenue

As a manager once told me "You dont get paid to dig ditches , you get paid to sell."


I will say one thing,

I wish , in my curent job, I reported to UB, Bill, Flox, etc

I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

That would be sweet

To be a business manager who treats every excuse the same is the definition of incompetent, whether they are all treated as "fire the salesman" or they are all treated as "not the salesman's fault".

To be a business manager who determines which reasons are valid and then tries to fix them is how you succeed.

I do not now nor do I ever simply shrug off reasons for not making numbers. I would hope like heck that I worked with my team to set those forecasts properly, and if we miss them I hope I could recognize that I may take some of the blame for having unreasonable expectations. But I'm not going to let someone sit at home with his feet up and then make up an excuse. That is asinine, and to insinuate it is insulting.

If you ignore the reasons for failure through some misguided idea that there are no reasons, only excuses, how can you succeed? Try the same thing only harder? That's what you accuse JOB of.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:47 PM
I think you might find that UB, BillS, flox or any number of others here would be quite willing to see Jim gone now, just based on past performance...if there were a replacement available that we KNEW for a fact would be the guy to take the 2011-2012 team forward (which would require magical powers none of us have)...if it made sense to take on that extra contract at this point, considering all the uncertainty there is going into this and next season, while still paying Jim (which it doesn't)...if this were 2011/2012 (it's not).

The Pacers have decided to retain him in this last transition year, waiting for that 2011/2012 watershed. It's understandable, even if it's not ideal.

IF, I say IF, they decided to keep him going forward after all the player acquisitions coming up, then there'd be a revolt.

That is a fair point, and I agree with one exception

If the team is more than 10 games under 500, and hasnt looked good (blowouts, not competitve , sulking players) then I would replace him mid season

count55
10-13-2010, 02:51 PM
I think you might find that UB, BillS, flox or any number of others here would be quite willing to see Jim gone now, just based on past performance...if there were a replacement available that we KNEW for a fact would be the guy to take the 2011-2012 team forward (which would require magical powers none of us have)...if it made sense to take on that extra contract at this point, considering all the uncertainty there is going into this and next season, while still paying Jim (which it doesn't)...if this were 2011/2012 (it's not).

The Pacers have decided to retain him in this last transition year, waiting for that 2011/2012 watershed. It's understandable, even if it's not ideal.

I think Buck would agree with me when I say that if the tone of the season had not changed in March, then I would have been calling for him to be let go regardless of available replacements.

Otherwise, I needed to see a viable replacement that made sense long term, not a Lester Conner type hire.

kester99
10-13-2010, 02:53 PM
That is a fair point, and I agree with one exception

If the team is more than 10 games under 500, and hasnt looked good (blowouts, not competitve , sulking players) then I would replace him mid season

I agree with your exception...I'd wish Larry would step in for the rest of the season if we saw a situation that bad. Not saying 10 games under .500 is a magic number, but those other factors...yes. Still, there's going to be some of that, just because of the youth of the team, but if it's a consistent thing, then some intervention would be called for..

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:57 PM
To be a business manager who treats every excuse the same is the definition of incompetent, whether they are all treated as "fire the salesman" or they are all treated as "not the salesman's fault".

To be a business manager who determines which reasons are valid and then tries to fix them is how you succeed.

I do not now nor do I ever simply shrug off reasons for not making numbers. I would hope like heck that I worked with my team to set those forecasts properly, and if we miss them I hope I could recognize that I may take some of the blame for having unreasonable expectations. But I'm not going to let someone sit at home with his feet up and then make up an excuse. That is asinine, and to insinuate it is insulting.

If you ignore the reasons for failure through some misguided idea that there are no reasons, only excuses, how can you succeed? Try the same thing only harder? That's what you accuse JOB of.


You like to pick certain lines from a bigger post

But yet again not even a word in your post that acknowledged that I never called you anything remotely close to a "incompetent boob "

We will never come to an understanding here, its futile convrsation

I think Jim has done a poor job the last two years, has essentially lost the team and should be fired , at the latest, at the end of the year

You do not agree, not a problem as people have the right to disagree

Since86
10-13-2010, 02:58 PM
What the system doesn't fit is the fans.

Please explain to me how the system highlights our players strengths.

I await your details, that most of us seem to be missing.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 02:59 PM
I think Buck would agree with me when I say that if the tone of the season had not changed in March, then I would have been calling for him to be let go regardless of available replacements.

Otherwise, I needed to see a viable replacement that made sense long term, not a Lester Conner type hire.

How would you define a "viable replacement"?

A proven coach?

We dont know if the new coach will produce desire results, no matter what his prior record is

Only time will tell that one

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:00 PM
Please explain to me how the system highlights our players strengths.

I await your details, that most of us seem to be missing.

I struggle to find reasoning and find it is much easier to define success by progress of more wins than the prior year

Gamble1
10-13-2010, 03:04 PM
As with Buck, my opinion is that O'Brien did a good job the first two years, and a poor job last year. I also thought that he may have "lost" the players last year, but changed my mind late. I was OK with him coming back this year, because, quite simply, nobody of any consequence would be willing to take the job.
.
I was thinking about this yesterday and found this type of thinking hard to understand. So in the entire NBA there is not one quality assistant out there willing to take the risk on being the next Pacers head coach.

count55
10-13-2010, 03:05 PM
I agree with your exception...I'd wish Larry would step in for the rest of the season if we saw a situation that bad. Not saying 10 games under .500 is a magic number, but those other factors...yes. Still, there's going to be some of that, just because of the youth of the team, but if it's a consistent thing, then some intervention would be called for..

Let me put it this way...

If November and December look like November and December of last season - in terms of quality of play, not record - then I'm OK with letting Jim go and going with an interim.

If November and December look like the prior year - competitive, but losing close games, playing relatively well, then I think you keep him until the end of the year, but no further.

I find it very unlikely that he'll be kept beyond this season, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I don't know what the season would have to look like for it to happen.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:09 PM
Let me put it this way...

If November and December look like November and December of last season - in terms of quality of play, not record - then I'm OK with letting Jim go and going with an interim.

If November and December look the prior year - competitive, but losing close games, playing relatively well, then I think you keep him until the end of the year, but no further.

I find it very unlikely that he'll be kept beyond this season, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I don't know what the season would have to look like for it to happen.

I can live with that approach, makes sense

kester99
10-13-2010, 03:10 PM
I find it very unlikely that he'll be kept beyond this season, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I don't know what the season would have to look like for it to happen.

Yeah, that occured to me a few posts ago. If we make the playoffs, if it looks like JOB's schemes are clicking with the team....winning would change a lot of people's minds. As 90s keeps stressing, the results are the bottom line for many, if not most, fans.

count55
10-13-2010, 03:11 PM
I was thinking about this yesterday and found this type of thinking hard to understand. So in the entire NBA there is not one quality assistant out there willing to take the risk on being the next Pacers head coach.

Not with the number of good jobs available last summer, and not with where the roster was at in June and July.

The acquisition of Collison changed the calculus of that a great deal, but when the coaches were being hired, it's unlikely that any one with an established reputation or promising future was going to spend it on a franchise that had serious questions about it's future in it's city, about it's President/GM, and with no real attractive young talent.

In June, the Pacers were probably viewed as a franchise stuck in the mud with no real idea of how to get out of it.

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 03:12 PM
I think Buck would agree with me when I say that if the tone of the season had not changed in March, then I would have been calling for him to be let go regardless of available replacements.

Otherwise, I needed to see a viable replacement that made sense long term, not a Lester Conner type hire.

Yeah I do agree. I was very surprised by March - I thought the team would limp through March and April and end up with probably 24 wins instead of 32. but the team came together, the offense got a little better, Watson IMO was the key player as he settled into the point guard position, I think Danny got healthier (the schedule was a little easier but they were still playing NBA teams obviously)

I wouldn't have had a problem if Jim had been let go after the season even with a good March and April. I am a believer in the three year rule in most situations - players do tend to start tuning the coach out and often simply a new approach is good. This might surprise may of you, but I think after the season I said if the pacers did change coaches they would probably win more games for this upcoming season (other factors being equal) .

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:14 PM
I am a believer in the three year rule in most situations - players do tend to start tuning the coach out and often simply a new approach is good.

Thank you sir, Bird agrees with you

Since86
10-13-2010, 03:16 PM
I struggle to find reasoning and find it is much easier to define success by progress of more wins than the prior year

Not everything can be measured by pure numbers.

If Josh would have played significant minutes last year, their record probably would have been worse just by him not really playing as consistantly as other players. But even though the record falls that season, you don't have to have him go through that learning curve this season and hopefully you win some ball games that you would have lost if he was still in his learning process.

You can't just look at records and determine if the season was a success or not.

Kaufman
10-13-2010, 03:16 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?

BillS
10-13-2010, 03:21 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?

I hope that is not the case.

As I have said before, I think Jim is finished this year whichever way it goes. Either we continue to play poorly for whatever reason, in which case he is at the end of his contract and you move on (probably with a new GM and/or President of Basketball Operations as well), or they do extremely well, in which case he is at the end of his contract and it is time to get a coach who can take the team to the next level.

I've never said JOB was a coach who should be kept for the future, just that he is adequate or, at worst, not a disaster for the present.

Since86
10-13-2010, 03:27 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?

No.

And it's the same reason to why I didn't like his hiring. His style isn't fit to win in the NBA. I know he took the 76ers into the playoffs, yadda yadda yadda, but I compare it to the wildcat formation in the NFL that took a strangle hold last year, but teams are now struggling with it this year.

It's a gimmick. Plain and simple. It's designed to be different for a reason. Most teams play similiar styles. There might be different variations but there's nothing truly different about each system. And there's a reason for it, because it works.

Phoenix is the perfect example. They cruise through the regular season playing their style and then when it comes down to proving it in the playoffs, they fold. Opposing teams are too smart, too disciplined, and too well coached to continually make the same mistakes.

I don't think anyone can say that Jim is structured. His system doesn't come down to execution, and the other teams' systems do. Everyone knows what LA is going to do, everyone knows what Orlando is going to do. Everyone knew what Cleveland was going to do, but they are still on top because, number one, they have the players, but number two, they have the players that are willing to execute the game plan.

Phil Jackson just doesn't roll out the ball and tell em to play. There is structure to what they want to do.

Going back to my wildcat example, when it first came out it worked because it was different. It was something defenses hadn't seen before, they didn't know how to defend it. But now, when coaches are able to sit down and scout the plays, they teach assignments to their players. You stay in this lane, and if he cuts back take him down. While this player goes out and tries to set the edge, forcing him back to the middle where his help is, etc. That's the exact reason why the option is ran in college, but isn't ran in the NFL. Players are too good, too disciplined, and have too smart of coaches on the sidelines that can just pick apart gimmicky schemes.

It's the same with JOb. Play defense for 10-15 secs and the Pacers will shoot themselves out of the game, because they aren't disciplined enough to take a good shot, rather than an open shot.

It just doesn't work at the NBA level. High school? Yes. College? Yes. NBA? No.


And the only reason why it worked in Philly is because they had AI. While he's never shot the ball extremely well, he gets into the lane, he commanded double teams when he drove, and he made life a lot easier for role players. The Pacers don't have that luxury.

kester99
10-13-2010, 03:34 PM
I've never said JOB was a coach who should be kept for the future, just that he is adequate or, at worst, not a disaster for the present.

My new personal motto: Not A Disaster!


And, kaufy, I think JOB needs to move on, whether we make the play-offs or not. If we do, that helps him on the job hunt. We need to line a replacement up early enough to get his input on player selection next year.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:35 PM
Not everything can be measured by pure numbers.

If Josh would have played significant minutes last year, their record probably would have been worse just by him not really playing as consistantly as other players. But even though the record falls that season, you don't have to have him go through that learning curve this season and hopefully you win some ball games that you would have lost if he was still in his learning process.

You can't just look at records and determine if the season was a success or not.

For the most part I agree with that

however, if the record deosnt mprove or gets worse without a MAJOR issue (trading the star player, massive team overhaul, key stars injured for a long time) then I think its acceptable

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:36 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?

Depends

If we make the 8th seed and get swept, I think he is gone

If we make it to the playoffs and win a series he might get an additional year or years

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 03:37 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?

There are so many variables in your scenerio. If the team wins 40 games and is 8th seed and loses 1-4 in the first round to the Miami Heat. I doubt he is brought back. if the team wins 46 games gets the 6th seed loses 3-4 in the first round and things look like they are really coming together - i think he would probably be back.

If i were Bird, though I would look into so much more than just record and playoffs though. is the team getting better and still responding to the coach? that is a huge question. I know some of you are screaming, they didn't get better nor did they respond to the coach last season so why is Jim still coach. They did respond and did show improvement late in the season though.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:38 PM
Phoenix is the perfect example. They cruise through the regular season playing their style and then when it comes down to proving it in the playoffs, they fold. Opposing teams are too smart, too disciplined, and too well coached to continually make the same mistakes.

If not for the infamous "Horry push on Steve Nash" and the resulting suspensions, they were on their way to the NBA finals that year

Kaufman
10-13-2010, 03:42 PM
1) for the record, i have no problems with job moving on. i'm not a particular fan of his or his style.

2) i'm not the type of person who is gonna ask for a guy to be fired. look, at the end of the day, we're all human beings and job has a family to feed. its his livelyhood and i think its just not very classy to look for someone to be fired. its a sad thing, really, and as an outsider its not for me to judge him.

3) i agree, job is similar to bo hill from the early 90's. a warm body, a seat filler. this team doesn't need a fine wine to sip on until they appreciate what wine actually is.


All that said - we don't know what the relationship between Larry and Jim is. If Larry has a set of expectations for Jim,and Jim is meeting those expectations, I think Larry will have a hard time not re-signing JOB. Larry seems like a loyal guy. My guess is that Jim knows he needs to make the playoffs this year, and the rest of the team knows that too. Otherwise this is a lame duck season and the coach won't have authority.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 03:42 PM
I wonder how much of an input to the players have , if any , in this decision? I remeber at the start of last year Bird took a stand with Jim saying that its not the coaches fault , if the players can't get it together , we'll find players who can.

I dont know if that was designed to shut the complaining players up, or if Bird truly believed that

One thing we don't know for sure is if it was a Simon call to pick up Jims option last year, a Bird call, or they were both on the same page

Putnam
10-13-2010, 03:50 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?


It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that he will or won't almost certainly be retained. On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably do or do not know whether he shouldn't probably be retained.



.

kester99
10-13-2010, 03:53 PM
It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that he will or won't almost certainly be retained. On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably do or do not know whether he shouldn't probably be retained.

.

Stop it.

Also, I could not agree more or less.

Brad8888
10-13-2010, 03:54 PM
I expect

1. that the team will continue to wear uniforms that are a combination of blue, gold, and white

2. that there will be people who are upset with how the team performs

3. that there will be people who want the coach fired

4. that there will be arguments about what is being done wrong or what is failing to be done correctly

5. that there will be less post play than we are currently being led to believe

6. that there will be more threes shot and missed than many will like to see

7. that there will be less ball and player movement offensively than we have been led to believe

8. that the team will, while not necessarily "Live by the 3 or Die by the 3", have its fortunes primarily determined by its shotmaking abilities more than its defense

9. that rebounding will continue to be a significant issue that needs to be addressed next summer with the available cap space money

10. that the record for the team at the end of the season will not exceed the expectations of very many people, unfortunately

Kaufman
10-13-2010, 03:57 PM
There are so many variables in your scenerio. If the team wins 40 games and is 8th seed and loses 1-4 in the first round to the Miami Heat. I doubt he is brought back. if the team wins 46 games gets the 6th seed loses 3-4 in the first round and things look like they are really coming together - i think he would probably be back.

If i were Bird, though I would look into so much more than just record and playoffs though. is the team getting better and still responding to the coach? that is a huge question. I know some of you are screaming, they didn't get better nor did they respond to the coach last season so why is Jim still coach. They did respond and did show improvement late in the season though.

agree with second part, disagree with first part. i think if he makes the 8th seed, that larry's gonna have a hard time not renewing. if they make the playoffs, then there is some degree of influence he has on the team. otherwise the team would be rebelling and losing for the sake of losing/rebelling.

if they make the 8th or 7th spot, with a record in the high 30's or low 40s, and a near sweep in the playoffs, i'd say it will be 50/50.

not that i want him to be retained, i don't personally like his style.

86 - brian kelly runs a gimmick offense and he is the coach of one of the most historic football teams in this country.

with regards to Phil, wasn't the triangle once thought to be a gimmicky offense? i could be wrong on that but that is what i thought.

Brad8888
10-13-2010, 04:00 PM
It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that he will or won't almost certainly be retained. On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably do or do not know whether he shouldn't probably be retained.



.

So, what office are you running for?

Hicks
10-13-2010, 04:03 PM
I will say one thing,

I wish , in my curent job, I reported to UB, Bill, Flox, etc

I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

That would be sweet

This kind of commentary only hurts discussion.

Since86
10-13-2010, 04:06 PM
86 - brian kelly runs a gimmick offense and he is the coach of one of the most historic football teams in this country.

with regards to Phil, wasn't the triangle once thought to be a gimmicky offense? i could be wrong on that but that is what i thought.

The spread isn't a gimmicky offense. It's basically the same tree offense that produced the West Coast offense which won 4 superbowls with Montana.

I would relate the spread offense to what Cleveland did with Iso's for LeBron. Letting him pick apart the defense and having his role players read and react to how the defense tries to stop LeBron, and them either cutting or spotting up for a kick out.

Same as the QB having the ball the majority of the time, and having the recievers read-react to the defensive backs on whether or not to cut off the patern, etc.

EDIT: And I guess you could make the argument that it was, at one time, considered a gimmick. But that's the case with everything that isn't the straight forward first design of any sport. Dribbling the ball was once considered a gimmick.

The spread is no longer a gimmick because of the amount of time it's lasted, and the amount of teams that find success with it.

Can JOb's scheme make the transition from gimmick to a more accepted style? Most certainly. I don't think it will happen though.

Gamble1
10-13-2010, 04:16 PM
Not with the number of good jobs available last summer, and not with where the roster was at in June and July.

By good jobs do you mean Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, Philly, Atlanta?

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there only 3 assistants given head coaching jobs last year and of those only one was proven?

I still have a hard time believing that the NBA is devoid of talented coaches and Jim is the best option right now...

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 04:24 PM
By good jobs do you mean Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, Philly, Atlanta?

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there only 3 assistants given head coaching jobs last year and of those only one was proven?

I still have a hard time believing that the NBA is devoid of talented coaches and Jim is the best option right now...

Maybe I am too influenced by the early to mid 90's when Larry Brown was hired. But I think there is a right time to hire a coach like Brown and wrong time. 1990 would have been the wrong time, the team wasn't in a position to win then and IMO the time to hire a top coach is when the team is ready to win. if LB would have been hired in 1989 sure a few more wins along the way, but he would have been gone by 1994 when the team was then ready for a Brown type coach.

Move to today, I don't think the current team would get the maximum benefit from lets say JVG (not to even wonder if he would take the job now) but in two years, or maybe next summer if the younger players come along and if they turn the expiring contract into something, not only might the team be ready for a JVG but he might be willing to come here.

If you hire an unproven assistant now how is that much better than JOB. Why not keep JOB until the time the team is ready to take off and then go get a top level coach.

Obviously there is a lot of gray area and theory involved in what I am suggesting. And I know the obvious reply is why not get the best coach regardless of the situation - sure in theory but that isn't realistic especially for a team in Indiana

Justin Tyme
10-13-2010, 04:25 PM
This might surprise may of you, but I think after the season I said if the pacers did change coaches they would probably win more games for this upcoming season (other factors being equal) .


Well, I must admit I don't remember you saying that. Not that we agree often, but I do read all your posts, and I can't ever remember you having made that statement. I am impressed you felt that way though.

Unclebuck
10-13-2010, 04:31 PM
Well, I must admit I don't remember you saying that. Not that we agree often, but I do read all your posts, and I can't ever remember you having made that statement. I am impressed you felt that way though.

I tried to sneak it in, but Peck was all over it

Justin Tyme
10-13-2010, 04:33 PM
Do you guys agree that if this team makes the playoffs, there is no way JOB isn't retained?


Absolutely not!

If you want to look at it as a validation of Bird's plan and out of LOYALTY to Jimmy, it could happen, but I believe Bird understands it's time to move to the next level with a new coach.

count55
10-13-2010, 04:38 PM
Please explain to me how the system highlights our players strengths.

I await your details, that most of us seem to be missing.

Not ducking this, but got busy. Will get back tonight or tomorrow morning.

Kaufman
10-13-2010, 04:48 PM
Absolutely not!

If you want to look at it as a validation of Bird's plan and out of LOYALTY to Jimmy, it could happen, but I believe Bird understands it's time to move to the next level with a new coach.

i very much think this is a larry bird decision. would love to know what is in his mind regarding this right now, but presumedly only herb simon and possibly david morway know.

additionally, i think larry is a lock to come back barring catastrophe.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 05:06 PM
This kind of commentary only hurts discussion.

I dont understand why you feel that way

I was simply saying that I wish I had a boss that allowed me time to prove myself in the way thesse gentlemen feel about Jim

Thast all , my intent was not to belittle anyone

flox
10-13-2010, 05:21 PM
Tony Parker started 72 games his rookie season and averaged 29.5 mins per game. Yeah, he really got dicked around.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tony_parker/career_stats.html

EDIT: And the Danny discussion was right when JOb had his option picked up by the franchise, and it's still referenced often around here.

EDIT2: And I still have no idea what you're talking about with Tony Parker. Speedy Claxton nor Beno (Udrih?) was on that team. Maybe you're thinking of Anthony Parker that played for the Raptors?

http://www.basket-stats.info/nba/2001-2002/teams/west/san-antonio.htm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2003/story?id=1568514

My bad, the second part was Pop dicking on Udrih with Van Exel- for the record it is generally agreed that Udrih outplayed Van Exel that entire season.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA052406_10C_BKNspurs_notebook_172f41e2_html.htm l?showFullArticle=y

And there were times when there was talking of keeping Udrih and trading parker- check the spurs forums. This all happened. He was really screwed around with and Pop never really gave him control of the team till the detroit series.

in that same article, by the way, is this quote


Popovich said some of Udrih's problems on the court stem more from his concern about the coach's lack of confidence in him than in doubt in his own abilities.

"Tony Parker and I had to work through that situation," Popovich said, "and now Tony is a pretty confident, accomplished young man. That same sort of thing would have to happen for Beno, too ó to know that I want him on the court and playing for us."

Popovich gave both Parker and Udrih a very short leash and pulled them very fast and very often and took the ball out of their hands a lot- and tried to destroy their confidence.

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 05:27 PM
[QUOTE=flox;1074248
in that same article, by the way, is this quote



Popovich gave both Parker and Udrih a very short leash and pulled them very fast and very often and took the ball out of their hands a lot- and tried to destroy their confidence.[/QUOTE]

Yeah he destroyed Parker's confidence so bad that it made him an all star and finals MVP, man Pop sucks. :rolleyes:

BillS
10-13-2010, 05:30 PM
I dont understand why you feel that way

I was simply saying that I wish I had a boss that allowed me time to prove myself in the way thesse gentlemen feel about Jim

Thast all , my intent was not to belittle anyone

Then on this year's review I'm putting down that you need significant improvement on communication skills, because THIS:


I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

Does NOT mean THIS:


I wish I had a boss that allowed me time to prove myself

flox
10-13-2010, 05:31 PM
Yeah he destroyed Parker's confidence so bad that it made him an all star and finals MVP, man Pop sucks. :rolleyes:

Tried. Key word is tried. Parker sucked it up, knew that it was a part of the NBA, and worked and proved himself until Pop could trust him with the offense.

Doesn't mean that Pop didn't dick around with Parker. So in that case I have no problems with O'Brien dicking around with AJ.


Then on this year's review I'm putting down that you need significant improvement on communication skills, because THIS:



Does NOT mean THIS:

Yes yes the two are not equal. One does not mean the other.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 05:33 PM
Then on this year's review I'm putting down that you need significant improvement on communication skills, because THIS:



Does NOT mean THIS:

Bil

Do you get off attacking me?

Funny how you were "upset" about my view of a boss

yet I am not supposed to be upset when falsey accused of calling you a "boob"

which you yet again dont address

Everything is my fault, Im the bad guy , and you have absolutely no reason to think you played any part in this

BillS
10-13-2010, 05:33 PM
Yeah he destroyed Parker's confidence so bad that it made him an all star and finals MVP, man Pop sucks. :rolleyes:

But ... wait .... when JOB puts a player on a short leash and sits them down when they make mistakes or play outside the system, he is destroying their confidence and ruining them for life.

I wish you guys would start being specific about WHY Pop's way of doing it works and JOB's doesn't, instead of making snide one-liners that more-or-less say "when my guy does it it is good but when your guy does it it is horrible".

BringJackBack
10-13-2010, 05:33 PM
Yeah he destroyed Parker's confidence so bad that it made him an all star and finals MVP, man Pop sucks. :rolleyes:

Way to take something out of context.

Anyone who watched back then when TP was young knows how frustrated Pop would get with Tony and how short of a leach he was on.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 05:34 PM
Flox

If you dont like me PM me and tell me why

or do you just like thanking anyone who attacks me?

vnzla81
10-13-2010, 05:36 PM
But ... wait .... when JOB puts a player on a short leash and sits them down when they make mistakes or play outside the system, he is destroying their confidence and ruining them for life.

I wish you guys would start being specific about WHY Pop's way of doing it works and JOB's doesn't, instead of making snide one-liners that more-or-less say "when my guy does it it is good but when your guy does it it is horrible".

70+ games on his rookie year is not a short leash.

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 05:37 PM
But ... wait .... when JOB puts a player on a short leash and sits them down when they make mistakes or play outside the system, he is destroying their confidence and ruining them for life.

I wish you guys would start being specific about WHY Pop's way of doing it works and JOB's doesn't, instead of making snide one-liners that more-or-less say "when my guy does it it is good but when your guy does it it is horrible".



Possibly becasue Pop has a proven track record of consistently being in the playoffs, has 2 rings, and multiple WCF apperances?

I know he had better talent

BringJackBack
10-13-2010, 05:48 PM
70+ games on his rookie year is not a short leash.

Are you saying that Brandon Rush was not on a short leash his rookie year?

flox
10-13-2010, 06:49 PM
Flox

If you dont like me PM me and tell me why

or do you just like thanking anyone who attacks me?

No no I'm thanking him because he is right. When you say


I could then put up average to below average numbers , but continously get a pass becasue of all the excuses I could come up with, and I still would be employed

It sounds very negative and like an attack on us, whereas your intention was to say


I wish I had a boss that allowed me time to prove myself

Which sounds a lot less like an attack and a lot more positive!

I'm sorry I misunderstood you! =(


70+ games on his rookie year is not a short leash.

Are you saying that Brandon Rush was not on a short leash his rookie year?
This! Brandon got a much lighter version of the treatment Parker got.


Possibly becasue Pop has a proven track record of consistently being in the playoffs, has 2 rings, and multiple WCF apperances?
He didn't have that when he did it to Parker. He had 1 ring from a strike shortened 99 season.

Putnam
10-13-2010, 07:53 PM
So, what office are you running for?


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHXplX2nVd7N4iGfCuWPlwsp7X3wXVu fyYNHltpCkSBtZx3tc&t=1&usg=__aKCE-Vu5487Tq-FH2jAUBX04BRs=




I don't think the current team would get the maximum benefit from lets say JVG (not to even wonder if he would take the job now) but in two years, or maybe next summer if the younger players come along and if they turn the expiring contract into something, not only might the team be ready for a JVG but he might be willing to come here.

If you hire an unproven assistant now how is that much better than JOB. Why not keep JOB until the time the team is ready to take off and then go get a top level coach.


I'm glad this thread has turned in this direction. It makes no sense to yell about replacing the coach if you can't point to somebody better who would have taken the job if offered it -- and there just isn't any certainty that a better coach than O'Brien would have worked for Indiana during the past three thin years. It just might be that Jim O'Brien is the best coach the Pacers could have had during these tough years.

Kaufman
10-13-2010, 09:07 PM
putty i think bob hill is currently unemployed. is dick versace still amongst the living?

90'sNBARocked
10-13-2010, 09:51 PM
No no I'm thanking him because he is right. When you say



It sounds very negative and like an attack on us, whereas your intention was to say



Which sounds a lot less like an attack and a lot more positive!

I'm sorry I misunderstood you! =(



This! Brandon got a much lighter version of the treatment Parker got.


He didn't have that when he did it to Parker. He had 1 ring from a strike shortened 99 season.

I truly wasn't trying to attack you, I know you have a lot of respect here

Im pretty new

Hicks
10-14-2010, 12:33 PM
Bil

Do you get off attacking me?

Pointing out that A does not equal B is not an attack.

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 12:40 PM
Pointing out that A does not equal B is not an attack.

Hicks I will PM you sir

pacer4ever
10-14-2010, 12:48 PM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHXplX2nVd7N4iGfCuWPlwsp7X3wXVu fyYNHltpCkSBtZx3tc&t=1&usg=__aKCE-Vu5487Tq-FH2jAUBX04BRs=






I'm glad this thread has turned in this direction. It makes no sense to yell about replacing the coach if you can't point to somebody better who would have taken the job if offered it -- and there just isn't any certainty that a better coach than O'Brien would have worked for Indiana during the past three thin years. It just might be that Jim O'Brien is the best coach the Pacers could have had during these tough years.

sam mitchell / mike van gudy / a lot more that i am forgeting

Trader Joe
10-14-2010, 12:49 PM
Is Mike Van Gundy kind of like the third Manning brother?

BillS
10-14-2010, 12:55 PM
Bil

Do you get off attacking me?

Funny how you were "upset" about my view of a boss

yet I am not supposed to be upset when falsey accused of calling you a "boob"

Seriously, do you read your original message and think you were implying I was a manager who would give you time to develop?

No, you did not directly use the word "boob". But I think it was pretty clear you were implying I was the type of manager who would let my people get away with anything as long as they had an excuse. Who would therefore be totally ineffective and fail to deliver the best possible results.

So, no, you didn't say I was a "boob", but I defy you to find 2 people here who didn't think you were calling me incompetent.

Since86
10-14-2010, 01:06 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2003/story?id=1568514

My bad, the second part was Pop dicking on Udrih with Van Exel- for the record it is generally agreed that Udrih outplayed Van Exel that entire season.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA052406_10C_BKNspurs_notebook_172f41e2_html.htm l?showFullArticle=y

And there were times when there was talking of keeping Udrih and trading parker- check the spurs forums. This all happened. He was really screwed around with and Pop never really gave him control of the team till the detroit series.

in that same article, by the way, is this quote



Popovich gave both Parker and Udrih a very short leash and pulled them very fast and very often and took the ball out of their hands a lot- and tried to destroy their confidence.


Ummm....... Tony played 33.9 minutes per game his second year in the league, but yet he didn't have control until the playoffs, scratch that, until the FINALS!?

How many minutes did he play vs Det. in order to get his season average up that high?

And you want to know what the BEST part about this whole debate is?

Beno Udrih didn't even play for the Spurs. He was drafted in 2004, which would have been Tony's fourth year in the league.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/beno_udrih/career_stats.html

Speedy Claxton and Steve Kerr were the back ups to Tony his 2nd year in the league.


Keep digging your hole.

Since86
10-14-2010, 01:09 PM
Way to take something out of context.

Anyone who watched back then when TP was young knows how frustrated Pop would get with Tony and how short of a leach he was on.

So that explains why his 2nd highest MPG was his rookie season?

Makes sense.

Since86
10-14-2010, 01:11 PM
I'm glad this thread has turned in this direction. It makes no sense to yell about replacing the coach if you can't point to somebody better who would have taken the job if offered it -- and there just isn't any certainty that a better coach than O'Brien would have worked for Indiana during the past three thin years. It just might be that Jim O'Brien is the best coach the Pacers could have had during these tough years.


So who here knew Jim was going to get the job before Rick was let go?

Let's see a show of hands please. No one? Anyone? I didn't think so.

It's an impossible request, because we can't look into the future, nor do we know everyone's thoughts. Tom Thibodeau could have just been biting at the bit to get his own team, we will never know.

He might have jumped right on board with eagerness to prove himself.

I don't know if he was, and you certainly don't know if he wasn't.

You're asking an impossible question as a counter-argument.

flox
10-14-2010, 02:33 PM
Ummm....... Tony played 33.9 minutes per game his second year in the league, but yet he didn't have control until the playoffs, scratch that, until the FINALS!?

How many minutes did he play vs Det. in order to get his season average up that high?

And you want to know what the BEST part about this whole debate is?

Beno Udrih didn't even play for the Spurs. He was drafted in 2004, which would have been Tony's fourth year in the league.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/beno_udrih/career_stats.html

Speedy Claxton and Steve Kerr were the back ups to Tony his 2nd year in the league.


Keep digging your hole.

Keep not reading my posts. Keep ignore what vested Spurs fans and people who have watched the Spurs tell you. I assume Brandon isn't on a short leash because he played the most minutes of the Pacers last year either.

I have given you quotes, backup from other Spurs watchers, and articles written at the time, but it is your choice to ignore them. In fact, you even ignore what I write in my posts, since I very clearly stated that there Pop was dicking with both Tony and Beno, and I showed you articles from 03 and 06.

The first article shows where Claxton was being trusted over Parker. Yes, I know Claxton was his backup point guard. Why else would I link you to an article about how Claxton replaces Parker?

The 2nd article shows Van Exel being given time over Udrih.

I was showing you that there are at least 2! examples of Pop dicking over point guards.

And that Pop even admits to it:


Popovich said some of Udrih's problems on the court stem more from his concern about the coach's lack of confidence in him than in doubt in his own abilities.

"Tony Parker and I had to work through that situation," Popovich said, "and now Tony is a pretty confident, accomplished young man. That same sort of thing would have to happen for Beno, too — to know that I want him on the court and playing for us."

You don't even read my posts even though I type properly.


So that explains why his 2nd highest MPG was his rookie season?

Makes sense.

Yeah, because minutes played = amount of trust a coach has in his players. That's the key indicator. Nothing else matters.

You have to be kidding. Rush played the most minutes last year for the entire team, and yet it was wildly agreed that Rush was in the doghouse for most of the year.

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:38 PM
You mean reading your posts where you tell me that Beno was taking time away from Tony his rookie year, and when I show you he wasn't on the team you change it to his second year? Are those the posts you're talking about?

Or the post where you continued to say he took time away from Tony in his second year, when Beno wouldn't be on the team for another full season? That post?



Why should I read your post and nit-pick through them when you can't even get the time line right? The fact that you're trying to tell me a player that wasn't even in the NBA at the time was taking time away from Tony Parker discredits you enough. I don't need to debunk your supporting points, because your main point is factually wrong.

If the whole point is wrong, I don't need to debate every single sentence with you.

Get your facts in order and then we can talk, until then I'm going to point out your inaccuracies and let the rest stand on their own.

duke dynamite
10-14-2010, 02:39 PM
sam mitchell / mike van gudy / a lot more that i am forgeting
Who in the Hell is Mike Van Gundy?

SMosley21
10-14-2010, 02:43 PM
to answer the original question...

45 wins
a greatly improved Roy Hibbert
a rejuvenated Danny Granger
budding stars in Darren Collison & Paul George

duke dynamite
10-14-2010, 02:44 PM
to answer the original question...

45 wins
a greatly improved Roy Hibbert
a rejuvenated Danny Granger
budding stars in Darren Collison & Paul George
I think 37-39 wins. This team needs a lot of work.

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 02:45 PM
Who in the Hell is Mike Van Gundy?

jeff's alter-rgo

like Bizzaro to Superman

duke dynamite
10-14-2010, 02:49 PM
jeff's alter-rgo

like Bizzaro to Superman
Believe it or not, Mike Van Gundy does exist. He is the head football coach for Oklahoma State University. Van isn't really part of his name, but he gave that to himself a year or two ago to ride the coat tails of Stan's success.

http://coachgundy.com/

Hell, I'm willing to give him a shot to lead a BASKETBALL team.

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:51 PM
I dunno about that. I have questions about his manhood.

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 02:52 PM
Believe it or not, Mike Van Gundy does exist. He is the head football coach for Oklahoma State University. Van isn't really part of his name, but he gave that to himself a year or two ago to ride the coat tails of Stan's success.

http://coachgundy.com/

Hell, I'm willing to give him a shot to lead a BASKETBALL team.

LOL

Im betting he could give Jim a run for his money

flox
10-14-2010, 02:57 PM
You mean reading your posts where you tell me that Beno was taking time away from Tony his rookie year, and when I show you he wasn't on the team you change it to his second year? Are those the posts you're talking about?
You obviously missed when I recanted the Beno statement.
My bad, the second part was Pop dicking on Udrih with Van Exel- for the record it is generally agreed that Udrih outplayed Van Exel that entire season.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/M...wFullArticle=y

So already, I know you aren't reading my posts at all.




Or the post where you continued to say he took time away from Tony in his second year, when Beno wouldn't be on the team for another full season? That post?

Complete misrepresentation of what I wrote.


He was really screwed around with and Pop never really gave him control of the team till the detroit series.

No mention of Beno anywhere. If you read this within the context of my entire post, you would have known that already. But no. And if you read my sentences in the context of the links I provided, you would know that we were jumping around in time. The articles have timestamps and refer to different seasons.





Get your facts in order and then we can talk, until then I'm going to point out your inaccuracies and let the rest stand on their own.
Same to you. Read the posts, follow the entire discussion, read the links. Until then, I'm going to let your refusal to read all evidence I provide to stand on its own.

Since86
10-14-2010, 03:16 PM
Let me break this whole discussion down for you in simple format.

Me: Your best PG should be playing.
You: Who cares if AJ plays? When he was drafted there wasn't any expectations for him.
Me: Good thing the Spurs didn't follow your advice or Tony Parker would have been screwed, because Pop would have dicked him around.
You: Pops did screw Tony around his rookie year with Claxton and Beno
Me: Tony played 22mins per game and started 72 games his rookie year. Beno wasn't even on the team.
You: My bad that was the next year
Me: Wrong again
You: I mean when Beno came into the league

Beno came into the league in Tony's 4th year, and Congrats. He pushed Tony Parker, who ended up being the Finals MVP for playing time. That proves MY original point that it doesn't matter your expectations on when you were drafted. The best player should be playing.

The fact that Beno did warrant a discussion on who should be playing backs up MY point, not yours. MINE.

You're the one that said AJ shouldn't be playing because of where he was drafted and the expectations that came with it. If that's the case then Beno shouldn't have challenged Tony for minutes.

I'm done with the conversation.

flox
10-14-2010, 03:34 PM
No, lets break down this conversation that way:

since: i'm not ok with O'Brien screwing around with Price
flox: i'm ok with coaches messing with PG's. Price was a 2nd round pick and not a long term solution at point. Ok, so what.
since: Good thing the Spurs didn't follow your advice or Tony Parker would have been screwed, because Pop would have messed with him. What a dumb argument.
flox: actually, parker was pulled forby claxton and beno
since: Tony played 22mins per game and started 72 games his rookie year. Beno wasn't even on the team.
flox: Parker got treated much worse. He was benched for Claxton and Beno, and was humiliated and Pop didn't trust him with the ball.
since: you're wrong beno wasn't on the team
flox: my bad, i meant parker was pulled by claxton and beno for van exel. look at these two articles
since: no your wrong beno wasn't on the team
flox: read my post- i said i messed up. still doesn't change the point that parker/beno got much worse treatment than AJ.
since: here let me sum up our argument.


and here we are now.



Beno came into the league in Tony's 4th year, and Congrats. He pushed Tony Parker, who ended up being the Finals MVP for playing time. That proves MY original point that it doesn't matter your expectations on when you were drafted. The best player should be playing.

The fact that Beno did warrant a discussion on who should be playing backs up MY point, not yours. MINE.

You're the one that said AJ shouldn't be playing because of where he was drafted and the expectations that came with it. If that's the case then Beno shouldn't have challenged Tony for minutes.

I'm done with the conversation.

Yeah. he pushed aroudn parker, and parker won mvp while beno got screwed around by van exel after playing really well the first year. parker still was recovering from the whole jason kidd fiasco. beno got backup minutes but he never got starter minutes. beno was the same round, same pick as parker. he challenged parker in 04, and got screwed in 05.

yeah, i see how that fits your argument and not mine.

Since86
10-14-2010, 03:42 PM
Going from 14mins a game to 10mins a game is the different between challenging and being screwed?

Good to know. I'll file that away. Thank you for your insight.

flox
10-14-2010, 03:47 PM
Going from 14mins a game to 10mins a game is the different between challenging and being screwed?

Good to know. I'll file that away. Thank you for your insight.

In the context of that season and who he lost minutes too? Absolutely. The quote I keep on referring to
Popovich said some of Udrih's problems on the court stem more from his concern about the coach's lack of confidence in him than in doubt in his own abilities.

"Tony Parker and I had to work through that situation," Popovich said, "and now Tony is a pretty confident, accomplished young man. That same sort of thing would have to happen for Beno, too ó to know that I want him on the court and playing for us.

Suggests that it had a huge impact on Beno's mindset.

Mackey_Rose
10-14-2010, 03:47 PM
I dunno about that. I have questions about his manhood.

You shouldn't.

He's a man.

He's 40.

Hicks
10-14-2010, 04:54 PM
I really, really, really wish people would stop with this aggressive garbage towards one another. It's a Pacers discussion board; ACT LIKE IT and stop being so damned confrontational! God forbid we all try to be understanding and relaxed with one another.

:scream:

Kaufman
10-14-2010, 05:54 PM
it seems like its gone from a discussion to a competition. and very few are reading it. if you guys really want to discuss, do it via PM or exchange phone numbers.

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 05:55 PM
I really, really, really wish people would stop with this aggressive garbage towards one another. It's a Pacers discussion board; ACT LIKE IT and stop being so damned confrontational! God forbid we all try to be understanding and relaxed with one another.

:scream:

Hey Hicks just curious and definitley not trying to be funny

What would you say is the difference between passion and antagonizing?

The reason I am asking becasue I think one is acceptable and one is not

Hicks
10-14-2010, 06:15 PM
I want to see others try to explain the difference before I chime in; I need to think about it.