PDA

View Full Version : Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season



Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 08:45 AM
Yes I know we have discussed this topic what seems like everyday for years. But perhaps this might be a little different take on the topic.

I get frustrated with the argument I hear often when many of you (most of you) suggest that the Pacers team would be better now had the younger players gotten more time the past 2 or 3 seasons. That makes a lot of sense, and how could anyone argue with that. It is true if Josh had been playing 35 minutes a game for 2 seasons he would be better than he currently is. How much better, I don't know, we will never know.

The flip side is that sometimes players need to develop at their on speed. Maybe throwing Josh out there two seasons ago 35 minutes per game when he wasn't ready might have hurt his development - who really knows, I don't. Another offshoot of this is that for most younger players they develop perhaps as much during the offseason as they do during the season - reasoning is in the summer they can really work on their game and their bodies without having to worry about "winning games"

OK with that as the intro, what I really want to discuss (before the season starts) is which players do you want to see developed. I get very frustrated when many of you suggest after the fact, that we should have developed the younger guys because "we knew the team wasn't going to be any good". My question is, when do we know the team isn't going to be any good. Do we know right now this years team isn't going to be any good?

We know if George, Lance, Magnum are all played 30 minutes every game this season - those three guys will be better in March and April this season and for next season. So before the season starts anyone willing to go on record and suggest they need to get big minutes and if that hurts our chance to win games - so be it.

Bottom-line I don't want to hear next summer you complain about how the young guys should have been developed if you aren't willing (before the season) to sacrifice wins now for the future and and if you do want the younger players developed then I don't want to hear you complain about us not making the playoffs.

it seems to me for about 3 seasons now many of you have had it both ways. You want the team to win, but then after the fact you complain about how the young guys weren't developed. You wait until midseason and seemingly suggest that you knew all along the team was going to stink and look how dumb can the pacers be they should have been developing the young guys all along.

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 09:08 AM
I been saying for years now that they should be developing the guys by giving them playing time, we know about the three years rebuilding procces, why not make it two years? at this moment I don't care about winning but give the young guys enough
Playing time so they can help the team next year.

By the way I don't want to see Posey,Foster,Solo and Dun taking minutes from those guys either, maybe a max of 15 min unless somebody gets hurt.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 09:24 AM
I been saying for years now that they should be developing the guys by giving them playing time, we know about the three years rebuilding procces, why not make it two years? at this moment I don't care about winning but give the young guys enough
Playing time so they can help the team next year.

By the way I don't want to see Posey,Foster,Solo and Dun taking minutes from those guys either, maybe a max of 15 min unless somebody gets hurt.

Ok, then just to clarify - you would be fine with 22 wins (for example or maybe even fewer wins) if the younger guys get the majority of the playing time. Which players do you want getting the majority of the minutes then

Kegboy
10-14-2010, 09:35 AM
More PT is always preferable when it comes to developing players. This isn't the NFL, where you might get Cutler'd and you start hearing footsteps.

Of course, this allows me to pull my favorite dead horse out of the closet and beat on it some more. There's a perfect compromise between winning and developing players. It's about a hundred miles straight up I-69. But noooo, it's much more important for young players to sit and watch Jimmy's genius at work then actually get out on a court. Might as well be sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture on basketball theory for all the good it does.

:banghead:

Seriously, if we keep Lance and we don't send him up, TPTB are hopeless.

:deadhorse:

Alright, now that I got that out, let's talk about the real world where Ft. Wayne apparently doesn't exist. Though not by design, Jimmy is being forced to play McRelevant simply due to the lack of options. I'd sure like to see Rolle getting Jeff's minutes, as well, but that'll depend on how the roster shakes out.

Overall, we've got an outside shot of making the playoffs, and we should try for it. Regardless of if Mike's gonna be here next year, I think he's in a better position to help us do that than PG. Now, if the season falls apart, which it may very well do, you've got two options. Either showcase Mike for a trade, or start feeding the kids minutes. But if we're 10 games out, there's no point in playing guys who simply aren't going to be here next year. But we may very well need a different coach before that'd happen.

DrFife
10-14-2010, 09:43 AM
The flip side is that sometimes players need to develop at their on speed.

I think this is a crucial point. Maybe cooking is a useful analogy: If a recipe calls for a dish to bake for 30 minutes at 350 degrees, you can play around with the settings (e.g., 20 minutes at 425), but it may take a lot of trial and error and you still may not precisely replicate the finished product. Moreover, for many dishes, nuking simply is not an option.

The point is that we have several players who simply may need more development time than just this coming regular season to out-produce our veterans for 10+ minutes a game toward a playoff effort. Acknowledging this doesn't imply that we should shelve them altogether this season. Once in a while, things seem to come together quickly for a player, but the vast majority of the time, unless one of them makes extraordinary progress in practice and in limited minutes, we should be at peace with the idea that they still need to "bake" for a while.

WhackoJacko
10-14-2010, 09:44 AM
Yes I know we have discussed this topic what seems like everyday for years. But perhaps this might be a little different take on the topic.

I get frustrated with the argument I hear often when many of you (most of you) suggest that the Pacers team would be better now had the younger players gotten more time the past 2 or 3 seasons. That makes a lot of sense, and how could anyone argue with that. It is true if Josh had been playing 35 minutes a game for 2 seasons he would be better than he currently is. How much better, I don't know, we will never know.

The flip side is that sometimes players need to develop at their on speed. Maybe throwing Josh out there two seasons ago 35 minutes per game when he wasn't ready might have hurt his development - who really knows, I don't. Another offshoot of this is that for most younger players they develop perhaps as much during the offseason as they do during the season - reasoning is in the summer they can really work on their game and their bodies without having to worry about "winning games"

OK with that as the intro, what I really want to discuss (before the season starts) is which players do you want to see developed. I get very frustrated when many of you suggest after the fact, that we should have developed the younger guys because we knew the team wasn't going to be any good. My question is, when do we know the team isn't going to be any good. Do we know that know?

We know if George, Lance, Magnum are all played 30 minutes every game this season - those three guys will be better in March and April this season and for next season. So before the season starts anyone willing to go on record and suggest they need to get big minutes and if that hurts our chance to win game - so be it.

Bottom-line I don't want to hear all next summer you complain about how the young guys should have been developed if you aren't willing (before the season) to sacrifice wins now for the future and I don't want to hear you complain about us not making the playoffs.

it seems to me for about 3 seasons now many of you have had it both ways. You want the team to win, but then after the fact complain about how the young guys weren't developed. You wait until midseason and seemingly suggest that you knew all along the team was going to stink and look how dumb can the pacers be they should have been developing the young guys all along.

It appears that Roy agrees with you UB.

http://beta.indystar.com/article/20101014/SPORTS04/10140413/1004/SPORTS/Pacers-starters-shine-but-subs-fail-to-surface

Mike Wells
Indystar


In a perfect world, everybody would play, but if we want to win, we all need to be tied in together, and the best way to do that is to have the most experienced guys out there," starting center Roy Hibbert said. "Once in a while, you sprinkle in a young or new guy in there, but the core guys need to be on the court for us to win. We can't go five in and five out."
....

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 09:49 AM
Ok, then just to clarify - you would be fine with 22 wins (for example or maybe even fewer wins) if the younger guys get the majority of the playing time. Which players do you want getting the majority of the minutes then

I might surprise you with this answer but If JOB was developing the young guys by giving them playing time and not playing the old players that much I wouldn't be asking for his head(I think many guys here feel the same way)

If I was the pacers I'll be starting Dc,Rush,Granger,Mcbob and Hibbert(this also means to play them the most minutes and have them at the end of the game) and I would bring of the bench AJ,PG,Dun,Hans and Rolle, I understand Lance not playing much because the Pacers have way to many wing players, if they win 30+ games good if they win 15 to 20 games fine with me either way they are not making the playoffs but at least we would know what we have and not only that the other teams in the NBA would also know what we have in the case the pacers ever want to make a trade.

xtacy
10-14-2010, 09:52 AM
i really can't decide. i wanna see young guys develop, but on the other hand i'm sick of losing.

the best thing i can do right now is hoping(or dreaming) winning will come with young guys getting lots of playing time.

Speed
10-14-2010, 09:57 AM
A bunch of factors here, I think. Historically they've drafted guys who were supposed to be NBA ready, so I'd expect them to be able to handle the mental part of travelling, being suddenly rich, all the catchings of fame really. So, I guess I'd expect them to play. Arguably their bodies are more mature, their minds are more right, they'd benefit most from the playing time. I think they did this with BRush, it didn't work really, but the idea was right. I think this was more from necessity and lack of option than just developing him. I think for Roy they could have done this better, but you know looking at Roy now it's hard to argue it WASN'T the right thing to do, honestly.

The other side of this is Lance Stephenson, he just turned 20, his body is ready, his game is not. He has shown he needs to get his mind right, his house in order from a man standpoint let alone a player. I still think he should play though, not all year, not all game, but he needs a taste to hammer home how important this all is for him and what he needs to work on. This year is a huge test for him mentally, I think he'll learn alot about himself and the organization about him.

Bottom line is this. My biggest beef was playing vets, who weren't in the long term plans, ahead of younger guys - who were. On top of that, I didn't feel like there was a drop off to playing the youngsters, so it became very frustrating for me as a fan.

So with all that said, I'm okay with Lance playing sporadically, Magnum not at all. But I want Paul George to play quite a bit, to learn, plus I think he's almost already what we hope BRush would be.

QuickRelease
10-14-2010, 09:59 AM
Both. Do what it takes to win the most games we can, while developing the young guys to carry it even further. I think, as much as anything, playoff experience will stir up a hunger for success like nothing else.

pacers74
10-14-2010, 10:00 AM
Most of our core lineup is young, so they can play and devlop. As for the rookies, George will have to compete with B.Rush for the backup first wing in spot. He could get around 15 minutes a night if he plays well. Tyler will get his time. Lance and Magnum, if they are both still on the team might be hurting for playing time, but they might need a year to devlop anyway.

So, we can do both, but we have to try and win now. This city is sick of the pacers sucking. It would mean a lot if we have a winning record and make the playoffs.

dohman
10-14-2010, 10:35 AM
I disagree. If you throw rookies out there to early and put pressure on them they do not always pan out. Confidence plays a large role in this game and if you fail over and over again all game long you will eventually just think you are that type of player.

Example. Josh is bigger and stronger this year. He can finally defend in the post and bang with the boys. 12 months ago I do not think this could of been possible. I think he finally looks like a 3rd year player instead of a robot out there.

Putnam
10-14-2010, 10:35 AM
I'd put Paul George and Tyler Hanbrough at the top of the list of players who need developmental minutes. McRoberts and Price can already earn minutes with the way they play (on this team, if not on better teams), and the other young guys (Stephenson, Rolle) can wait.

I don't have any idea about the way early minutes does or doesn't help young players in general, or our specific young guys. So I promise not to be one of those who gripe, whatever happens.




.

Speed
10-14-2010, 10:38 AM
Example. Josh is bigger and stronger this year. He can finally defend in the post and bang with the boys. 12 months ago I do not think this could of been possible. I think he finally looks like a 3rd year player instead of a robot out there.

I was thinking about Josh, I think he just now has a defined position that fits. He wasn't mature enough physically before to be a PF and not nearly mobile enough to be a SF. It just took him awhile to fit into the position of PF. I think thats a big reason we have seen such a drastic improvement.

Clarification: It's not that he was ever projected to be a SF, it's just he was never ready to be a PF, until now.

McKeyFan
10-14-2010, 10:43 AM
I don't think the problem will be as large this year.

Last year, it wasn't that Murphy was a veteran getting time over younger guys. It was that he was less effective than McRoberts, when you applied both sides of the floor.

Same with A.J. He was our best point guard last year. That's why he should have gotten the most minutes.

This year, Dun will not be less effective than Rush or George (my opinion of course). Yes, he is less effective on defense but he is still okay, not in the terrible category. His solid offense makes him the better choice of player.

I wouldn't mind Posey getting some minutes this year if he were really effective. So far, he hasn't shown that. So George, Rush, McRoberts, Rolle ought to get them. Not to develop them but because they would be better.

So, the problem in the past, in my opinion, has not been the continuum between veterans and development. It has been Jim O'Stubborn's refusal to play younger guys who are better than vets.

Ozwalt72
10-14-2010, 10:44 AM
I like bringing the rooks along a bit slower, unless they show an ability to help your team right away.

Sprinkle in playing time for the rookies throughout the year. Put them in with the vets, not the other rookies. Pick their opponent. And when injuries happen give them that chance to step up. There's not a minute or game requirement even.

I think George could help us from the wing right away. His athleticism is something we badly need at the spot. He'll probably step into a role of 10-15 minutes off the bench, depending on how much Posey sucks during the season.

Lance and Magnum should be in suits a lot of nights early, but when they have favorable opponents, make them active and give them some time in quarter 2 or 3.

Hansbrough....I think he may be the only guy you want to actually get force-fed minutes due to our lack of ready depth at big. Probably 15 minutes per game, ramping up as the season progresses if he shows that he can handle it.

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 10:44 AM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_101013.html
By Conrad Brunner


Ten things you need to know about the Pacers' 98-86 victory over the Timberwolves on Wednesday at Conseco Fieldhouse. …


•After using developmental substitution patterns in the first three games, Coach Jim O'Brien went to a more standard look and the results were impressive. Danny Granger scored 30 with 11 rebounds and four assists. Darren Collison scored 19 with three assists. Roy Hibbert had 16 points, 14 rebounds, seven blocks and four assists. Josh McRoberts had eight points and 11 boards but five turnovers.


•After using the five-in, five-out substitution pattern of the first three games, employed so that young players could receive enough playing time for reasonable evaluation, the transition began toward standardizing the rotations. "We've been playing kind of equal opportunity to give a chance for the young guys to get in there and mix it up," he said. "More of a normal rotation tonight, not completely, but once we play Friday night (against New Orleans in Conseco Fieldhouse) we'll be into our eight-to-10 man rotation."


•The defensive numbers looked good – Minnesota shot .319 overall and totaled just 34 points on 12-of-43 (.279) shooting in the second half – but did not impress the coach. "We are so far away from being a halfway decent defensive team," said O'Brien. "We're setting ourselves up for disappointment if we don't defend at a better level than we did tonight."


•Paul George may have busted his preseason slump. He scored 10 off the bench with six rebounds in 24 minutes. He was 3-of-21 in the first three games, totaling seven points in 65 minutes. "I am getting a little more adjusted," he said. "It is as hard as I thought it would be."


•Playing the second of a back-to-back, the T-Wolves led 52-47 at the half but were outscored 25-13 in the third quarter and that was that. As a result, the previously winless Pacers improved to 1-3 and the previously undefeated T-Wolves dropped to 3-1. As if that matters.


•O'Brien would like to use a 10-man rotation during the regular season but it could depend on the tempo the Pacers establish. "It might depend on the tempo that we have established in a game but I would like to have confidence in 10 people," he said. "Whether we use all 10 every night is another issue but I would like to have 10 guys that would be ready to go and play every game."


•My best guess on those 10: starters Darren Collison, Mike Dunleavy, Danny Granger, Josh McRoberts and Roy Hibbert; backups A.J. Price, James Posey, Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough and Jeff Foster.

•Beyond the top six, there wasn't much in the way of productivity for the Pacers (no one else scored more two),

•O'Brien will not donate playing time to younger players for the sake of their development. "I want to develop the young guys but I'm not developing anybody to the point that it might cost us a game," he said. " … We can talk about rebuilding all we want. My job is to win basketball games and develop talent. But the top priority is to win basketball games."

•Brandon Rush has put himself in a real bind with the season-opening five-game suspension. If the guys playing ahead of him in the interim (namely Dunleavy and George) perform well, he may face a fight for playing time when he returns. "There are two issues," said O'Brien. "There would be the issue of where he would be in the rotation if he wasn't suspended. That is an issue separate from the suspension. He has to earn a rotation spot, number one. Number two, clearly he can't be in it the first five games so I'm thinking in terms of obviously other people. And depending on how the other people do in the first five games, we'll see how he fits back in."



Intersting that Conrad doesnt think Rush will be in the rotation. Also as much as I dont like Jim, I understand and agree that its about wins. If I was a coach and had a family to support, I wouldnt be so concerened with playing the young guys, I would do whatever I could to win , to ultimitlley keep my job

That does make sense

dohman
10-14-2010, 10:45 AM
I was thinking about Josh, I think he just now has a defined position that fits. He wasn't mature enough physically before to be a PF and not nearly mobile enough to be a SF. It just took him awhile to fit into the position of PF. I think thats a big reason we have seen such a drastic improvement.

Clarification: It's not that he was ever projected to be a SF, it's just he was never ready to be a PF, until now.


You are exactly right. He was not quick enough to be a athletic beat you to the basket PF and he wasnt strong enough to be a ill just bump you until I get there PF. Now he is and it is working great for him.

This is just preseason. I keep telling myself that. I keep being reminded of visions of David Harrison scoring 10-15 ppg in every pre season game a few years ago so I try not to get that excited.

But if he can keep this going through the season. I would let him have the PF spot. He has to average 10 rpg though. Tell him he will be the PF of the future if he can do that. Then I go and break the bank on a top tier SG.

Ozwalt72
10-14-2010, 10:47 AM
Clarification: It's not that he was ever projected to be a SF, it's just he was never ready to be a PF, until now.

Actually, if I remember right, he was regarded as a tweener at one point. People thought he could play both positions pro early in his duke career.

dohman
10-14-2010, 10:47 AM
Another thing. If george can continue to give us the performance he did last night. He continue to sit rush.

I am not saying start PG24 but atleast get him 15-20 min per game.

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 10:47 AM
Buck

Your points make sense. The only thing I would say is lets NOT play the young guys early unless they give us the best chance to win, period.

When this would change for me is if come say March we are clearly out of the playoff race, then I definitely want the young guys to play and play often. I would much rather have that than win meaningless games at the end , with our starters and have Jim or whoever tell us how important it was to build momentum for next year

Putnam
10-14-2010, 10:50 AM
I's like to make a related point:


Looking at Jose Slaughter's excellent Front Page contribution, I see the list of All-Time Pacers listed by seasons played.

How many Pacers ever have played in 10 or more seasons? The answer is 5. (Miller, Smits, Fleming, Foster and Davis).

How many Pacers have played in only one single season? The answer is a whopping 138. This is not based on O'Brien's supposed mishandling of rookies, nor just the years of Larry "I Don't Play Rookies" Brown. The whole history of the franchise shows clearly that one-and-done is the usual pattern. Just defining "One" as a single year gets you more than half of all Pacers in history. If you define them as one contract, then you've got nearly the total. Players with a history of five or more years with the Pacers is still a very small number of 32, and that includes guys like Greg Dreiling who had nothing much to develop, and guys like Bender who couldn't even make it onto the court.

So, what I'm saying is, just because you've got a young player on the roster doesn't mean you've got talent worth developing. The enthusiasm some feel right now about Magnum Rolle is nothing else than the enthusiasm that somebody in Atlanta felt for Solomon Jones when he was drafted there.

Most players wash out. There just aren't enough minutes to go around. Developing a player who's not going to be here in three years is not smart.

Speed
10-14-2010, 10:51 AM
Let me ask this, if everyone is healthy and ready....

How would people feel if TJ comes back and plays over AJ?

What about if Posey plays back up PF instead of Hansbrough?

90'sNBARocked
10-14-2010, 10:58 AM
Let me ask this, if everyone is healthy and ready....

How would people feel if TJ comes back and plays over AJ?

What about if Posey plays back up PF instead of Hansbrough?

Honestly I have no poltics involved

If TJ and Posey CLEARLY outplay AJ and Tyler , thats the right thing to do

If however, one or the other is played because of reasons not related to their play on the court, I have a big issue with that

sportfireman
10-14-2010, 10:59 AM
Be like the Thunder play your young guys until they get better. :D

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 10:59 AM
Let me ask this, if everyone is healthy and ready....

How would people feel if TJ comes back and plays over AJ?

What about if Posey plays back up PF instead of Hansbrough?

I won't jump out a window, I won't call for O'Brien's head. Ford is a legitimate NBA point guard. He can be effective. But I think Price has looked good so far and as long as his knee is OK, I would just rather Price get the backup point guard minutes instead of Ford.

dohman
10-14-2010, 11:02 AM
Be like the Thunder play your young guys until they get better. :D


Sure lets acquire several top 5 picks and potentially the best player in the nba and see how that works out.

Brad8888
10-14-2010, 11:03 AM
The Pacers should finish developing the young guys who have been on the team previously and add Collison to the future development of the team with big minutes, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of winning (or at least stinking less).

Part of the issue here at this point is that the guys who have been our young guys before are now starters and still need a lot more development this year.

Roy still needs work on almost every aspect of his game to develop consistency and enough confidence to be agressive.

Josh (who is about out of the NBA right now, right?) obviously is just beginning to become the player he can be and will need time to adjust to his new role and playing on a part of the court he is not used to playing which will take even more time to master.

Rush, assuming he is still part of any future plans, still needs time to further develop the offensive aspect of his game (I hope he still can, otherwise what a "wasted" opportunity, and I mean that both ways).

AJ Price could also use time to finish developing as well, and I just hope he is given the chance to because I still feel he could be a long term starter on an NBA team that focuses on fundamentals, and I still think he should be ahead of Collison in the rotation even though that won't happen.

Then, there is Hansbrough, who arguably is a rookie once again who now is more raw than he was when he was drafted due to not being on the court for so long and has a long way to go to become a contributor.

And, Collison still needs work, but not the work he will likely get here. He needs to develop a passing game, but in the current system it isn't going to happen (I still hope you are right, but so far it doesn't appear that the passing aspect of the pg position is being changed, the only change being the addition of more PnR without enough capable bigs available to play it effectively).

So, in my view, the young guys the Pacers already had STILL need time to develop despite having reached the very beginning of vet status for the purposes of this discussion. The rookies this year are more raw than any of the guys I mentioned above were as rookies.

Stephenson is possibly the least "born ready" of the three despite being the best scorer. Of all things, if he is not bought out, Stephenson should probably spend the majority of this season on the bench or inactive in my view, and I will label him as most likely to be out of the NBA by the end of his rookie contract, but I wouldn't mind ending up wrong about that because he is a smooth scorer that kind of reminds me of a smaller Jalen Rose.

Rolle is probably the most ready to contribute but possibly has the lowest ceiling of any of the three, and his status of being kept has to be in question at this point, but I think he probably will be. He should probably get the most minutes of the three due to the lack of enough players to adequately cover 48 minutes at the 4/5 positions, but I am not entirely sure that O'Brien will give him minutes barring a complete implosion of Hansbrough. Also, Posey could still surprise, which would reduce Rolle's minutes, but that is unlikely at best.

George is a better scorer than he has shown thus far, and has the potential to play defense at a fairly high level, but he needs actual court time to develop court awareness against teams that play solid perimeter defense to further his development (failure can be a great teacher, and he will fail frequently at this point). That said, I am at a loss as to how he will get that time with the types of players that are in front of him at the combo guard and wing positions without the team going small with an alarming frequency, which I am starting to believe is highly likely to happen due to O'Brien's "our front line is alarmingly thin" comment combining that with his penchant for running two combo guards and two wings with one big. That eventuality would be in Paul's favor, and even if the results suffer because of it, I am in favor of his getting minutes in place of bits and pieces of minutes from a combination of Granger, Rush, and Dunleavy.

If this is "having it both ways", I guess I do want it both ways. Notice I didn't take into account much to do with the former vets, Ford (who probably will get combo minutes this year at AJ's expense because he attacks more and the Pacers will want to maximize his trade deadline value, if he has any), Foster (who will get minutes as long as his back holds up, and should get those minutes if there is any hope of establishing any real PnR even though the punishment he will get from setting those hard picks might knock him out sooner than I would like), Dunleavy (who will get minutes due to being the best offensive initiator from the wing that will keep defenses honest), and Granger (duh). I believe that leaves Solo, Dahntay, and Posey, and they should be practice squad guys unless something truly radical happens, with Solo the second most likely to be cut by the end of pre-season because Posey will be kept as a fourth for the Former Celtic Parquet Reminiscence and Bridge Club so that they don't have to play with a blind.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 11:03 AM
How many Pacers ever have played in 10 or more seasons? The answer is 5. (Miller, Smits, Fleming, Foster and Davis).

How many Pacers have played in only one single season? The answer is a whopping 138. This is not based on O'Brien's supposed mishandling of rookies, nor just the years of Larry "I Don't Play Rookies" Brown. The whole history of the franchise shows clearly that one-and-done is the usual pattern. Just defining "One" as a single year gets you more than half of all Pacers in history. If you define them as one contract, then you've got nearly the total. Players with a history of five or more years with the Pacers is still a very small number of 32, and that includes guys like Greg Dreiling who had nothing much to develop, and guys like Bender who couldn't even make it onto the court.

So, what I'm saying is, just because you've got a young player on the roster doesn't mean you've got talent worth developing. The enthusiasm some feel right now about Magnum Rolle is nothing else than the enthusiasm that somebody in Atlanta felt for Solomon Jones when he was drafted there.

Most players wash out. There just aren't enough minutes to go around. Developing a player who's not going to be here in three years is not smart.

That goes back to a point I often make in response to the blanket refrain, play the young guys,play the young guys. OK which young guys. Not all "young guys" are alike. Paul George looks like a keeper - OK I can see playing him because not only should he develop into something special, but right now he can help the team. But Magnum and Lance - seem like they are just too raw right now - who knows if they will be on the roster in 3 years. I would be less inclined to look to them

BillS
10-14-2010, 11:09 AM
For me a lot of it depends on who your veterans are and who you are putting the young guys in against.

In almost all cases, starting a rookie who is raw out of college against the top NBA stars is, in my opinion, the best way to crush him. A player has to have the tools to succeed, and just throwing him into the deep end with no NBA-level learning curve is cruel.

You do it if you clearly have a special player or if there is no other alternative at the position, but you don't do it otherwise.

In my mind a player needs to earn minutes in the rotation. The problem with being a general level fan is that we really don't know two things:

- what a coach is looking for during scrimmages/shootarounds/time on the floor
- what a player is actually doing in scrimmages and shootarounds

Fans tend to base their entire opinions on whether a player should be on the floor on what they do in games in specific situations. While this is significant, a good coach should be able to see how a player is doing and decide if his current skillset is something that can be easily counteracted or even exploited by the other team, or if - in the long run - it is better than the veteran the player would be replacing. You can't see those things only during minimal floor minutes, and using critical game time to showcase it is not what games are for.

Which brings me to my final point. I think I've been clear that I feel the purpose of playing games is to win. As much as people say they want player development rather than wins in order to go for the future, how many of those people will buy tickets until that future occurs? In general, whatever other factors may exist, your job as players and coaches is to win. New players in particular need to get a winning attitude if they are going to be successful in those future years. You should not sacrifice your best players' time on the floor in favor of purely developing young players if it means you will lose even one more game.

Let's look at those circumstances, though. In 2008-20099, where we were in almost every game until the last minute, there was little or no non-critical time available to put undeveloped players into the game. In 2009-2010, though, there were a large number of games where there would seem to have been plenty of minutes for young guys. The decision point, I think, rests on whether the coach feels more benefit is gained by having a certain combination of players who will be used through the season on the floor to try to work out their problems, or whether the time is better used for young player development. I think the point at which this line is drawn is the source of pretty much every disagreement between fans and between them and coaches.

Pacers4Life
10-14-2010, 11:14 AM
O'Brien will not donate playing time to younger players for the sake of their development. "I want to develop the young guys but I'm not developing anybody to the point that it might cost us a game," he said. " … We can talk about rebuilding all we want. My job is to win basketball games and develop talent. But the top priority is to win basketball games."

This is always my thinking. I want the young guys to be as good as they can be as fast as they can be... BUT not if it means losing. If we have a better option then we need to go with that. This won't be the same team next year and the roster will look a lot less cluttered... in favor of the talent we may or may not have

Will Galen
10-14-2010, 11:16 AM
I been saying for years now that they should be developing the guys by giving them playing time, we know about the three years rebuilding procces, why not make it two years? at this moment I don't care about winning but give the young guys enough
Playing time so they can help the team next year.

By the way I don't want to see Posey,Foster,Solo and Dun taking minutes from those guys either, maybe a max of 15 min unless somebody gets hurt.

I completely disagree with you! Why? For one, the object of playing the game is to win.

Two, you can give young guys all the time in the world and they still won't develop much. So the reason you don't sacrifice now for next year is you could still be in the same spot you were in last year.

That's one reason why young players have to earn more playing time.

Speed
10-14-2010, 11:19 AM
My take on winning and losing is this, what's the differential?

I've been of the mind, it's almost neglible with the recent history of the Pacers. So if you play young guys you win 35, but if you play Vets you win well 35, thats when I have a beef.

Goes back to what BillS was saying it depends who your vets are and who your youngsters are.

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 11:22 AM
How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.

pacer4ever
10-14-2010, 11:26 AM
Sure lets acquire several top 5 picks and potentially the best player in the nba and see how that works out.

We could of done that if when we said we were rebuliding we tanked at the end of those seasons. Instead of going on winning streaks and going from the 5 spot to the 13pick.

Peck
10-14-2010, 11:29 AM
I's like to make a related point:


Looking at Jose Slaughter's excellent Front Page contribution, I see the list of All-Time Pacers listed by seasons played.

How many Pacers ever have played in 10 or more seasons? The answer is 5. (Miller, Smits, Fleming, Foster and Davis).

How many Pacers have played in only one single season? The answer is a whopping 138. This is not based on O'Brien's supposed mishandling of rookies, nor just the years of Larry "I Don't Play Rookies" Brown. The whole history of the franchise shows clearly that one-and-done is the usual pattern. Just defining "One" as a single year gets you more than half of all Pacers in history. If you define them as one contract, then you've got nearly the total. Players with a history of five or more years with the Pacers is still a very small number of 32, and that includes guys like Greg Dreiling who had nothing much to develop, and guys like Bender who couldn't even make it onto the court.

So, what I'm saying is, just because you've got a young player on the roster doesn't mean you've got talent worth developing. The enthusiasm some feel right now about Magnum Rolle is nothing else than the enthusiasm that somebody in Atlanta felt for Solomon Jones when he was drafted there.

Most players wash out. There just aren't enough minutes to go around. Developing a player who's not going to be here in three years is not smart.

You haven't said it but I think the implication of your post is that most of the one & done players were rookies or very young players who flopped out. While I am certain there is a good number of those, probably even a majority (I'm not going to take the time to count) there still are a number of those players who were also players on one year contracts or brought over at the end of their contract via trade.

Just think about last season we had Luther Head, Earl Watson both of whom were here for only one season and both were experianced players.

In fact you really could make an argument knowing that Earl had zero future on the team that by the end of the season he should have been splitting min. with A.J.

In fact I'm trying to remember the last rookie that we drafted and either didn't give them a couple of seasons before cutting ties with them or cut them prior to their first season. I honestly can't remember right now.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 11:29 AM
How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.

OK, but to make my point let me take your logical point and take it to the extreme. maybe the pacers should have traded away Reggie, Rik, Dale, Jalen in 1997, gone young built for the future. Wouldn't the team have been better in 2001, 2002 if they had traded the players in their prime. maybe the 2004 brawl and such never would have happened, maybe we would have won the championship in 2005. Hindsight is great, but you also have to think of now.

It goes back to the value of winning a game. Is there any value for the pacers winning 36 games vs 22 games for a given season. The argument has been made that the pacers should have bottomed out the past three seasons, win 22, 20, 23 games - why not they didn't make the playoffs anyway - surely they would have gotten higher draft picks along the way and wouldn't they be in better position, wouldn't they maybe be the Thunder of the eastern conference? Maybe but how do you know ehn to bottom out, when to trade the vets, when to play the youngsters.

I guess my overall point is - deciding all this is not as easy as it might first seem. But sure it is easy to look back two or three years and say should have. And I guess that is when I get frustrated when many of you look back three years and say in hindsights what now seems obvious, but at the time it was anything but obvious.

Trader Joe
10-14-2010, 11:30 AM
As long as George, Price, Collison (Yes, he counts as a young guy), Josh, Hansbrough, and Roy (Also, still a young guy) are given a chance to produce I have no problem with it. Even won't have a problem if sometimes we see guys like Tyler and Paul barely sniff the court in certain games. I just want them to get a chance to play.

Not really sure Posey has shown me anything yet that shows he deserves minutes...

I'm less concerned about Rush getting minutes even though I like his D, it's not a good sign for him that his option has not been picked up.

Speed
10-14-2010, 11:30 AM
Really if you think about it, the "young guys" are dialed in mostly.

Looks like DC, Roy, JMac, AJ, and Paul George are all going to get a steady diet of minutes to start the season. If Hansbrough gets up to speed, he'll be on that list too. Thats 3 starters and 6 guys out of your rotation who are young or inexperienced. Really not much more I could ask at this point.

It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.

Speaking of the future, I'd guess Dunleavy is gone after this year, Posey and Jeff gone or not rotation guys. This is really the year where the young guys will start to take over the team. If this team could go .500 and get the 8th seed it's be a really huge step, not mandatory mind you, but a big step if it happens.

Side note, I don't know either where BRush fits in this.

Day-V
10-14-2010, 11:33 AM
It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.

I know I had fun.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 11:41 AM
My take on winning and losing is this, what's the differential?

I've been of the mind, it's almost neglible with the recent history of the Pacers. So if you play young guys you win 35, but if you play Vets you win well 35, thats when I have a beef.

Goes back to what BillS was saying it depends who your vets are and who your youngsters are.

OK, I think everyone would agree with you. But how do you know that before the fact. How did you know two years ago that Josh would have helped the pacers win as much as a veteran would have.

How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.

Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy

Trader Joe
10-14-2010, 11:41 AM
Really if you think about it, the "young guys" are dialed in mostly.

Looks like DC, Roy, JMac, AJ, and Paul George are all going to get a steady diet of minutes to start the season. If Hansbrough gets up to speed, he'll be on that list too. Thats 3 starters and 6 guys out of your rotation who are young or inexperienced. Really not much more I could ask at this point.

It's a fun time, I think, the best players on the team ARE young guys, gives you some hope for the future.

Speaking of the future, I'd guess Dunleavy is gone after this year, Posey and Jeff gone or not rotation guys. This is really the year where the young guys will start to take over the team. If this team could go .500 and get the 8th seed it's be a really huge step, not mandatory mind you, but a big step if it happens.

Side note, I don't know either where BRush fits in this.

If I were Larry and I had my absolute pie in the sky view of this team, by the end of this year you'd be seeing George playing 20+ a night in preparation for starting at the 2 next year. Rush becomes your wing off the bench or a spot starter against elite wing scorers.

Putnam
10-14-2010, 11:42 AM
I'm trying to remember the last rookie that we drafted and either didn't give them a couple of seasons before cutting ties with them or cut them prior to their first season.



James White?

Trader Joe
10-14-2010, 11:43 AM
James White?

Just to pick nits, we technically traded for James White ;)

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Response to UB: look if we had a team that was competing for playoffs and a championship every year I wouldn't be pushing the coach to play the young guys that much, the difference is that this is a team in rebuilding mode and is in the three years rebuilding process, do you really think that guys like Rasho that knew since the beginning that they were not coming back were playing as hard as they can? Were they following JOB's plans or they were jacking up stats to get a job somewhere else? How they care about the winning attitude you guys keep talking about when they know the won't be back?

I rather have the young guys that have something to probe and know that they could be part of the future playing that a bunch of old one year rental players.

Peck
10-14-2010, 11:49 AM
If it wasn’t for a few other scenario’s I would say let’s just rename this thread what it should be called “Why did the Pacers start & play Troy Murphy extended minutes every game and often times give Josh McRoberts DNP-CD’s”.

Really over the past few seasons that is what it has come down to, sure there was the Rasho vs. Roy debate but for the most part it is really this.

It really boils down to the quality of the starter vs. the young player and what each of them brings to the floor.

You won’t see many people complaining that Paul George is not getting minutes from Danny Granger however you might see people complaining that he is not getting minutes that are going to James Posey.

But getting back to the main point of the argument (Josh vs. Troy) I see nothing that McRoberts has done in the pre-season that he did not do since December of last season. I would go so far as to say even the spring of the year before but I’ll just concede to last season. The difference is two fold. First he is getting solid consistent minutes and second our style of play has changed.

Is he stronger? Maybe but not that much. Does he know the system better? Probably but again we’ve changed somewhat how the system works so he is learning new again.

So then it boils down to why now vs. then. Anybody who thinks it’s because Josh has greatly improved is just deluding themselves, if Troy were here he would still be starting and we would still have the same argument as last season.

For me it has never been about just playing young players, I assure you I was never advocating playing Jeff Foster over Dale Davis, but it is about the type of players and if young players can produce.

Peck
10-14-2010, 11:52 AM
James White?

Nope, we cut him before the regular season.

I honestly can not think of a rookie off the top of my head that was here for a season and then gone the next. I'll have to think about this one for awhile.

Strummer
10-14-2010, 11:53 AM
I don't think playing time necessarily leads to development. If you throw all three rookies out there together and they don't know what to do then no one develops and we lose. They just end up getting confused, learning bad habits and getting frustrated...

I'd rather see the vets get the offense flowing and the defense established. Then ease a rookie in. Put him in a situation where everyone else is doing the right thing and he just needs to figure out his role and execute it...

I think that's the current plan for Paul George. He'll have a role in the rotation, but it'll be off the bench and with solid veterans around him. Once he starts to "get it" then his real development will start. It's a matter of learning what he's expected to do within the design of the offense and defense and then gaining the experience to do it well...

But it's really hard to do that with 3 rookies at once. That's why I'm really hoping to see the D league used this year. I'm not sure multiple rookies can learn on the floor at the same time without disrupting each other. And then playing time becomes counter productive to the learning process...

OakMoses
10-14-2010, 12:01 PM
I want to win. I want JO'B to play the players who will get us the most wins. If we win 42 games and George, Stephenson, and Rolle don't play a single minute, I'm fine with that.

At the same time, if it's a toss-up situation between a player who is part of the future (George, Price, Stephenson, Rolle, Hansbrough) and a short-timer (Dunleavy, Ford, Posey, Foster) then I'd like JO'B to default to the younger guy.

I've always been a win now guy. Last season, however, there was a time when we should have pulled the plug on some guys or reduced minutes earlier than we did.

For example, for the last few games of last season Murphy and Watson were still playing 35+ mpg. Why? Also, the benching of AJ for TJ after TJ's first banishment, was inexplicable. In both cases the playoffs were fully out of reach and the youngsters were performing well enough to earn minutes.

travmil
10-14-2010, 12:05 PM
Nope, we cut him before the regular season.

I honestly can not think of a rookie off the top of my head that was here for a season and then gone the next. I'll have to think about this one for awhile.

We traded Dampier to GSW for Chris Mullin after his rookie season. I don't think that exactly fits your bill though as that trade was more about a chance to get Mullin than it was giving up on Damp.

Speed
10-14-2010, 12:09 PM
OK, I think everyone would agree with you. But how do you know that before the fact. How did you know two years ago that Josh would have helped the pacers win as much as a veteran would have.

How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.

Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy

Right, you never know the alternate reality, but you do know if you're losing at a good clip now. So the example about AJ and Earl the end of last year is a good one. Why play Earl the end of last year without giving AJ some of his minutes. We would have said that at the time, too.

If they start losing at a good clip, I'll want PG to get as many of Dunleavy's minutes as possible. If they are in the hunt and winning decently I'll not make a peep.

The problem I've had the last few years is no wins and no hope (young players). So I'm watching Luther Head, Stephen Grahm types in February, instead I needed to see Roy Hibbert getting more reps for good or bad. Either way, I'm watching a loss, most likely.

I guess to finally answer the question, you don't know for sure it will be neglible, but you know what your doing now isn't working pretty readily.

The alternate reality things always interesting to me. Should I get a Flu shot, should I not? :)

Edit, just read Pecks post about JMac vs Murphy. Thats a good counter to my argument, without intending to be. Thats an alternate reality I don't think I personally could project, since it's night and day for style, experience, everything. Being honest, I would have been all for a traditional PF last year, but also, I didn't believe that player was JMac in any way, at the time.

Mackey_Rose
10-14-2010, 12:23 PM
OK, I think everyone would agree with you. But how do you know that before the fact. How did you know two years ago that Josh would have helped the pacers win as much as a veteran would have.

2 years ago, maybe not, but last year we certainly saw early in the season when Murphy was out, that Josh was just as, if not more effective as a heavy minute guy. He played well in every game he got a chance, and then as soon as Murphy got back he was relegated back to the bench. Performance results did not equal playing time. The situation was the same with AJ Price, and even to a lesser extent Roy Hibbert.


How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.

We don't know that. I agree. But just because we don't know if George is capable of handling all of Dunleavy's minutes, doesn't mean there is no reason to at least give him a chance to earn some of those minutes. There is no reason to just forget about a guy on the bench because "we just don't know if he can handle it." Find out if he can handle it. Dunleavy can't play 48 a night, I'm sure of that.


Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy

You can put me on the record. Do I think that there is a chance we could contend for the playoffs this season? Absolutely. Do I think if we make it we have a chance to make any noise? Absolutely not. Even if it means a couple less losses, or even the lottery for that matter, I'd be in favor of getting guys like Paul George exposed to the rigors of the NBA season. I just don't think that George getting minutes will be too detrimental to the team's success.

BillS
10-14-2010, 12:30 PM
Right, you never know the alternate reality, but you do know if you're losing at a good clip now. So the example about AJ and Earl the end of last year is a good one. Why play Earl the end of last year without giving AJ some of his minutes. We would have said that at the time, too.

If they start losing at a good clip, I'll want PG to get as many of Dunleavy's minutes as possible. If they are in the hunt and winning decently I'll not make a peep.


At what point are you "losing at a good clip"? Starting the season 0-10? Dropping below .500 in January?

Do you go by absolute record or by standings? If you are below .500 but still in the playoff hunt do you go for it or give it up? If you are over .500 but out of the playoffs do you chase the playoffs and/or the better record or do you give it up?

We've seen too many seasons (including the 1993-1994 season) where significant periods of losing, even unto being below .500, occurred and yet teams pulled out and were competing by the end of the year.


How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.

Would they have necessarily been better if you sit guys who were, in someone's opinion, the best guys to be on the floor? What do they learn?

As I've said often, IF you think that those vets should not have been playing because the young guys were better than they were, then we really have no argument with one another. IF you think those vets should not have been playing simply because they were vets, we have an argument.

In many cases, though, I think we're actually only quibbling over a few minutes. If those vets don't play as much as they did, would we have been better off? My opinion, certainly last season, is yes. If the vets play SIGNIFICANTLY less than they did, would we have been better off? There, I'm not so sure.

BillS
10-14-2010, 12:38 PM
But getting back to the main point of the argument (Josh vs. Troy) I see nothing that McRoberts has done in the pre-season that he did not do since December of last season. I would go so far as to say even the spring of the year before but I’ll just concede to last season. The difference is two fold. First he is getting solid consistent minutes and second our style of play has changed.

Is he stronger? Maybe but not that much. Does he know the system better? Probably but again we’ve changed somewhat how the system works so he is learning new again.

So then it boils down to why now vs. then. Anybody who thinks it’s because Josh has greatly improved is just deluding themselves, if Troy were here he would still be starting and we would still have the same argument as last season.

I've only seen one game with my own eyes, so I am not going to claim this as fact by any means.

However, I think Josh is quite different from last year. I think he is more aware of what is going on around him, more able to stay focused from play to play, and I think his shooting from all areas has improved because of the shooting work he put in this summer that so many people disapprove of.

To me, he seems a much more mature and ready player than he was last year, and not all of it would have come had he got significant minutes.

I know some (Seth) will disagree violently, and that's fine - but this is my opinion and yelling at me isn't going to change it.

On your last sentence, though, I think we need to stop falling into the trap of saying the if Murphy was here Josh would still be on the bench and treating it as if Troy IS here and Josh IS sitting on the bench. It isn't a valid fact to use as a point of argument, especially in a "Josh hasn't changed that much and we know that because Troy would be starting over him if he were still here" sense.

Since86
10-14-2010, 12:53 PM
I've only seen one game with my own eyes, so I am not going to claim this as fact by any means.

However, I think Josh is quite different from last year. I think he is more aware of what is going on around him, more able to stay focused from play to play, and I think his shooting from all areas has improved because of the shooting work he put in this summer that so many people disapprove of.

To me, he seems a much more mature and ready player than he was last year, and not all of it would have come had he got significant minutes.


And outside of shooting how do you get better in those other two areas?

Practicing? I think not.

I think Speed(?) mentioned about how some are viewing Rolle like he's guessing Atlanta fans viewed Solo. Who has said anything about Rolle? Who honestly expects Rolle to get significant minutes? I know I don't. He doesn't even have a spot on the roster right now. Or have I missed something?

Peck nails it, and it's really not even about Murphy. It's about playing Mike Dunleavy and DJones at the 4 while Josh sits there with his hand on his chin. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.

If Rush comes out and plays extremely well, and you're splitting time with him and Mike at the 2, if there turns out to be very limited minutes for Paul I can't object to that.

Now if Rush is the same Rush, then I expect to see Paul in the game more.

I don't want to hear about how Lance is our best PG in practice, and then never see him in a game until Darren or AJ is out with an injury. If he's playing better than either one of them, then he needs to play during games. Shut your mouth with IRRELEVANT praise if it's not the truth. Don't, basically, lie to your fan base talking about how great he is. That's only going to **** us off when he doesn't get to play.

But it's nothing new. Jim came in to Indy thumping his chest about how if you didn't practice you didn't play, and then we find out that JO isn't practicing but playing as many minutes as he can handle.


My argument is pretty simple. Play the best performers in practice. Like he should have done with AJ last year. Don't play players completely out of position when you have capable players at that position sitting on the bench.

How hard is it to do those two things?

bphil
10-14-2010, 12:53 PM
This is the NBA, the best league in the world. Nothing should be "given" to anyone. If the rooks want to play, make them earn their minutes by beating the vets in practice. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve to be out there on game day.

You forge steel with fire and a hammer, not with milk and cookies.

Peck
10-14-2010, 12:55 PM
I've only seen one game with my own eyes, so I am not going to claim this as fact by any means.

However, I think Josh is quite different from last year. I think he is more aware of what is going on around him, more able to stay focused from play to play, and I think his shooting from all areas has improved because of the shooting work he put in this summer that so many people disapprove of.

To me, he seems a much more mature and ready player than he was last year, and not all of it would have come had he got significant minutes.

I know some (Seth) will disagree violently, and that's fine - but this is my opinion and yelling at me isn't going to change it.

On your last sentence, though, I think we need to stop falling into the trap of saying the if Murphy was here Josh would still be on the bench and treating it as if Troy IS here and Josh IS sitting on the bench. It isn't a valid fact to use as a point of argument, especially in a "Josh hasn't changed that much and we know that because Troy would be starting over him if he were still here" sense.

Hmmmmm..... interesting concept. Kind of like when people don't like O'Brien via opinion we shouldn't have thread after thread clogged up with people brow beating them into something they aren't going to change their minds on either. I like the way you think.

As to your last paragraph, I honestly am to stupid to really understand what you are saying.

If your point is that if all things were the same and Troy was still here that Josh would be starting & Troy would be coming off of the bench or even splitting min. between the two with Troy still starting I'll just say that we will agree to disagree.

Peck
10-14-2010, 12:58 PM
This is the NBA, the best league in the world. Nothing should be "given" to anyone. If the rooks want to play, make them earn their minutes by beating the vets in practice. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve to be out there on game day.

You forge steel with fire and a hammer, not with milk and cookies.

Ok, this guy has actually summed up all of the arguments on both sides in a clear and concise written statement of fact.

There is nothing in this post that either side can really disagree with, at least I would hope.

Hell in fact I think this is a post of the year candidate right now.

Hicks
10-14-2010, 01:01 PM
Wow this thread got big in a hurry. I'll post my thoughts after just reading UB's first post, then I'll dive in to the replies.

For me, I only ask that if a veteran player doesn't appear to be earning his spot in the rotation, that a young guy gets a chance to try that role on for size for a while. Then if the rookie is struggling as much or more than the vet, go back to the vet for a while, and repeat.

It looks right now like Posey is going to keep either Rush or George out of the rotation once Rush is no longer suspended. Is he's playing well, I can live with that, but if he keeps looking old and slow and not doing a whole hell of a lot, I'd prefer Rush or George to backup Danny instead.

If Jeff is struggling, eventually give either Solo or Rolle a look there (assuming either or both is on the team in a month). Actually if Jeff struggles, we're probably screwed because I don't think much of Jones right now, and Rolle is probably too raw still. But I'd still give them a chance if Jeff isn't doing well.

Otherwise, I look at the backup 1. It's going to probably be TJ or AJ, and probably not Lance unless Lance just explodes offensively, I guess. We all know TJ isn't part of our future plans, we seem to all agree AJ is playing well already, so just leave AJ in that role, please. If for some reason AJ bottoms out, then give TJ or Lance a look, but otherwise, we need to roll with DC and AJ at the 1.

Lastly, if we do get to where a veteran isn't playing well but his young counterpart is, please don't put the vet back in just for the sake of putting the vet back in. Leave the youngling in there as long as he's producing fairly well.

Sookie
10-14-2010, 01:19 PM
If Jim keeps the rotation he has right now, I'd be pretty happy.

We have
Collison/AJ
Dun/George
Granger/Posey
Josh/Hans
Roy/Foster

The only change I'd make is to exchange Posey for Rush. Rush is better than him, even at Rush's worst. It's really not even a question over who should play.

In this lineup, there is a good combination of competent vets (Dun and Foster and obviously Granger) and young guys that'll help us win.

With AJ/Ford. Look. AJ's better than him. AJ's played as well as anyone in the preseason (if not better) And the Pacers plan to keep AJ and want to get rid of Ford. It's pretty obvious who should play. The only possibility is playing Ford to up his trade value, but lets be realistic here. The only teams that are going to want Ford, are the ones that want him for his contract.

With Hans and George, I think that is developmental minutes, but I also don't think it'll hurt the team.

With Lance and Magnum, I don't think Lance is ready (and don't know if he'll be here) and I think Tyler is better than Magnum, and they are both young guys so I'd give the minutes to Tyler.

That being said, if at about Febuary, we are CLEARLY out of the playoffs, you gotta start giving them minutes. Take away Dun's and Fosters minutes, and who cares what our record will be, Magnum and Lance should get some time. (That doesn't mean thirty minutes..but 15 would be nice)

And last season, I'm sorry, people were frustrated for many reasons.

For one, Price was, without argument a better PG option than Ford, and arguably a better option than Watson. (And it wasn't arguable if you took into consideration how he would have been had we played him twenty minutes a game last season)

For two, whether you thought Josh was ready or not, he was most certainly a better PF option, whether we were trying to win or developing players, than DJones or Dunleavy at the PF spot.

For three, Hibbert was always a better option than Murphy at the center position.

It was a combination of "look, they're better AND they actually have a shot of being part of the future core."

So yea, I think, once you're clearly out of the playoffs you give the younger guys the playing time. But I also think that playing young guys vs. playing vets doesn't necessarily mean it's detrimnetal to wins and losses. We'll win more games if we play Price instead of Ford or Rush instead of Posey or let Josh start instead of Foster ect.. And it also helps the team's future. But I don't have as big of a problem with letting Lance, Solo, and Magnum be introduced to the NBA game slowly.

CableKC
10-14-2010, 01:20 PM
I'll provide the same answer to this question that I provide everytime ( during this Playoff drought ) when this question comes up:

Put the best lineup ( regardless of who the Player is...vet or rookie ) that we can to win games simply to make the Playoffs. But when ( and if ) we are eliminated from making the Playoffs, I want to see a lineups that include maximum playing time for DC/BRush/Granger/Hansbrough/Hibbert/George/AJ/Magnum/Lance/McRoberts while minimizing the # of minutes for TJ/Dunleavy/Foster. The only vets that I would possibly include in the regular rotation ( but with minimal minutes ) is Posey and Inferno as we are stuck with him for 2 seasons.

We are not a Team like the TWolves or Kings where we are flush with very young talent in "rebuilding" mode....we are a Team that is a mixture of vets and young Players that should have enough talent to be considered a "Playoff Bubble" team.

Before we are bounced from the Playoff picture, it is critical to win games to make the Playoffs. Having a winning environment and Playoff Experience for a young Team is critical to properly develop them....even if it means losing in 4 blowout games against the Heat. But the second that we are eliminated from any Playoff hopes, I think it is more important to develop the Players and build Team Chemistry among the players that will likely be the future core of this Team. Add in ( as Seth will point out ) that we would need to properly evaluate Players like Magnum ( much like what we should have done with McRoberts a season or two ago ) to see if they are worth keeping for the long term.

BTW...assuming that PG and Lance aren't "blowing JO'B away" ( a la Iggy as a rookie when JO'B was in Philly ) and therefore does not truly deserve regular rotation minutes....I have ZERO problem if PG and Lance play very limited minutes during the season when there is still a chance that the Team is trying to make the Playoffs. But once we''re out...I want to see them playing regular minutes.

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 01:22 PM
Nice sookie

jhondog28
10-14-2010, 01:30 PM
I think a very important point where I will give JOB credit is he is always playing to win the games first. in the past years the Pacers are right outside the playoff race. He wants to get them to the playoffs so he is playing the vets because he thinks that gives him the best chance to win. Usually until the last week of the season the Pacers are usually still in the thick of it. Until the X shows up on the standings next to their name he will play to win as any coach should. I think the starting lineup that has been mentioned is a good one. Hibbert is still a young guy in my opion, so is Collison so do we need to start all rookies or second year players for this to work? Save that for D league.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 01:38 PM
I don't want to hear about how Lance is our best PG in practice, and then never see him in a game until Darren or AJ is out with an injury. If he's playing better than either one of them, then he needs to play during games. Shut your mouth with IRRELEVANT praise if it's not the truth. Don't, basically, lie to your fan base talking about how great he is. That's only going to **** us off when he doesn't get to play.

But it's nothing new. Jim came in to Indy thumping his chest about how if you didn't practice you didn't play, and then we find out that JO isn't practicing but playing as many minutes as he can handle.


My argument is pretty simple. Play the best performers in practice. Like he should have done with AJ last year. Don't play players completely out of position when you have capable players at that position sitting on the bench.

How hard is it to do those two things?


In theory, playing whoever plays best in practice sounds good. But is that realistic? I think in training camp OK it might be. But compare Danny playing 35 minutes every game vs lets say Paul George who is aveaging 10 minutes per game playing in about half the game - for sake of discussion stay with me.

OK, so in mid January George starts to outplay Danny in practice - what do you do? also what factors are causing george to outplay him. Is george getting better or is the season wearing Danny down. Unfair to compare a starter getting 35 minutes every game to a bench player not getting many minutes - makes sense the bench player would have the energy to practice and outplay the starter in practice. But that doesn't mean they will play better in games.

So if in 2 months we hear that Lance is outplaying Collision in practice, i say who cares, good for lance, but Collision is tired from playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition

CableKC
10-14-2010, 01:39 PM
If Jim keeps the rotation he has right now, I'd be pretty happy.

We have
Collison/AJ
Dun/George
Granger/Posey
Josh/Hans
Roy/Foster

The only change I'd make is to exchange Posey for Rush. Rush is better than him, even at Rush's worst. It's really not even a question over who should play.
My guess is that we'd probably go with a tighter 8-9 man rotation starting with:

Collison
Dunleavy
Granger
McRoberts
Hibbert

with

1 ) AJ or TJ backing up Collison
2 ) Posey or BRush acking up both Dunleavy and Granger ( with BRush getting the bulk of the backup SG/SF minutes )
3 ) Foster, Solo and Hansbrough backing up both McRoberts and Hibbert ( where Foster gets the majority of the Backup PF/C minutes with Solo and Hansbrough getting minutes here and there )

Sorry...but I don't think that PG/Lance/Magnum will get signifcant minutes this season when it matters.

jhondog28
10-14-2010, 01:47 PM
In theory, playing whoever plays best in practice sounds good. But is it realiistic for a bench player who gets very

Practice....we talkin about practice.........practice?

BillS
10-14-2010, 01:49 PM
And outside of shooting how do you get better in those other two areas?

I think you'd be surprised at how much you can get better at this by being in a place where you can see the whole court and watch what is going on everywhere, without the additional distractions of being on the floor or worrying about what you will do when you get on the floor.

Then, there is a matter of it clicking. For some players it seems to click right away, for others it takes longer.

And finally, you need to be well-rounded enough to give yourself the space to do some of the things you have seen on the court while you were watching. We wanted Josh to get more minutes last year for the things he was doing, but the improvement this year has come as much because he is contributing in each area rather than being a specialist body on the floor. I really don't think he was capable of that last year.


Peck nails it, and it's really not even about Murphy. It's about playing Mike Dunleavy and DJones at the 4 while Josh sits there with his hand on his chin. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.

And I don't disagree with this. As I said, if the discussion is about the degree to which you play some vets over young guys, I have little argument with it, since I think there were some great opportunities to get guys playing time last year. I don't think that was the case two years ago, though, which is why I don't like it being lumped in as a "JOB has done it every year even though we were getting blown out of games" kind of thing.


I don't want to hear about how Lance is our best PG in practice, and then never see him in a game until Darren or AJ is out with an injury. If he's playing better than either one of them, then he needs to play during games. Shut your mouth with IRRELEVANT praise if it's not the truth. Don't, basically, lie to your fan base talking about how great he is. That's only going to **** us off when he doesn't get to play.

I think this may be one of the bigger issues with JOB. He communicates so much more than RC did that I suspect we think what he says is everything he has to say. Part of that is his fault, he wants to praise guys so he doesn't get very specific and throws around superlatives.

I suspect in every case what he was saying was that (player-we-think-should-play-more) was great or the best at some things but inadequate in other things. However, he gets caught up in the superlative, tells us, we extrapolate it, and then even if he mentions the negatives later we think something to the effect of, "well, you just made those up to justify the playing time, otherwise you would have told us before."

I can't point to anything specific other than the team keeps coming back dfrom funks rather than letting the funk run to the end of the season, but I think JOB communicates better to the players than he does to us. Which, given the choice, I would take over the other way around.


If your point is that if all things were the same and Troy was still here that Josh would be starting & Troy would be coming off of the bench or even splitting min. between the two with Troy still starting I'll just say that we will agree to disagree.

No, I think that is probable as well. What I'm saying is that it is really irrelevant to the question of whether Josh has gotten better over the summer and irrelevant to the ability or lack thereof of Jim to manage this team as it stands. We need to let what is happening stand or fall on its own merits rather than comparing it to a "what-if" as if we had facts to back it up. For all we know, JOB was visited by the ghost of Dale Davis the night before training camp and has completely reformed.

Speed
10-14-2010, 01:51 PM
I think PG is you're 3rd best wing right now at 20, truthfully.

I think he'll probably hit a wall, since he's been non stop since being drafted. However, I don't think Brandon, Posey, DJones, or Lance are as good all around as PG.

He's good enough defensively to play now and he seems to improve almost daily. He's not timid ala BRush, he's not limited like DJones.

When he was drafted I thought this was a watch and learn year, I don't now. I think he'll play as the first wing off the bench for almost the whole season and should.

Only thing that would maybe change this is if a light bulb goes on for Brandon, I don't see that happening.

I almost think he transcends this discussion because he'll earn his way on the court hands down, by being good enough, but also by your other options.

Trophy
10-14-2010, 02:00 PM
I really like what we have going into the season.

This is a pretty good and balanced rotation.

PG Collison/Price
SG Dun/Rush (George or Posey)
SF Granger/George
PF McBob/Hansbrough
C Hibbert/Foster

We have a PG who has great leadership in Darren.

Mike looks like his regular self again playing SG.

Danny's the leader of the team and can do a little bit of everything especially score.

Josh and Tyler are 2 big men who are tough offensively and can both get to the line or fly in for an open dunk plus can shoot outside of the paint. Their man-to-man defense is really good and based on the games Tyler's appeared in, he's really good with staying on the opposing player with the ball.

Roy is a hardworking center who does everything he can to improve himself. He's a powerful big man offensively by dunking and scoring in the post and defensively, he can block a handful of shots.

Plus we have a bunch of young guys and some veterans as backups.

So there's no reason to finish with a record below .500 and/or miss the playoffs even with JOB coaching.

pacer4ever
10-14-2010, 02:02 PM
I think PG is you're 3rd best wing right now at 20, truthfully.

I think he'll probably hit a wall, since he's been non stop since being drafted. However, I don't think Brandon, Posey, DJones, or Lance are as good all around as PG.

He's good enough defensively to play now and he seems to improve almost daily. He's not timid ala BRush, he's not limited like DJones.

When he was drafted I thought this was a watch and learn year, I don't now. I think he'll play as the first wing off the bench for almost the whole season and should.

Only thing that would maybe change this is if a light bulb goes on for Brandon, I don't see that happening.

I almost think he transcends this discussion because he'll earn his way on the court hands down, by being good enough, but also by your other options.

That is what i think too. but JOB wont do it he will have Brush and DUN over him. I wish he would be at least the 6th man playing 25-30 mins a night. I want him to start so he can run with DC and DG33 and Jmac.

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:08 PM
I think you'd be surprised at how much you can get better at this by being in a place where you can see the whole court and watch what is going on everywhere, without the additional distractions of being on the floor or worrying about what you will do when you get on the floor.

Then, there is a matter of it clicking. For some players it seems to click right away, for others it takes longer.

And finally, you need to be well-rounded enough to give yourself the space to do some of the things you have seen on the court while you were watching. We wanted Josh to get more minutes last year for the things he was doing, but the improvement this year has come as much because he is contributing in each area rather than being a specialist body on the floor. I really don't think he was capable of that last year.

While all that's true, watching it and actually DOING it are two completely different things.

We have a lot of arm-chair coaches on this forum, but I would bet if you got some of them on a basketball floor in live action, they would be lost. It's easy to sit back and dissect something from afar, rather than doing it real time while you have to concentrate on the ball, your man, and what the other players are doing as well.

It's like an offensive set. We can run it a thousand times in practice without a hitch, but break it out in a game and the whole thing breaks down. It's the same concept.

Sure, you get your initial knowledge from watching but you get the other half, and I do mean half, from actually playing.

It's not only like that in basketball, but any sport.

NBA players aren't freaks like we tend to believe. They aren't doing anything that thousands and thousands of non-NBA players can't do. They just happen to be bigger, faster, and stronger than the rest of us. Adjusting to that is what takes time. Whether it's a college player coming out of HS, he was usually the best player on the floor. He was the biggest, strongest, fastest. Now that's not the case for most players. Same with college players going to the NBA.

Sure Josh learns by watching, but until he actually becomes comfortable with the speed, size, and strength of his opponents, and his teammates, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

Knowing what to do, and being able to do it are two completely different things, and you can't find out if you are able to do it without stepping on the court when it matters.

TheDon
10-14-2010, 02:17 PM
I think it's possible that there is a happy medium out there that allows for both. I just with JOB would adjust when things clearly aren't working. I would rather see Rolle, Hansbrough, Rush, and Stephenson, get minutes over Solomon Jones, Dahntay, Jeff, TJ, and definately over Posey. There was some stat I read last night where our backup (not josh or roy) power forward / center positions combined went 1 - 6 from the field, and had some turnovers and fouls to go along with that ugly stat. I think with guys like Posey and Jeff they pretty much are what they are whereas maybe if ya give Stephenson and Rolle some burn, and i'm not talking starter minutes just give them 10 - 12 minutes a night put in a backup role. Then maybe just maybe you'll end up with a better overall product. That's what I don't understand with JOB it seems like there can be no grey areas. Saying things like "i'm not going to risk wins for player development." is horribly short sighted and stubborn.

BillS
10-14-2010, 02:23 PM
Knowing what to do, and being able to do it are two completely different things, and you can't find out if you are able to do it without stepping on the court when it matters.

Again, I don't disagree with this. The question is at what point do you put the guy on the floor for major minutes and hope he figures it out? In some cases you have no choice, but in cases where you do have a choice you want to have him get out there, show the problems, bring him back, show him those problems, and do it again. Otherwise you run the risk of having him get out there, not work out the problem, and develop a bad habit or lose confidence.

I believe that I see enough of a difference between the last game that I saw Josh play last season and the first game I saw this season to think that something more than just getting on the floor for more minutes has clicked. Obviously, I can't be sure (I've slept since then), but it is what I think.

Now, would it have clicked in midseason if he'd gotten more minutes? I don't know, it is possible. I also think there were some combinations on the floor that should have been given to Josh, but I don't think it hampered him and may in fact - if we assume JOB communicated with him what he wasn't communicating to us - have helped him figure out what to work on over the summer so he could come out like this.

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:30 PM
Okay, we're agreeing on the simple points, but you've referrenced midseason twice, so I'll go with it.

Which do you prefer, letting him get minutes midseason when Tyler went out or letting Dunleavy and DJones get the minutes?

Obviously everyone knows my preference.

This is the problem I'm having with you and UB, mostly you. We agree on what should happen, but when we point out that it didn't happen the way both of us agree on, I get told excuses on why Jim didn't do it.

UB can say that he thinks Jim needs to go after this season, trying to sneak it in, but still won't come out and say WHY he thinks so. You can't defend the man each and every time with excuse after excuse but agree that he needs to find another job.

He's either doing a good job and needs to stay, or he isn't. I think you guys are trying to have it both ways.

And I think UB is doing it now so much just because he's been digging the hole beside Jim's for so long, he might as well lay in it. It's just easier than admitting Jim screwed up.

Peck
10-14-2010, 02:33 PM
No, I think that is probable as well. What I'm saying is that it is really irrelevant to the question of whether Josh has gotten better over the summer and irrelevant to the ability or lack thereof of Jim to manage this team as it stands. We need to let what is happening stand or fall on its own merits rather than comparing it to a "what-if" as if we had facts to back it up. For all we know, JOB was visited by the ghost of Dale Davis the night before training camp and has completely reformed.

Ok, if that is the case then that is perfectly logical & I don't disagree with any of it.

I am certain Josh has gotten better, just as Roy and others have, by working on his game.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 02:39 PM
This is the problem I'm having with you and UB, mostly you. We agree on what should happen, but when we point out that it didn't happen the way both of us agree on, I get told excuses on why Jim didn't do it.

UB can say that he thinks Jim needs to go after this season, trying to sneak it in, but still won't come out and say WHY he thinks so. You can't defend the man each and every time with excuse after excuse but agree that he needs to find another job.

He's either doing a good job and needs to stay, or he isn't. I think you guys are trying to have it both ways.

And I think UB is doing it now so much just because he's been digging the hole beside Jim's for so long, he might as well lay in it. It's just easier than admitting Jim screwed up.

I didn't think this thread (for the most part) was about Jim O'Brien. I mean he's the coach, so sure he is there, but I didn't plan on discussing him in this thread at least not directly, don't plan to start now. I have been more than forthcoming in my reasons for everything.

flox
10-14-2010, 02:44 PM
You play to win the game. You play the best players you have to win the game.

Nothing else matters. That is what our team is built on and will continue to be until the bitter end.

Last year, Murphy was better than Josh. Play Murphy till the wheels fall off.

Last year, AJ got 20 minutes per game for a good stretch, and he earned it after outplaying others in practice. That's plenty for a rookie point guard who was a 2nd round pick. It was also for the best of the team. When TJ outplayed AJ in games, then play TJ till the wheels fall off (concussion). Ok, I'm fine with that too.

Basically, play who you think will win the game for you this season, and play them till the wheels fall off. End of story. That is how the Pacers play basketball.

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:46 PM
I didn't think this thread (for the most part) was about Jim O'Brien. I mean he's the coach, so sure he is there, but I didn't plan on discussing him in this thread at least not directly, don't plan to start now. I have been more than forthcoming in my reasons for everything.

Isn't Jim the one who decides on playing time? I think who is mostly definately part of the topic when you're discussing what.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 02:47 PM
Isn't Jim the one who decides on playing time? I think who is mostly definately part of the topic when you're discussing what.

That is why I posted (for the most part)

I believe in the three year rule for coaches except in extreme circumstances. Does that answer your question?

Since86
10-14-2010, 02:50 PM
I guess so, even though I think that "3 year rule" was just something that Larry threw out there because he didn't want to be a coach for that long. I think it's a wrong theory, but that's not the discussion so.......

BillS
10-14-2010, 03:02 PM
Okay, we're agreeing on the simple points, but you've referrenced midseason twice, so I'll go with it.

Which do you prefer, letting him get minutes midseason when Tyler went out or letting Dunleavy and DJones get the minutes?

Oh, I hated those tiny lineups and I thought Josh didn't get enough minutes.


This is the problem I'm having with you and UB, mostly you. We agree on what should happen, but when we point out that it didn't happen the way both of us agree on, I get told excuses on why Jim didn't do it.

Well, I tend not to try to get into Jim's head. I only begin to provide counterexamples when some posters (not you) can only chalk it up to idiocy or incompetence.

Especially on things that are a matter of degree, I can say that what is being done isn't ENOUGH for me, but I can also understand that my preference may not be based on complete information or that the coach and I have a different view of it.


He's either doing a good job and needs to stay, or he isn't. I think you guys are trying to have it both ways.

Has it been that absolute every year? I think for a long time the answer in Bird's mind has been "we don't have enough data to know if he is doing a good job or not". I have tried in may threads to point out places where the answers aren't absolute, and there are other ways to look at what was going on, and - very specifically - what has changed from year to year (where some would claim the last 3+ years have been a monolithic same ol' same ol' with the same coach, same players, same opponents, and same results).

My position is that I personally don't think O'Brien is a very good coach. I don't think he is a horrible coach. I would be more unhappy with the extension if I didn't think we the team was not capable of taking advantage of a new coach. Because of that, I didn't want to waste one of those limited years a coach has on a team that was going to change completely and - to be honest - an environment that will change completely after next year's lockout and new CBA. I don't think JOB is wreaking havoc on the team, he just isn't that good. I think he has flaws, but I think it is unfair to sound-bite them into "he doesn't want players to play defense", or "he only wants players to chuck up three pointers", or "he never develops young players" - at worst it is more complex than that, at best they aren't right when you look at the actual numbers.

I don't think I've deviated from that position.

Brad8888
10-14-2010, 03:02 PM
So if in 2 months we hear that Lance is outplaying Collision in practice, i say who cares, good for lance, but Collision is tired from playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition

Won't actually happen, but for the sake of discussion, lets say that this scenario does in fact happen. Similar scenarios have happened in the past, and this is a major bone of contention with respect to the performance of our coach, even if his primary objective is to win games by playing the players who give the team the best chance to win.

You would say "Who cares" when a rookie is being recognized in the media, for all to hear, for outplaying a player who has been worn down due to playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition, ignore that and play the vet regardless, when doing so would diminsh the performance of that position and reduce the ability of the team to meet your ultimate objective, which is winning games?

How Jim O'Brien of you.

At least your viewpoint is consistent, you continue to fight the good fight, and I applaud you for that regardless of how much I disagree with your view on O'Brien.

beast23
10-14-2010, 03:04 PM
I've included snippets of my thoughts on this topic in several other threads, so I'll try not to be as wordy as I tend to get. But, my priorities would be:

1. Win games.... That's what our city and fanbase need and if we have any integrity at all, we realize that's why the game is played in the first place.

2. Make the playoffs.... if possible.

3. PF & Wings - provide at least enough playing time to evaluate the players to determine who the keepers are and form an opinion regarding the upside of each. But do NOT play any player for the sake

4. Attempt to acquire new players at either PF and/or SG positions if it has been concluded that we don't have a player available at the position that can develop enough talent to support a team capable of contending for a deep playoff run in the future. Go ahead and complete the trade during the season if an exceptional player becomes available and an accpetable trade can be worked out.

I know many are high on McRoberts. In the past, I have not been. Like others, I do see a marked improvement. He not only has improved his body, but he seems to be "more comfortable" on the court as well. But, my gut feeling is that McRoberts (and possibly Hansbrough) will never be more than just very good backup players on a contending team. With the cap space that we will have next summer, that is the type of evaluation that must be quickly and accurately made by TPTB. Do we need to acquire a starter at PF? Or, at SG?

I can already state that next summer my thought will be that we have the cap space to acquire exceptional players that will resolve our most glaring weaknesses. At that time, I think we will know our weakest points and acquire the best players we can, even if that means pushing a starter to the bench. That just means that our team, and its depth, is that much better.

So, find just enough playing time to evaluate the players and their potential upside. Determine who the keepers are. Then acquire new players that address our priorities, starting with our most glaring weaknesses.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 03:11 PM
Won't actually happen, but for the sake of discussion, lets say that this scenario does in fact happen. Similar scenarios have happened in the past, and this is a major bone of contention with respect to the performance of our coach, even if his primary objective is to win games by playing the players who give the team the best chance to win.

You would say "Who cares" when a rookie is being recognized in the media, for all to hear, for outplaying a player who has been worn down due to playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition, ignore that and play the vet regardless, when doing so would diminsh the performance of that position and reduce the ability of the team to meet your ultimate objective, which is winning games?

How Jim O'Brien of you.

At least your viewpoint is consistent, you continue to fight the good fight, and I applaud you for that regardless of how much I disagree with your view on O'Brien.


I think it was not a good decision for Jim O'brien or any coach to discuss how one player is outplaying another in practice. If you want to say AJ price is really playing well in practice lately then say that, don't say he outplayed Ford and Watson. How do we know what that really means. How was he outplaying them - Jim should never say that again no matter who the players are involved.

On the point just because the starter is worn down in practice doesn't mean they won't be ready and still much better than the reserve when it is time to play a real game.

Brad8888
10-14-2010, 03:15 PM
Yes, you are obviously correct. Jim simply not saying anything would have stopped that controversy before it ever started.

flox
10-14-2010, 03:18 PM
I've included snippets of my thoughts on this topic in several other threads, so I'll try not to be as wordy as I tend to get. But, my priorities would be:

1. Win games.... That's what our city and fanbase need and if we have any integrity at all, we realize that's why the game is played in the first place.

2. Make the playoffs.... if possible.

3. PF & Wings - provide at least enough playing time to evaluate the players to determine who the keepers are and form an opinion regarding the upside of each. But do NOT play any player for the sake

4. Attempt to acquire new players at either PF and/or SG positions if it has been concluded that we don't have a player available at the position that can develop enough talent to support a team capable of contending for a deep playoff run in the future. Go ahead and complete the trade during the season if an exceptional player becomes available and an accpetable trade can be worked out.

I know many are high on McRoberts. In the past, I have not been. Like others, I do see a marked improvement. He not only has improved his body, but he seems to be "more comfortable" on the court as well. But, my gut feeling is that McRoberts (and possibly Hansbrough) will never be more than just very good backup players on a contending team. With the cap space that we will have next summer, that is the type of evaluation that must be quickly and accurately made by TPTB. Do we need to acquire a starter at PF? Or, at SG?

I can already state that next summer my thought will be that we have the cap space to acquire exceptional players that will resolve our most glaring weaknesses. At that time, I think we will know our weakest points and acquire the best players we can, even if that means pushing a starter to the bench. That just means that our team, and its depth, is that much better.

So, find just enough playing time to evaluate the players and their potential upside. Determine who the keepers are. Then acquire new players that address our priorities, starting with our most glaring weaknesses.

I generally agree with all points of this post. I think if we followed the plan you outlined in your post- the team will be in great shape to contend next year.

flox
10-14-2010, 03:21 PM
I think it was not a good decision for Jim O'brien or any coach to discuss how one player is outplaying another in practice. If you want to say AJ price is really playing well in practice lately then say that, don't say he outplayed Ford and Watson. How do we know what that really means. How was he outplaying them - Jim should never say that again no matter who the players are involved.

I agree, this was a poor choice of words by Jim. Just going to play devil's advocate here, but if his intent was to just to show AJ that he was that confident of him to say that in public, and to make that as a sign that AJ just needs to wait and that he will get minutes, then I'm ok with that. I think that that could do wonders to player's confidence that other methods would have not produced.

But I do agree that he should never do that again.

Since86
10-14-2010, 03:22 PM
I don't think JOB is wreaking havoc on the team, he just isn't that good. I think he has flaws, but I think it is unfair to sound-bite them into "he doesn't want players to play defense", or "he only wants players to chuck up three pointers", or "he never develops young players" - at worst it is more complex than that, at best they aren't right when you look at the actual numbers.

We talked about this last week, I've never said anything in those sound-bites. I've never said any of it. I can't say he NEVER develops players, because obviously he has, see Rush/Hibbert and Iggy in Philly.

But at the same time he's made it crystal clear that if he has another option, even if it's a bad one (ahem, Rasho) he isn't afraid to use it.

I would appreciate it when we are talking that my claims and non-claims be used, because we run into this scenario. Instead of discussing on what we agree/disagree I have to defend my position on things I don't, and haven't said.

I stayed out of your back and forth debate with 90's about the whole win/loss thing, for the most part, for a reason. Because that part of the discussion isn't accurate on my feelings about the situation. I would appreciate it when my opinions aren't lumped into other's opinions, because clearly, I don't agree with them.

Since86
10-14-2010, 03:27 PM
So, find just enough playing time to evaluate the players and their potential upside. Determine who the keepers are. Then acquire new players that address our priorities, starting with our most glaring weaknesses.

You're missing the large picture though. It's hard to determine who the keepers are when you do everything in your power to keep them off the court rather than seeing if they can be part of the future when the opportunity arises.

If Tyler and Foster stayed healthy, I doubt you would have saw much of an argument about Josh. He hadn't shown any reason why he should get PT over them. But when both are out, and your other options are to play Josh or play Dunleavy/DJones at the 4, people are going to get ticked off, as they should.

If Jim followed your advice, there wouldn't be a discussion. But just like my example with Josh he did it with AJ even saying "Well now he's back on the bench because we now know what we have."

How brilliant.

Unclebuck
10-14-2010, 03:29 PM
I would appreciate it when we are talking that my claims and non-claims be used, because we run into this scenario. Instead of discussing on what we agree/disagree I have to defend my position on things I don't, and haven't said.

I stayed out of your back and forth debate with 90's about the whole win/loss thing, for the most part, for a reason. Because that part of the discussion isn't accurate on my feelings about the situation. I would appreciate it when my opinions aren't lumped into other's opinions, because clearly, I don't agree with them .

You have brought up a very good point. What you are saying happens to you happens to me all the time and probably everyone in this forum - it is just the nature of the beast. it is just very difficult to have multiple conversations going on with several different people.

WhackoJacko
10-14-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't think the problem will be as large this year.

Last year, it wasn't that Murphy was a veteran getting time over younger guys. less effective than McRoberts, when you applied both sides of the floor.
It was that he was
Same with A.J. He was our best point guard last year. That's why he should have gotten the most minutes.

This year, Dun will not be less effective than Rush or George (my opinion of course). Yes, he is less effective on defense but he is still okay, not in the terrible category. His solid offense makes him the better choice of player.

I wouldn't mind Posey getting some minutes this year if he were really effective. So far, he hasn't shown that. So George, Rush, McRoberts, Rolle ought to get them. Not to develop them but because they would be better.

So, the problem in the past, in my opinion, has not been the continuum between veterans and development. It has been Jim O'Stubborn's refusal to play younger guys who are better than vets.



Last year, it wasn't that Murphy was a veteran getting time over younger guys. less effective than McRoberts, when you applied both sides of the floor.
It was that he was

Please post some facts on this blanket statement.

pacer4ever
10-14-2010, 03:40 PM
Last year, it wasn't that Murphy was a veteran getting time over younger guys. less effective than McRoberts, when you applied both sides of the floor.
It was that he was

Please post some facts on this blanket statement.

shooting 3s so JOB love him they were in love. LOL

vapacersfan
10-14-2010, 04:29 PM
This is not the thread for it, but I really hate the L.B. made that "3 year rule statement"

I do think players do tune a coach out at some point, but I do not think the 3 year rule is a "golden rule"

Since86
10-14-2010, 04:37 PM
I think players only tune out a coach after 3 years if the coach isn't getting results. And it's not hell bent on 3 years. If players think a coach's system is crap, they'll tune them out before 3 years. If they think it's good, they'll listen to him until they retire.

vapacersfan
10-14-2010, 04:43 PM
I think players only tune out a coach after 3 years if the coach isn't getting results. And it's not hell bent on 3 years. If players think a coach's system is crap, they'll tune them out before 3 years. If they think it's good, they'll listen to him until they retire.

Yeah, it only took 1 week for Redskins players to tune out Jim Zorn...and that is because most slept through the first 6 days

BillS
10-14-2010, 05:30 PM
We talked about this last week, I've never said anything in those sound-bites. I've never said any of it. I can't say he NEVER develops players, because obviously he has, see Rush/Hibbert and Iggy in Philly.

But at the same time he's made it crystal clear that if he has another option, even if it's a bad one (ahem, Rasho) he isn't afraid to use it.

I would appreciate it when we are talking that my claims and non-claims be used, because we run into this scenario. Instead of discussing on what we agree/disagree I have to defend my position on things I don't, and haven't said.

I stayed out of your back and forth debate with 90's about the whole win/loss thing, for the most part, for a reason. Because that part of the discussion isn't accurate on my feelings about the situation. I would appreciate it when my opinions aren't lumped into other's opinions, because clearly, I don't agree with them.

The paragraph you are talking about is the one where I am saying where I stand in general. That meant I was referring to things I've been called on in this and other threads, not just in replies to you.

On a message board, we are talking to lots of people at once. Even if I answer you explicitly, someone else will jump in and spring off it and say "I never said that ..."

Because of that, I use quotes very directly. If I am in a paragraph immediately after I have quoted someone, I will try to make things more explicit if I mean them or not.

Otherwise, if I say "you" after a quote or use your handle, I am referring to your opinions. If I am saying "someone" or "some people" I am referring to people not involved directly in the back-and-forth. I am not somehow being passive-aggressive and referring to you in the third person to make it less personal.

Just figure if I mention it and you didn't say it, and I'm not using it in a specific response to your quote, I don't mean you. I'll tell you when I mean you. I ain't afraid :shudder:

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 07:03 PM
You play to win the game. You play the best players you have to win the game.

Nothing else matters. That is what our team is built on and will continue to be until the bitter end.

Last year, Murphy was better than Josh. Play Murphy till the wheels fall off.

Last year, AJ got 20 minutes per game for a good stretch, and he earned it after outplaying others in practice. That's plenty for a rookie point guard who was a 2nd round pick. It was also for the best of the team. When TJ outplayed AJ in games, then play TJ till the wheels fall off (concussion). Ok, I'm fine with that too.

Basically, play who you think will win the game for you this season, and play them till the wheels fall off. End of story. That is how the Pacers play basketball.

And what team you been watching? they haven't win anything in a long long time.

flox
10-14-2010, 07:08 PM
And what team you been watching? they haven't win anything in a long long time.

Still doesn't mean that our mandate for the team isn't to play to win the game. The pacers need a winning season bad.

vnzla81
10-14-2010, 07:11 PM
Still doesn't mean that our mandate for the team isn't to play to win the game. The pacers need a winning season bad.

Yep but is not working out.

Chuck Chillout
10-14-2010, 07:13 PM
I like that Bird has more or less stuck to his strategy of creating a young core group. He's added Collison and George (and maybe Rolle and Stephenson) this summer to Granger, Hibbert, McRoberts, Hansbrough, and Price (don't know about Rush).

So now that we finally have an idea of who our team is, let's make the Playoffs this year.

BringJackBack
10-14-2010, 07:21 PM
Yep but is not working out.

Based on??

Eleazar
10-14-2010, 08:25 PM
I need to preface this by saying everything is a case by case situation, and differently players react differently. This is not a rule, but my opinion on what is best the majority of the time.


For me there is a difference between a rookie and just a young player. A rookie I can understand getting limited minutes simply to not wear out the player. A player who has been in the league for a season or two is a different story. At that point if your team isn't good enough to be better than a borderline playoff team then the young players should get more minutes. I don't think they should necessarily get starter type minutes, but at least 20 minutes.


Now on the specific situation of the Pacers.

I think what made it even more frustrating seeing veterans playing over the young players was that the veterans weren't much, if at all, better than the young players.

Part Timer
10-14-2010, 08:43 PM
If it wasn’t for a few other scenario’s I would say let’s just rename this thread what it should be called “Why did the Pacers start & play Troy Murphy extended minutes every game and often times give Josh McRoberts DNP-CD’s”.

If you're going to ask that question then you might also have to ask whether the Pacers are able to acquire Darren Collison if Murphy had not played as much (and as well, at least statistically) as he did for the past two years?

They might still have been able to acquire Collison, but I think it would have cost more than just Troy Murphy... and nothing else.

Dr. Awesome
10-14-2010, 08:45 PM
If by "winning" you mean win 35ish games and miss the playoffs while getting a late pick and no experience for our young players - I'll choose play the young guys.

Hoop
10-14-2010, 08:49 PM
Play the young guys HEAVY minutes, playoffs or not, I don't care this season. Developing players for next year and beyond should be our #1 goal ..... and finding a new coach ASAP.

pacer4ever
10-14-2010, 09:05 PM
Play the young guys HEAVY minutes, playoffs or not, I don't care this season. Developing players for next year and beyond should be our #1 goal ..... and finding a new coach ASAP.

yes but the reason i want to is because i think playing PG24 and the younger guys make us more atheletic and give us a better chance to win.

travmil
10-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Why does everyone act like the two are mutually exclusive. Sometimes playing your young guys DOES give you the best chance to win.

Bball
10-14-2010, 09:35 PM
we should be at peace with the idea that they still need to "bake" for a while.

That's what Brandon Rush said!!!

:rimshot:

Unclebuck
10-15-2010, 08:17 AM
Play the young guys HEAVY minutes, playoffs or not, I don't care this season. Developing players for next year and beyond should be our #1 goal ..... and finding a new coach ASAP.

Ok, so if the Pacers called an "important" press conference for tomorrow, and Bird and Jim O'Brien announce a significant change in the way they are doing things for this season and they ask for the fans patience.

Dunleavy, Foster, Posey, D. Jones, TJ Ford (am I missing any other vets) Solo? will not play 1 minute this entire season. No amount of foul trouble, or injuries will force the pacers to play any of the vets who likely won't be here next season anyway. We are going to play the youngsters exclusively and if all the youngsters get injured, instead of playing the vets, we'll bring in CBA players. Once again we ask for the fans patience and we assure you this new plan of action will help the franchise in the years to come.

if that happened I'm sure you and everyone would want Jim to stay around awhile and i'm sure ticket sales would sky rocket

beast23
10-15-2010, 08:50 AM
Ok, so if the Pacers called an "important" press conference for tomorrow, and Bird and Jim O'Brien announce a significant change in the way they are doing things for this season and they ask for the fans patience.

Dunleavy, Foster, Posey, D. Jones, TJ Ford (am I missing any other vets) Solo? will not play 1 minute this entire season. No amount of foul trouble, or injuries will force the pacers to play any of the vets who likely won't be here next season. We are going to play the youngsters exclusively and if all the youngsters get injured instead of playing the vets we'll bring in CBA players. Once again we ask for the fans patience and we assure you this new plan of action will help the franchise in the years to come.

if that happened I'm sure you and everyone would want Jim to stay around awhile and i'm sure ticket sales would sky rocketProbably not. The entertainment for the season would take on a different look. It would involve a fat, bald-headed old fart, namely me, trying his darndest to track down JOB and castrate him with a rusty fork.

I'm with you and a lot of others. We may not like it when we don't make the playoffs but still don't get a top 5-6 draft choice. But we also respect that the game is played to win. It is the coach's responsibility to determine what combinations of players can best get that done.

Mackey_Rose
10-15-2010, 09:56 AM
Ok, so if the Pacers called an "important" press conference for tomorrow, and Bird and Jim O'Brien announce a significant change in the way they are doing things for this season and they ask for the fans patience.

Dunleavy, Foster, Posey, D. Jones, TJ Ford (am I missing any other vets) Solo? will not play 1 minute this entire season. No amount of foul trouble, or injuries will force the pacers to play any of the vets who likely won't be here next season. We are going to play the youngsters exclusively and if all the youngsters get injured instead of playing the vets we'll bring in CBA players. Once again we ask for the fans patience and we assure you this new plan of action will help the franchise in the years to come.

if that happened I'm sure you and everyone would want Jim to stay around awhile and i'm sure ticket sales would sky rocket

While I appreciate the sarcasm in black (if you have to change the font to indicate you are using sarcasm, you're probably using it wrong) I can't say I would have that big of a problem with the scenario you just illustrated.

BillS
10-15-2010, 10:07 AM
While I appreciate the sarcasm in black (if you have to change the font to indicate you are using sarcasm, you're probably using it wrong) I can't say I would have that big of a problem with the scenario you just illustrated.

How many games would you go to? Would you be able to convince your friends to go with you?

Mackey_Rose
10-15-2010, 10:18 AM
How many games would you go to? Would you be able to convince your friends to go with you?

I go to them all. That wouldn't change. The friends that would want to go with me now, would still go.

I don't know if you've noticed but it's not like scratching and crawling for 30-40 wins every year has exactly filled the seats every night. If they win 20, it's not going to fill the seats, but it will set them up better to win 50-60 games which will help get people in those seats in the future.

beast23
10-15-2010, 10:52 AM
I go to them all. That wouldn't change. The friends that would want to go with me now, would still go.

I don't know if you've noticed but it's not like scratching and crawling for 30-40 wins every year has exactly filled the seats every night. If they win 20, it's not going to fill the seats, but it will set them up better to win 50-60 games which will help get people in those seats in the future.
So, you are saying tht a priority being something else, anything else, other than winning (with good character players) would not significantly affect fan attendance.

I think that is a very risky pair of dice you would be rolling.

And IMO, would be terribly misguided.

I think that, if nothing else since our finals appearance in 2000, we have learned that the fans are influenced by winning and teams attempting to play "the right way".

vnzla81
10-15-2010, 10:56 AM
So, you are saying tht a priority being something else, anything else, other than winning (with good character players) would not significantly affect fan attendance.

I think that is a very risky pair of dice you would be rolling.

And IMO, would be terribly misguided.

I think that, if nothing else since our finals appearance in 2000, we have learned that the fans are influenced by winning and teams attempting to play "the right way".

The Pacers haven't win or play a game the right way in like five years, fans are not stupid they know what they see, most of those fans that been showing up to see Rasho, Watson and the rest of rental players are going to be there even if we had a bunch of young players.

Hope for the future would sell more tickets than selling crap for the present.

Mackey_Rose
10-15-2010, 11:08 AM
So, you are saying tht a priority being something else, anything else, other than winning (with good character players) would not significantly affect fan attendance.

I think that is a very risky pair of dice you would be rolling.

And IMO, would be terribly misguided.

I think that, if nothing else since our finals appearance in 2000, we have learned that the fans are influenced by winning and teams attempting to play "the right way".

There are usually less than 10,000 fans there a night anyway (don't give me the "official" attendance figures, those are a complete joke) so I'm guessing those are pretty much the remaining die-hards left. Do you really not think they are smart enough to recognize that building for the future, while we are rebuilding nonetheless, just makes sense?

I think they are.

Unclebuck
10-15-2010, 11:24 AM
The Pacers haven't win or play a game the right way in like five years,


I think they won a number of games over the years playing the right way. Which to me means playing hard and playing together - that happened a lot of times the season before last - lack of talent caused them to lose some of the games, but it wasn't because they didn't play the right way

Mackey_Rose
10-15-2010, 11:35 AM
I think they won a number of games over the years playing the right way. Which to me means playing hard and playing together - that happened a lot of times the season before last - lack of talent caused them to lose some of the games, but it wasn't because they didn't play the right way

So wouldn't playing younger players, who have a chance to develop into future building blocks also be able to play hard and play together? If lack of talent causes them to lose a few more games than they would have anyway, so be it. At least we are looking forward. The past couple seasons especially, the coaching decisions (see how I kept JOB out of there?) have been far too short-sighted for my liking.

Brad8888
10-15-2010, 11:36 AM
Ok, so if the Pacers called an "important" press conference for tomorrow, and Bird and Jim O'Brien announce a significant change in the way they are doing things for this season and they ask for the fans patience.

Dunleavy, Foster, Posey, D. Jones, TJ Ford (am I missing any other vets) Solo? will not play 1 minute this entire season. No amount of foul trouble, or injuries will force the pacers to play any of the vets who likely won't be here next season anyway. We are going to play the youngsters exclusively and if all the youngsters get injured, instead of playing the vets, we'll bring in CBA players. Once again we ask for the fans patience and we assure you this new plan of action will help the franchise in the years to come.

if that happened I'm sure you and everyone would want Jim to stay around awhile and i'm sure ticket sales would sky rocket

Oh, goodie, its non-purple hyperbole time... Yay! Let's play! Keep in mind that I do get serious again about halfway down this post, so don't give up, and just enjoy the ride...

OK, so you want extreme over the top views that are completely one sided and unrealistic and would never happen because Herb Simon is not an idiot? Here you go...

Why wait? Buy out all of the players and coaches contracts except for Granger and Hibbert and bring in basically the entire roster of the Ft. Wayne Mad Ants as well as their coaching staff for league minimum salaries. Then, the Pacers would be infinitely more marketable to the ultimate market that probably matters the most -- billionaires looking to buy cheap sports franchises to play with, while at the same time wanting to buy low and sell high, especially if they can end up looking like heroes to whatever city, Indianapolis or elsewhere, they decide to operate in.

Or, conversely, immediately trade away all players with 5 years or less of NBA experience that are on the roster, as well as those who have expiring contracts at the end of this year for players that are vets with at least 5 years of experience while keeping O'Brien so that he at least has viable options on who he might decide to play in that he has not during his entire time with the Pacers. Having experience playing for O'Brien, Pitino, or Don Nelson is preferred in candidates but not required, and being able to "stretch the floor" is a must. 35% or better from the arc career minimum for any player who is not a center is required, and centers must be proficient in the high post as the hub in the offensive wheel with their primary purpose being to find open shooters at the arc while getting out of the way when the perimeter players decide to drive, unless you are Dirk Nowitzki. Just imagine the possibilities...Iverson probably would come, Walker, Celtics would probably let us take Pierce if we let them have Granger and Hibbert, probably could get Baron Davis for Collison and Rush...why, the entire franchise could be turned over at a moment's notice to benefit the O'Brien way, which is, after all, the most important thing -- winning to save JO'B's job regardless of the cost to the future of the franchise.

End of the hyperbolic portion of this post.

Obviously, there is middle ground, and moreso this year, because there are better "tweeners" than there have been in the past who deserve minutes to continue to develop and finish maturing as players, the young guys are not as ready to contribute as those in recent years have been, and there are long time veterans who should get playing time to demonstrate that they have value even beyond their expiring contracts to maximize the possibilities for next summer and beyond, assuming that there will be a Pacers franchise beyond that timeframe.

This year in particular, playing the rookies would unquestionably lead to fewer wins, and could be detrimental to the financial future of the franchise more than ever before. Also, I still feel that another implosion this year, with a final record in the 25 to 30 win range, or less :shudder: is possible.

If that happens it will be difficult for the franchise to recover from financially without outside intervention because there will no longer be much hope on the part of even casual fans, let alone those who follow closely, despite the bonanza that potentially awaits after the lockout and resolution of the CBA next year (hopefully).

Actually, though, I would not be surprised if the league downsizes in an effort to increase the bang for the buck of higher quality teams with a deeper talent pool available for fewer teams while agreeing to a lesser cut in player compensation overall as the ultimate compromise, and available TV money being divided among fewer teams, and the Pacers, unfortunately, would likely be disbanded under that scenario due to market size and lack of overall fan support, with other casualties potentially being Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota, New Orleans, and Sacramento with 24 teams being the end result, and playoffs would then consist of 16 teams, with only 8 not making it each year instead of 14, leading to a larger percentage of NBA following fans having playoff hopes each year and increasing average ACTUAL butts in seats as a result, and also fewer meaningless games with respect to playoff implications, and less teams willfully tanking seasons to get better draft picks.

Sorry about that last depressing tangent.

It is the same old argument, play vets or play young guys. The difference is that the ultimate underlying parameters surrounding the situation have changed significantly based on what I can see, and our playing of a combination of vets and "tweeners", vs. significant minutes for rookies this year would ultimately be in the best interests of the franchise overall going forward, unlike it has been for the last several years that should have seen accelerated rebuilding efforts through playing youth over vets more frequently and more consistently.

BillS
10-15-2010, 12:09 PM
There are usually less than 10,000 fans there a night anyway (don't give me the "official" attendance figures, those are a complete joke) so I'm guessing those are pretty much the remaining die-hards left. Do you really not think they are smart enough to recognize that building for the future, while we are rebuilding nonetheless, just makes sense?

I think they are.

First, while the official figures are based on sales and not butts in the seats, you'd be surprised how easily 11,000 people can be spread through three levels and look like 9,000. I have been to few games where I thought the attendance was actually below 10,000.

Second, do you think that people really want a team that goes out to lose, no matter what the reason? It goes against the entire purpose of sports, even if you were guaranteed a life-changing player the next season.

If you get a #4 pick instead of #1, who takes time to develop, or is behind your already best players, how many years of "don't worry, we're losing for a reason so it's OK" do fans accept?

There's no guarantee that the young guys you develop will do so. There's no guarantee that throwing them in with no minutes for anyone over 3 years in the league will make them better. There's no guarantee your veterans won't revolt, because they are not there to just sit on the bench or play poker in the locker room.

If you REALLY want to do that kind of rebuild, you get rid of all your veterans, including fan favorites, and have no one on the team with more than 3 years in the league except for maybe one token guy for leadership. Of course, you've alienated the fans of the players you dumped, you've put all your eggs in a basket that those guys will develop to be as good as the ones you got rid of, but you at least are able to play your best guys while still developing young. I think that's even more of a disaster, but that's me I guess.

pacer4ever
10-15-2010, 12:12 PM
First, while the official figures are based on sales and not butts in the seats, you'd be surprised how easily 11,000 people can be spread through three levels and look like 9,000. I have been to few games where I thought the attendance was actually below 10,000.

Second, do you think that people really want a team that goes out to lose, no matter what the reason? It goes against the entire purpose of sports, even if you were guaranteed a life-changing player the next season.

If you get a #4 pick instead of #1, who takes time to develop, or is behind your already best players, how many years of "don't worry, we're losing for a reason so it's OK" do fans accept?

There's no guarantee that the young guys you develop will do so. There's no guarantee that throwing them in with no minutes for anyone over 3 years in the league will make them better. There's no guarantee your veterans won't revolt, because they are not there to just sit on the bench or play poker in the locker room.

If you REALLY want to do that kind of rebuild, you get rid of all your veterans, including fan favorites, and have no one on the team with more than 3 years in the league except for maybe one token guy for leadership. Of course, you've alienated the fans of the players you dumped, you've put all your eggs in a basket that those guys will develop to be as good as the ones you got rid of, but you at least are able to play your best guys while still developing young. I think that's even more of a disaster, but that's me I guess.

I was willing to take that risk last season. We were clearly out of playoff contetion and we decide to go on a winning streak WTF. We could have had John Wall if we tanked at the end of th season last year.

Mackey_Rose
10-15-2010, 12:28 PM
First, while the official figures are based on sales and not butts in the seats, you'd be surprised how easily 11,000 people can be spread through three levels and look like 9,000. I have been to few games where I thought the attendance was actually below 10,000.

Fair enough. We disagree. I went to many games last year where it looked to me to be less than half full. But that's pretty subjective. Regardless, it certainly wasn't a packed house.


Second, do you think that people really want a team that goes out to lose, no matter what the reason? It goes against the entire purpose of sports, even if you were guaranteed a life-changing player the next season.

I don't think anyone, and I know I wasn't suggesting anything like that. I don't want any team to play with the intention of losing. I'm not advocating that we should just tank the season right now and try to lose every game. That is preposterous, and a gross exaggeration of what I intended. You don't play your young guys with the intent to develop and then tell them, "now boys, whatever you do, don't try to win tonight."

You put them out there to play their hardest and if they win, great. If they end up losing, not a big deal in the long run, as it will only help them in the future. Seems like basically a win/win situation.

Bball
10-15-2010, 12:36 PM
Ok, so if the Pacers called an "important" press conference for tomorrow, and Bird and Jim O'Brien announce a significant change in the way they are doing things for this season and they ask for the fans patience.

Dunleavy, Foster, Posey, D. Jones, TJ Ford (am I missing any other vets) Solo? will not play 1 minute this entire season. No amount of foul trouble, or injuries will force the pacers to play any of the vets who likely won't be here next season anyway. We are going to play the youngsters exclusively and if all the youngsters get injured, instead of playing the vets, we'll bring in CBA players. Once again we ask for the fans patience and we assure you this new plan of action will help the franchise in the years to come.

if that happened I'm sure you and everyone would want Jim to stay around awhile and i'm sure ticket sales would sky rocket

Well.. you'd be right if that was the general argument. I believe you've just made a strawman argument...

No player from 1-15 or any coach or assistant coach should be playing to lose. But when the reality is that you are going to lose in the short term then you can arrange your priorities for a longer term strategy to where sustained winning in the near term future has a greater possibility. Nobody really wants the vets sitting on the bench for 48 mins a game. What has been asked for is that the younger players get a CONSISTENT spot in the rotation and that they be allowed to make some mistakes along the way. If any are so bad they don't deserve to be on the floor then what are they doing on the roster in the first place? That doesn't mean they get HUGE minutes per se'... just consistent minutes with enough time to be meaningful. Then as you see who is getting it and who is not you can adjust minutes and rotations accordingly...

And the best thing is... come draft time... or when the phone rings inquiring about trades.... you actually have a better idea of your own current roster's capabilities and ceilings.

If living with some mistakes causes you to lose some games then so be it. That doesn't mean you still aren't trying to win. But what is there to gain by trying to eek out a couple of extra wins by leaning heavily on a player that won't be on the team in a year or two anyway?

This doesn't mean you can't start the season hoping for the playoffs if you think you've made a couple of tweaks to improve the team to the point it at least allows you to dream. But being mathematically eligible for the playoffs because you are surrounded by bad teams isn't the same as improving your way into the playoffs. And if you are on the outside looking in at that point you can begin to shift your focus to the future to where you can make a case that you'll be fighting for the playoffs because you can make some noise, not because because a couple of teams decided the playoffs meant less to them than the future.

And the Pacers have been in a unique position where many people weren't expecting much of them anyway... and they were certainly delivering on that...
There's been a decent argument that playing younger players more gave the team a better chance to win immediately than what was being put on the court anyway. And even if they didn't win, it would've been a more entertaining product for many of the fans that were still left because they understood player development, draft potential, and the future.... over seeing Rasho wear down playing big minutes...

The casual fans that have no idea how the draft lottery works or how many teams are in the NBA bailed a long time ago.

So no... The debate isn't about telling the coach to lose as many games as possible and to never play the vets regardless of what is happening on the court. Nor is it solely about development (it's also about getting a better understanding of what you already have on your roster). It's not necessarily about starting the first game of the season in this mode either (although some of that goes to the front office who should have a better handle on the team's potential than anyone on the outside looking in before game 1 has been played). But depending on what you know and what you'd hope for, once the real games start things do get more clear with every game played. At some point it's crystal clear what you currently have as a team (regardless of what you'd hoped at the season opening tip-off)... and it should always be crystal clear where you want to be 3-4 years down the road and whether you're playing the group that has any chance of getting you to that goal. If you're not... then reshuffling priorities shouldn't just be an option... It should be the only option.

BillS
10-15-2010, 01:07 PM
Once you get away from the absolute (never play these particular vets) and into giving the young players consistent minutes, you now start getting into a gray area where, if you played the better player for just another minute or two, would you have won the game?

I think there are clear extremes. As I've said before, in 2008-2009 we were in almost every game down to the wire even though we tended to lose. Do you give up and decide you're never going to win those close ones anyway, so play the young guys and lose by more? In 2009-2010, though, we were getting blown out a lot. In those cases, yeah, throw the young guys in there for more minutes.

Since86
10-15-2010, 01:14 PM
Once you're out of the playoff race does it really matter if you win those last few games, stay losing by a close margin, or start to give more minutes to the younger players?

In the end you still don't make the playoffs, so it's a moot point.

Peck
10-15-2010, 01:24 PM
I was going to come on here and resume my customary battle with Bills over fan attendance and reasons there of, but Mackey Rose has already made all of my points.

I just want to add my kudos to him for doing it so well.

The fans that are there, and it has been this way for over a season now, are the fans that are going to be there night in & night out. Sure there are a few casuals who attend different games because of either a special player present, team we're playing or other reasons but the fans that are there are the fans that are going to be there.

I think we insult the fans more who attend by constantly playing players who we have no intention of keeping.

But BillS & I have been down this road before. We just happen to disagree over fan reaction & expectation.

BillS
10-15-2010, 01:26 PM
Once you're out of the playoff race does it really matter if you win those last few games, stay losing by a close margin, or start to give more minutes to the younger players?

In the end you still don't make the playoffs, so it's a moot point.

How many games were you winning? 48 and not in, like in the West? Or 24 and barely out? I think that probably has an effect, because if you are over .500 and on a winning run you don't yank that back and essentially tell fans with tickets for the last games of the season they aren't going to get what they expected.

(Going to general now, not specifically regarding anything since86 has said)

In terms of team development, I will always value the experience of winning over the experience of more floor time in a losing effort. The question for me is not whether we are getting into the playoffs or somehow winning the season, the question is always what do we do to win THIS game.

Again, this is from the perspective that you don't think your young guys are yet as good as your veterans. You always play your best guys. Your young guys will get their time when they are ready to get it.

Since86
10-15-2010, 01:29 PM
What do you mean "how many games were you winning?"

We were winning around 35 games. I don't need to talk hypotheticals, because my point is based on what did happened, and what I think should of happened.

When it's clear you're not going to make the playoffs, then you start giving more minutes to your younger players.

That's my entire 100% point, and that's why I don't like the way Jim handled the situation.

If the Pacers are above .500% and in the playoff hunt, then clearly you play to get in the playoffs. That's what I've said, and that's what others have said.

I don't understand why we need to keep rehashing this.

BillS
10-15-2010, 01:44 PM
I think we insult the fans more who attend by constantly playing players who we have no intention of keeping.

But BillS & I have been down this road before. We just happen to disagree over fan reaction & expectation.

Yeah, we're kind of on opposite sides of a middle line on this.

I think if you have guys on your team who play better than other ones, why would you decide so soon that you have no intention of keeping them? Why would you decide that further development is of no benefit even if it means they might improve to the point where you can make a better trade using them?

If you have guys that AREN'T better, then yes, sit them down. If you have guys that are pretty much the same, don't necessarily give the vet the advantage (though, as long as the young guy knows WHY, that might be part of the development process in and of itself).

In specifics, I have agreed that some players got far more minutes than their talents deserved. It is why I think that, at some level, we are closer together than the discussions might seem to show.

I personally think you insult the fans by not putting the best possible team on the floor. You try to work development into that process, but development does not take precedence over putting the best team on the floor TODAY. Otherwise, dump those players right now and then your developing guys ARE your best team to put on the floor.

BillS
10-15-2010, 01:55 PM
What do you mean "how many games were you winning?"

We were winning around 35 games. I don't need to talk hypotheticals, because my point is based on what did happened, and what I think should of happened.

When it's clear you're not going to make the playoffs, then you start giving more minutes to your younger players.

That's my entire 100% point, and that's why I don't like the way Jim handled the situation.

If the Pacers are above .500% and in the playoff hunt, then clearly you play to get in the playoffs. That's what I've said, and that's what others have said.

I don't understand why we need to keep rehashing this.

I think one of our disconnects is that I tend to base things strategically - how do we handle overall situations - then see if the current action fits that strategy. That means, when I look at a specific (last year), I am trying to figure out if doing something different would have meant you were changing strategy or not. It is why I talk hypotheticals, because the strategy requires you to have at least some idea on when you will change tactics, and the only way to do that is to apply hypotheticals.

It is a little confusing when you say you talk specifics, and then in your third and fifth paragraphs you make general statements that apply to the hypotheticals just as well as they apply to the specifics. Because you do that, I extrapolate to the hypotheticals because I think that is how one should evaluate an overall action plan. I (probably unfairly) assume you have done the same.

That said, I reiterate this part of the quote:


I don't like the way Jim handled the situation.

and say I absolutely agree based on the specific of last year. We would likely still disagree on the magnitude, mostly because I value winning at the end of a losing season as signaling hope for the future.

Based on the specific of the year before, I don't know that I would agree for that year. As I said, I think you play the game before you and you really don't know that just because you lost the last few games by 2 points it means you'll lose the rest of your games by 2 points. That makes it hard to decide just how much giving a young guy more minutes (remember, we're still going on the assumption that the young guy is not as good as the vet) will hurt you.

Since86
10-15-2010, 02:05 PM
I don't think anyone is talking hypotheticals, because we're saying what should have happened last year, and the year before that.

You asked what we thought should have been done when they were losing but still in games late, and that's not a hypothetical, that was reality.

Why should you continue to play your vets, even if you're losing games by 2, when you have no chance at making the playoffs? Once the playoffs are out of reach, you switch gears.

I don't care if they've been losing by 2 or by 50. It's still a loss. And when you can't make the playoffs, it really doesn't matter anymore.

BillS
10-15-2010, 02:08 PM
Why should you continue to play your vets, even if you're losing games by 2, when you have no chance at making the playoffs? Once the playoffs are out of reach, you switch gears.

That's where we completely disagree, then. I don't think the season ends just because you missed the playoffs. There are still reasons to try to win.

Since86
10-15-2010, 02:10 PM
Did I say you play to lose? No.

I said you develop your younger players, instead of using the freaking beginning of the season to do so, like we are now doing with McRoberts.

Instead of getting him significant minutes, when the games don't mean squat, we now have to try and do that from the get-go. How brilliant.

Unclebuck
10-15-2010, 02:15 PM
Wow, I had no idea when I started this thread yesterday morniong that it would take off as it did. You just never know. I was hesitant to start a thread on a topic that I thought we had beaten to death many times over.

BillS
10-15-2010, 02:17 PM
Did I say you play to lose? No.

So again, we have a disconnect, because I can't see in my mind how, if you don't have your best team on the floor, you are trying to win.

The guys on the FLOOR may be trying to win this particular game, but the team as a whole isn't trying to win this particular game.


I said you develop your younger players, instead of using the freaking beginning of the season to do so, like we are now doing with McRoberts.

And another place where we'll just have to disagree. The beginning of the season (including preseason and training camp), after a summer of working on issues, when you have a team you can be pretty sure will be around for lots of games, is exactly the time when you work with your players.

Of course, another disagreement is that I think Josh is actually capable of more after his summer than he was last spring, but that's another argument :)

Mackey_Rose
10-15-2010, 02:23 PM
So again, we have a disconnect, because I can't see in my mind how, if you don't have your best team on the floor, you are trying to win.

The guys on the FLOOR may be trying to win this particular game, but the team as a whole isn't trying to win this particular game.

Once the playoffs were out of reach, trying to win should not have meant trying to win that night. It should have meant trying to win this year, and making the playoffs this year and into the future.

My opinion is, it was selfish of the coach to sacrifice future growth for the sake of his own employment which was probably safe anyway, but that's for another thread probably.


And another place where we'll just have to disagree. The beginning of the season (including preseason and training camp), after a summer of working on issues, when you have a team you can be pretty sure will be around for lots of games, is exactly the time when you work with your players.

Of course, another disagreement is that I think Josh is actually capable of more after his summer than he was last spring, but that's another argument :)

Is Josh better this year after working his butt off all summer? I would hope so, otherwise he sure wasted a lot of time and effort. But do you not think he was capable of playing in games that were essentially garbage time at tip-off? Don't you think he would have been better prepared for the games this year that actually matter again?

BillS
10-15-2010, 02:58 PM
My opinion is, it was selfish of the coach to sacrifice future growth for the sake of his own employment which was probably safe anyway, but that's for another thread probably.

I don't think that's the reason, since he already had the extension. I would be more inclined to believe that I'm not the only one who believes in the value of continuing trying to field the best team more than simply putting young players on the floor because they are young.


Is Josh better this year after working his butt off all summer? I would hope so, otherwise he sure wasted a lot of time and effort. But do you not think he was capable of playing in games that were essentially garbage time at tip-off? Don't you think he would have been better prepared for the games this year that actually matter again?

First, I really do think Josh should have gotten more time last year.

Second, I don't think it would have done any more than solidified what he was already doing. I think what he is showing me after the summer is something he wasn't going to develop through playing time, and that is a more complete and rounded game.

Third, I don't think there's any such thing as a regular season game that is essentially garbage time at tip-off.

Since86
10-15-2010, 03:03 PM
How can you say Josh should have gotten more minutes and then argue how JOb handled the situation was correct?

That's talking about both sides of your mouth. He either deserved to play, or he didn't.

pacer4ever
10-15-2010, 03:58 PM
That's where we completely disagree, then. I don't think the season ends just because you missed the playoffs. There are still reasons to try to win.

WTF wat reason? i would rather lose at the end to get a better pick and delvope the young guys. But we are still playing 2 win with the young players.

BillS
10-15-2010, 04:02 PM
How can you say Josh should have gotten more minutes and then argue how JOb handled the situation was correct?

That's talking about both sides of your mouth. He either deserved to play, or he didn't.

Where did I say how JOB handled the situation was "correct"? I said it wasn't a disaster.

We're talking about gray areas as if they were absolutes. If Josh got 5 more minutes of time for more games, I'd have been OK with that. That isn't the same as, say, giving him 20 minutes per game.

vnzla81
10-15-2010, 04:03 PM
Hey Bill can I get you avatar? :-p

Since86
10-15-2010, 04:07 PM
You're saying that younger players shouldn't get more playing time when they're out of the playoff race because they're losing by close margins, but you think McRoberts should have gotten more time?

I'm sorry, but McRoberts didn't go from getting DNP-CD's to being the starting PF because of the work he did this offseason. He didn't suddenly morph into this starting caliber player.

He didn't get any shot at playing, and therefore couldn't play his way into the rotation. And when he did play, and played well, it was deemed "irrelevant."

Now, suddenly, he's your starting 4!? It doesn't make sense. I try to stick by the common sense rule, and this fails it.

BillS
10-15-2010, 04:30 PM
You're saying that younger players shouldn't get more playing time when they're out of the playoff race because they're losing by close margins, but you think McRoberts should have gotten more time?

No. I'm saying that you don't sacrifice winning in order to develop young players. If there is time available, of course you develop your young players. I believe that there were minutes where Josh could have played last year that did not hurt the chances of winning. I also think Josh was a better player than some of the players that JOB put on the court - which, if you look, is a situation I DISTINCTLY stated did not fall in the scope of this argument.

This thread is about winning vs. development, not about whether or not you do development at all.


I'm sorry, but McRoberts didn't go from getting DNP-CD's to being the starting PF because of the work he did this offseason. He didn't suddenly morph into this starting caliber player.

He didn't get any shot at playing, and therefore couldn't play his way into the rotation. And when he did play, and played well, it was deemed "irrelevant."

Now, suddenly, he's your starting 4!? It doesn't make sense. I try to stick by the common sense rule, and this fails it.

OK, I really don't know how to answer this.

I believe there was time available for Josh last year that did not impact the question of WINNING vs. development. Therefore, he should have gotten fewer DNP-CDs or more minutes in other games. That doesn't contradict anything I've said here.

I think Josh is your starting 4 this year for 2 reasons. One is that he's the best of what we have left, not because he's "morphed" into a top 5 Power Forward. The second is essentially the reason why he's the best of what we have left - because he is a more well-rounded player than he was last year because of the time he spent focusing on his weaknesses over the summer.

Neither of those has anything to do with whether I think JOB was correct in calling Josh "irrelevant" (I don't). We also haven't been talking about whether the only way to get into the rotation is to be put into the rotation - that's a whole 'nother thread.

THIS thread is about whether you focus on winning or whether you focus on development. I believe you can focus on winning and still play the young guys, but if push comes to shove you focus on winning. As part of that, though, I believe there are places where young guys can develop. I think JOB didn't use those opportunities last year.

beast23
10-15-2010, 09:05 PM
Wow... First of all, my apologies to BillS. I left at about 11 AM to pick up my granddaughter in Chicago and just returned. I've kind of left you out there all alone today.

First of all... to make a point about Josh McRoberts. Those of you you are arguing to play the youngsters seem to be thinking "Golly Jeez. The coach is finally doing what he should have been doing all along, he's playing Josh to get additional experience for one of our younguns."

You guys couldn't be more wrong! He's playing McRoberts not because he added bulk, strength and worked his butt off over the summer. And he sure as hell isn't starting McRoberts because he wants to give more experience to his young player. He's playing him because, at this time, he believes McRoberts to be the best performing PF on the team! And, if you recall what the coach said weeks ago, he echoed those thoughts when he stated that if the season started tomorrow, McRoberts would be his starting PF.

So Since86, without Murphy on the team, with a lot of hard work, McRoberts DID suddenly become this starting caliber PF. I will admit that he would only be a backup on most NBA teams, but for us, at least right now, he is the best performing we have on the roster. Therefore, for us, one of the weaker teams, he IS a starting caliber PF.

Last season, Josh's play in a since was irrelevant... because he had Murphy playing in front of him... and he had a coach that had far more appreciation for what Murphy was bringing to the court than McRoberts.

As for playing to lose, I think it is ridiculous to read in any of our comments that any player on the court, whether a veteran or a youngster, is playing to lose. That's utter nonsense. Individuals do NOT play to lose. And, when they are on the court, the five players on the court, whether any synergy is present or not, are not playing to lose.

However franchises can control game situations and actually play games not necessarily to lose, but certainly without any regard for winning. They do this through the game lineups and strategies that are employed by the coach.

And I suppose that is where the crux of our disagreement lies. I believe it is possible to find minutes for all players that are dressed in your uniform. Not necessarily every game, but certainly averaged over several games. And, I believe that in a 48 minute game, especially in the first three quarters, it should be relatively easy to find some minutes for at least a couple of your non-starting younger players to enable you to evaluate their progress and talent and how it can best be leveraged to benefit your team.

But when the fourth quarter starts, that's when you go with those players or the lineup that has performed best for you over the course of the game... more often than not, that would be your best players... those that started the game.

It's funny really. I can remember that some of my biggest pet peaves in the past were scheduled substitutions to insert a lesser experienced player into the lineup. It used to happen to Reggie all the time at about the 8 minute mark of the first quarter. He could have been hitting everything he threw up and might have had 18 points already, but sure enough, his butt was going to the bench at the 8 minute mark, no matter how good his streak was. That always seemed counterproductive to building a bigger lead and even winning, if you ask me.

I may be a bit idealistic, but to me sports and its competition are something that should be "pure". As a player, you play with integrity. That means you play your hardest and you play to win. As a 5-man lineup, same thing... play hard and to win. As a 12-man team... again same thing. You play hard and you play to win.

But as a franchise, I think you must also have integrity. Your coach must determine his best lineups and best performing players/lineups during any particular game and play to win.

So many of us fought this same issue last year when it came to the Colts. Most of us not only had a problem with spoiling a perfect season, but also with the integrity issue. They didn't play to lose; but they didn't play as though they cared about whether they won those last few games. As I recall, there were a lot of whizzed-off fans who wanted a refund for the last few home games. I think the same would be true of fans attending Pacer games. You don't play your best players; you aren't doing everything you can to win. And that surely must lead to fan alienation.

beast23
10-15-2010, 09:12 PM
THIS thread is about whether you focus on winning or whether you focus on development. I believe you can focus on winning and still play the young guys, but if push comes to shove you focus on winning. As part of that, though, I believe there are places where young guys can develop. I think JOB didn't use those opportunities last year.I agree with the point you are trying to make. You try to win, and if that enables you to play younger players, that's great.

But, I believe we disagree over one point. To me, this thread is about a lot more than whether to focus on development or winning.

It is about INTEGRITY.

flox
10-15-2010, 09:29 PM
I think not playing to win and tanking the season sets a losing culture. We want a winning culture.

vnzla81
10-15-2010, 09:30 PM
I think not playing to win and tanking the season sets a losing culture. We want a winning culture.

They haven't win anything in a long time, were is the winning culture you keep talking about?

flox
10-15-2010, 09:35 PM
They haven't win anything in a long time, were is the winning culture you keep talking about?

Exactly, if we don't try to win we'll get depressed players. I don't want to go 0-15 like in New Jersey or in Boston.

It seems to have hurt the development and confidence of their players.

vnzla81
10-15-2010, 09:42 PM
Exactly, if we don't try to win we'll get depressed players. I don't want to go 0-15 like in New Jersey or in Boston.

It seems to have hurt the development and confidence of their players.

They been trying to win forever doing it the JOB way, do you really think that is going to change? they are depressed winning 5 games or 35 games either way they don't make it to the playoffs.

flox
10-15-2010, 09:47 PM
I think you can be positive about a Pacers season even if they don't make the playoffs. I never expected the amount of talent on our roster to make the playoffs to begin with.