PDA

View Full Version : The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien



Hibbert
10-16-2010, 02:05 PM
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2010/10/15/the-bluntness-of-pacers-coach-jim-obrien/
The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien
SI.com|Coaches, Indiana Pacers
Published October 15th 2010

Few NBA coaches regularly say things that make me think, “Holy crap! Did he actually that?” Phil Jackson will tweak his players through the media, but that is all premeditated, and you get the feeling he might even explain his comments gently — and in private — to the player. Jerry Sloan is candid, and Gregg Popovich‘s curt answers to questions he considers unworthy of his time are so renowned that people now look forward to his news conferences.

But no one is quite like Pacers coach Jim O’Brien, whose honesty borders on jarring. Here he is today talking about Brandon Rush‘s place in the rotation in the wake of Rush’s five-game suspension for violating the league’s drug policy (via Mike Wells of the Indianapolis Star):

“We have three guys — Mike [Dunleavy], Danny [Granger] and Paul [George] — who are our top three guys at the wing spots,” O’Brien said. “Unless something happens, [Rush is] going to have to find a way to move above those three guys in order to get the type of playing time he got in the past.”

On the one hand, this is just a coach discussing his depth chart. On the other hand, O’Brien just told Rush — and Star readers — that a rookie has passed him in the rotation, and that he better work his butt off if he wants to play at all.

And here was O’Brien last week on rookie Lance Stephenson‘s problems on defense:

“If we were playing a game tonight, he wouldn’t get a minute.”

Ow.

Indy fans know this isn’t the first time O’Brien has slapped a young player around a bit in the newspaper.

Last April, O’Brien dashed the optimism Pacer fans were feeling about rookie point guard A.J. Price, who had stepped into T.J. Ford‘s starting role and looked decent (via Indy Cornrows):

“I don’t think he’s the solution. There’s a reason he was drafted in the 50s. I think a lot of people missed the boat from a standpoint of drafting him earlier than that but he’s got a long way to go. I don’t think we would be real happy to say that he’s necessarily going to be the point guard of the future.”

I mean … wow. O’Brien went on — we’ll get there, I promise — but this is getting to the point of actually hurting a young player’s feelings for no real reason other than to clarify to fans Price’s place within the organization.

A month before the Price comments, Josh McRoberts, then a third-year forward, had played perhaps his finest game as a pro, a 15-point, four-rebound effort in a blowout loss to the Lakers. The game was close after the first half, when McRoberts did the bulk of his scoring. But after the game, O’Brien dismissed McRoberts’ work as “irrelevant,” and said he would wait to see McRoberts “do it in winning effort.”

It’s reasonable to question the relevance of gaudy stats piled up in garbage time. But did O’Brien have to do it publicly and at the expense of a young man’s ego?

There is, of course, context to this stuff. O’Brien is an old-school coach, and perhaps he’s using these comments as teaching tools to keep young players humble and remind them that contributing to victories is what really matters in the NBA. And nasty-sounding quotes could be misleading. For instance, O’Brien added the following to his comments last week about Stephenson’s defense:

“I think he understands the difference between coaching and criticism. I see some growth in his defense. I told him I want him to come in with the goal to get better defensively each day. If he does that every day, it’ll get to the point in time where he’ll be good enough of a defensive player that he’ll be able to get some playing time.”

That sounds a bit better than “he can’t even play a single minute,” doesn’t it? Does it make up for the sting of the first quote — the juicy one any reporter will put up high in the story?

And here are some additional comments O’Brien made about Price in the same interview mentioned above:

“I think frankly, until proven differently, we need to do better at the point guard. And that’s not to say that I’m not very pleased with A.J., I am. I just think he’s going to be a very solid backup the next couple of years and if he can work in with us or with another team and earn a starting job, that might be down the road but it’s not going to be in his second year.”

OK. There are some compliments sprinkled in there, and O’Brien does say Price could be a valuable backup point guard — even if he has to move to another team to win that role. And Indiana’s deal for Darren Collison in the offseason shows O’Brien was being honest when he said the organization was not comfortable with Price as a starting point guard.

O’Brien’s bluntness cuts other ways, too. Here’s what he told the Star last week about Roy Hibbert‘s weight loss over the summer:

“Roy Hibbert has had one of the best summers I’ve ever witnessed in my years of coaching. Here’s a young guy that understands that certainly it’s up to the coaching staff to develop players, but most importantly, it’s up to the individual to develop.”

That’s a huge compliment, if a rare one for a young player in Indiana.

And these Pacers are young, with nine potential rotation players age 25 or younger. O’Brien is a 58-year-old coach in the last year of his contract. He’s had success in the NBA, but it’s worth asking if he’s the right coach for this Pacers team.

CooperManning
10-16-2010, 02:11 PM
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2010/10/15/the-bluntness-of-pacers-coach-jim-obrien/
The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien
SI.com|Coaches, Indiana Pacers
Published October 15th 2010

O’Brien is a 58-year-old coach in the last year of his contract. He’s had success in the NBA, but it’s worth asking if he’s the right coach for this Pacers team.

Hmm. Yeah, maybe we should consider getting a new coach? I haven't really thought about it.

/green

Diamond Dave
10-16-2010, 02:18 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wasZsA9IL._SL500_SX300_SY390_CR,0,0,300,390_.jpg

Don't get me wrong, I hate when players and coaches spout out all the standard cliche answers. However O'Brien seems to have his favorite players. He is quick to dismiss the positives of certain players and just as quick to excuse others. And for the love of God he has to stop dismissing good games and hard efforts put forth by the younger players even if its in losing games.

QuickRelease
10-16-2010, 02:43 PM
Hmm. Yeah, maybe we should consider getting a new coach? I haven't really thought about it.

/green:laugh:

QuickRelease
10-16-2010, 02:45 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wasZsA9IL._SL500_SX300_SY390_CR,0,0,300,390_.jpg

Don't get me wrong, I hate when players and coaches spout out all the standard cliche answers. However O'Brien seems to have his favorite players. He is quick to dismiss the positives of certain players and just as quick to excuse others. And for the love of God he has to stop dismissing good games and hard efforts put forth by the younger players even if its in losing games.It should be added that taking a crap on fans that call your radio show pretty much sucks too!

pacer4ever
10-16-2010, 03:52 PM
i want him fired now

McKeyFan
10-16-2010, 03:59 PM
The SI reporter is apparently not familiar with "coachspeak."

speakout4
10-16-2010, 04:16 PM
JOB has no memory. Players are only as good or bad as yesterday's game or practice. imagine what he says privately to players.

Brad8888
10-16-2010, 05:08 PM
But no one is quite like Pacers coach Jim O’Brien, whose boorish expression of his own often misguided opinions borders on jarring.

Fixed.

I don't blame the author of the piece, though. O'Brien does come off as refreshingly candid in interviews unless those interviewing him, or those calling into his now defunct call-in show, have been following his quotes and then his ensuing actions closely. Then, he is as exposed and vulnerable as TJ Ford halfway through a wildly spinning leap into the air during a misguided foray into traffic, and he ends up hung out to dry.

In this case, I hope he is continuing to say one thing while doing something else entirely on more than one point. AJ continues to outshine Collison due to being in better control and not forcing the action, both from what I have seen, and what I have read others say. That means he should be the starter until Collison proves that he is better than AJ. Also, saying that Paul George is number 3 in the wing rotation ahead of Rush is comical, even including the improved shooting that George had against the Hornets.

But, unfortunately, I suspect that AJ being the backup regardless of the quality of his play, and Rush being relegated deep into the bench like McRoberts was last year will both likely come to pass. O'Brien clearly has never done more than put up with Rush because he felt he had no other options at sg, and Price probably doesn't have a strong enough personality to gain O'Brien's respect enough to get the playing time he deserves. I believe a brash young player who stands up for himself wins brownie points faster than a more reserved young player who has a better overall skillset.

Because O'Brien continues to be the coach, for the good of both of these young players as well as the franchise, why not see what we could get by packaging them with an expiring in a 3 for 2 to complete the roster. I would bet that there would be plenty of interest from numerous franchises who would be more than happy to send us back quality in return, while relieving us of TJ, if we were to include both Rush and Price, both of whom should be starters on a decent number of teams in the NBA.

Hibbert
10-16-2010, 05:23 PM
Im with you on your idea Brad, and I kinda like what your saying with the trade idea. Memphis, I'm sure would rather have Ford as a one year rental over Conley, whom they are not sold on and have shopped in the past. He is also in the last year of his contract and I don't think they have any intentions of re-signing him. I love his potential, adds another hometown boy to our roster and a very solid backup at the 1. The only problem with Memphis is that they don't have any players to match up with that amount of salary that Ford, Price, and Rush have, so were probably looking at involving another team or shipping Rush and D. Jones + pick for Conley, since Rush and Price wouldn't work. Something along those lines, just an idea here and yes I'm dreaming but that would be nice.

dohman
10-16-2010, 06:00 PM
Rush is in a contract year. JOB is simply telling him to step his game up.

He has under produced and has not shown much room for improvment while behing on the wrong side of the headlines. I see nothing wrong with what JOB said. George is a attacker and brings some serious intensity on the defensive side. That was rush's golden goose and now we have a rookie that can do it. Rush better get that three point shot up to 45% and learn how to finish in traffic or else his days in the league are numbered.

He may be a good backup on a team but honestly we have one of the weakest SG spots in the NBA and rush may have a hard time cracking that rotation. The open market may not be to kind to him.

IndyHoya
10-16-2010, 07:18 PM
i want him fired now

Well, that's blunt too. ;)

Sookie
10-16-2010, 07:52 PM
Well I think it goes back to what was said early in the article.

What he said about AJ and Josh, is just down right nasty.

pacer4ever
10-16-2010, 08:05 PM
Well I think it goes back to what was said early in the article.

What he said about AJ and Josh, is just down right nasty.

ya and then say that stuff about Lance. He should just keep his mouth shut.

speakout4
10-16-2010, 08:06 PM
Well I think it goes back to what was said early in the article.

What he said about AJ and Josh, is just down right nasty.
Who could possibly enjoy playing for this guy? Aside from all the other issues these statements demoralize young players.

AJ knows where he was picked. He doesn't need his coach putting it in the newspaper.

Sookie
10-16-2010, 08:16 PM
Who could possibly enjoy playing for this guy? Aside from all the other issues these statements demoralize young players.

AJ knows where he was picked. He doesn't need his coach putting it in the newspaper.

especially when
1. Where AJ was picked had very little to do with his talent (obviously)
2. Just a month previously, JOB was telling everyone how AJ was the steal of the draft and could start for a .500 team right now (which was better than the Pacers..) and could possibly be a championship caliber PG.

And to add on to that, the constant "He's playing great" *bench* which has happened three times...

And then Josh... And Rush and Roy haven't exactly been treated well.

I think with those four, the answer is pretty simple. Before now, he doesn't like Rush, but he had no one else to play. He does like Roy, but Roy didn't fit in his system. He does like AJ, but he wants vet PGs, last year both were vets, and this year we traded for a young PG, so he has to play (AJ better have one heck of a game Tuesday, if he'd like to be the primary backup)...and with Josh, he didn't think Josh was good, figured out he was wrong and his ego was bruised...but now he doesn't have a choice, and has to play him.

BringJackBack
10-16-2010, 08:35 PM
ya and then say that stuff about Lance. He should just keep his mouth shut.

To be fair, I'd rather have a coach who is blunt rather than the polar opposite. Someone like Vinny Del Negro or Mike D'Antoni would be talking about how "Lance is coming along, and right now his defense isn' t at the level of the quick guards, but it's really coming along each and every day." I don't like to hear that bullcrap.

Of course, Jim also does that with alot of guys. Particularly AJ and Rush before.

McKeyFan
10-16-2010, 08:52 PM
To be fair, I'd rather have a coach who is blunt rather than the polar opposite. Someone like Vinny Del Negro or Mike D'Antoni would be talking about how "Lance is coming along, and right now his defense isn' t at the level of the quick guards, but it's really coming along each and every day." I don't like to hear that bullcrap.

Of course, Jim also does that with alot of guys. Particularly AJ and Rush before.

I wouldn't rather have JOB than Rick, but it's true Rick was pretty boring when it came to comments on players. He was the ultimate diplomat/politician, which is probably the best way to go, but as a fan it was frustrating.

Of course, it's hard to take seriously what JOB says, so there are issues there as well.

pacer4ever
10-16-2010, 09:02 PM
To be fair, I'd rather have a coach who is blunt rather than the polar opposite. Someone like Vinny Del Negro or Mike D'Antoni would be talking about how "Lance is coming along, and right now his defense isn' t at the level of the quick guards, but it's really coming along each and every day." I don't like to hear that bullcrap.

Of course, Jim also does that with alot of guys. Particularly AJ and Rush before.

i would not want to play for a coach like JOB i would rather the coach just be boring. Lance could probly play just fine at the SG but JOB has to say that BS and keeps playing him at the one. If he was starting he could problly ave 18ppg right now( i dont want him staring just proving a point.) AND HE would be a hell of a lot better on D

BlueNGold
10-16-2010, 09:15 PM
Of course, it's hard to take seriously what JOB says..

This is my #1 issue with JOb. I think he packages things for people to hear to further an agenda. I know a lot of people do that...but he's a master.

Let me put this bluntly. The author of that SI.com article is very naive.

CableKC
10-16-2010, 09:16 PM
I have no problem with his assessment of Lance right now.

speakout4
10-16-2010, 09:38 PM
This is my #1 issue with JOb. I think he packages things for people to hear to further an agenda. I know a lot of people do that...but he's a master.

Let me put this bluntly. The author of that SI.com article is very naive.
If he is communicating through the media rather than face to face he is cowardly. Humiliating people is never a good strategy. I think that was written in a cave somewhere a long time ago.

pacer4ever
10-16-2010, 10:06 PM
I have no problem with his assessment of Lance right now.

Lance is a SG and he keeps playing him at the PG

MagicRat
10-16-2010, 10:22 PM
If he is communicating through the media rather than face to face he is cowardly.

Darren Collison was on the Dakich show a couple of days ago. When asked what he'd done today he said, "We just watched a lot of film, get yelled at." Dakich says you were up 20 in the second half, what the hell? "There's never nothing we can do right around here, but it's good for us. It's good yelling."

Sounds like he's letting them know face-to-face.....

speakout4
10-16-2010, 10:25 PM
Lance is a SG and he keeps playing him at the PG
Lance can only be our 3rd string PG behind Collison and Price. He is suited to SG. Likely a 3rd string SG this year too.

pacer4ever
10-16-2010, 10:28 PM
Lance can only be our 3rd string PG behind Collison and Price. He is suited to SG. Likely a 3rd string SG this year too.

i just hope some nites he will play him 10 mins or so. He could be a real spark off the bench

Kuq_e_Zi91
10-17-2010, 06:38 AM
Darren Collison was on the Dakich show a couple of days ago. When asked what he'd done today he said, "We just watched a lot of film, get yelled at." Dakich says you were up 20 in the second half, what the hell? "There's never nothing we can do right around here, but it's good for us. It's good yelling."

Sounds like he's letting them know face-to-face.....

Darren's only been here a couple months. I wonder if the other guys, who have been here for a couple years, think of it as good yelling.

I don't mean to insinuate that the players don't like O'Brien, but I can imagine all that yelling getting real old, real quick.

Unclebuck
10-17-2010, 07:06 AM
If he is communicating through the media rather than face to face he is cowardly. Humiliating people is never a good strategy. I think that was written in a cave somewhere a long time ago.

I am staying away from this thread for the most part, but did want to respond here. Jm might be a lot of things, but cowardly in this context is not one of them. He's very straightforward with the players

Unclebuck
10-17-2010, 07:08 AM
This is my #1 issue with JOb. I think he packages things for people to hear to further an agenda. I know a lot of people do that...but he's a master.

Let me put this bluntly. The author of that SI.com article is very naive.

I think he does the exact opposite all the time - sometimes with poor results. He doesn't think about what people want to hear and that gets him into trouble

Mourning
10-17-2010, 07:15 AM
I wouldn't rather have JOB than Rick, but it's true Rick was pretty boring when it came to comments on players. He was the ultimate diplomat/politician, which is probably the best way to go, but as a fan it was frustrating.

Of course, it's hard to take seriously what JOB says, so there are issues there as well.

Rick was indeed the diplomat, but man, I did like him as a person and his TRUE emphasis on defence and for someone who wasn't a very good communicator I think he communicated a lot better then JOB has been doing since his tenure here.

IF only Rick would of created a bit loser offense...

pacers74
10-17-2010, 07:48 AM
JOB just doesn't think about the effect of what he has on other people (the players and the fans). He is definitely speaks what is on his mind at that exact moment. It is not good for anyone, but us. It gives us something to post about.

gummy
10-17-2010, 02:04 PM
Darren Collison was on the Dakich show a couple of days ago. When asked what he'd done today he said, "We just watched a lot of film, get yelled at." Dakich says you were up 20 in the second half, what the hell? "There's never nothing we can do right around here, but it's good for us. It's good yelling."

Sounds like he's letting them know face-to-face.....

In that same interview Darren talked about how hard the practices are and how tired they are but that they just have to push through it. I know we've talked before about the hard practices JOB likes and whether or not they are too vigorous in terms of keeping the players relatively fresh for a game. So I thought it was interesting...

BringJackBack
10-17-2010, 02:05 PM
I like that Darren calls it like he sees it.

flox
10-17-2010, 02:08 PM
I love what says to the media about his players. It's fine to me. No one needs to tell Price that he wasn't expected to be the long term solution, and isn't expected to be a long solution.

He's just using the media to motivate his players or show them whats expected or not. I have no problem with it at all. I think more coaches should do this.

speakout4
10-17-2010, 04:01 PM
I am staying away from this thread for the most part, but did want to respond here. Jm might be a lot of things, but cowardly in this context is not one of them. He's very straightforward with the players
You may be correct. I couldn't distinguish between cowardly and stupid. You can't expect players or anyone else to respond positively if you aren't at all concerned about their feelings. JOB doesn't get a pass if he is accurate but tactless.

He doesn't own the team and his name isn't Steinbrenner.

Mourning
10-17-2010, 04:15 PM
I love what says to the media about his players. It's fine to me. No one needs to tell Price that he wasn't expected to be the long term solution, and isn't expected to be a long solution.

He's just using the media to motivate his players or show them whats expected or not. I have no problem with it at all. I think more coaches should do this.

There are people here who despise almost everything JOB does, no matter what.

You're like the opposite of that. He can do no harm. Everything he does is "how it should be".

Come on. Let's just be fair. When one of your young players has played basically the best game in his career and got most of his things done outside of garbagetime, but the team lost the match, then you don't publicly tell that what he's done is irrelevant. Sure the team lost, but you are also dealing with a person who you want to positively motivate.

The player did well, but the team lost. It happens, compliment the player and try to win the game by maybe using time-outs at different moments, use different lineups, etc, etc.

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 04:50 PM
I think he does the exact opposite all the time - sometimes with poor results. He doesn't think about what people want to hear and that gets him into trouble

If that's true, he has made some stunningly wrong judgments over the last couple years.

Does anyone really believe that Stephen Graham could possibly be a better player than Brandon Rush? I looked for some quotes back when Rush was benched in favor of Graham, but I couldn't find any on the net. What I do know is that Graham is gone and no one in their right mind thought he was a good player.

Also, the constant criticism of Josh McRoberts last year and the diss when he called Josh's performance irrelevant. You take that as an emotional reaction by JOb due to the loss. I think that's part of it. The other part of it was that he would have to deal with more people crying for McBob to get on the floor...when he knows he needs to play Murphy due to the huge contract and the fact the Pacers were shopping him.

Basically, when he is forced to play Murphy due to the financial aspects of the business, he looks foolish not playing McBob. Things are more complicated than meet the eye and it's more than just a game. Everyone knew McBob was a good player, including JOb. He just couldn't play him last year.

PaceBalls
10-17-2010, 05:03 PM
If that's true, he has made some stunningly wrong judgments over the last couple years.

Does anyone really believe that Stephen Graham could possibly be a better player than Brandon Rush? I looked for some quotes back when Rush was benched in favor of Graham, but I couldn't find any on the net. What I do know is that Graham is gone and no one in their right mind thought he was a good player.

Also, the constant criticism of Josh McRoberts last year and the diss when he called Josh's performance irrelevant. You take that as an emotional reaction by JOb due to the loss. I think that's part of it. The other part of it was that he would have to deal with more people crying for McBob to get on the floor...when he knows he needs to play Murphy due to the huge contract and the fact the Pacers were shopping him.

Basically, when he is forced to play Murphy due to the financial aspects of the business, he looks foolish not playing McBob. Things are more complicated than meet the eye and it's more than just a game. Everyone knew McBob was a good player, including JOb. He just couldn't play him last year.

Jim wasn't forced to play Murphy...Jim wanted nothing more than to play Murphy every damn minute of the game, damn the consequences. With your reasoning TJ Ford would have logged just as many minutes.

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 05:17 PM
Jim wasn't forced to play Murphy...Jim wanted nothing more than to play Murphy every damn minute of the game, damn the consequences. With your reasoning TJ Ford would have logged just as many minutes.

TJ Ford's contract is not that big and he's had a history of being benched. Not so with Murphy. Also, experienced PG's tend to be more marketable...especially at the February deadline when teams may be desperate for a backup. In addition, Murphy's stats inflate his value and if he sits they drop like a rock. TJ's stats do not inflate his value.

Now, if you are saying that JOb truly believed Troy helped win games...well, I am trying to give JOb more credit. We all know by looking at the past W/L with and without Troy that it's clearly not true. This season will confirm it.

Sookie
10-17-2010, 05:24 PM
I think Jim doesn't want his judgement questioned. He has his ideas and refuses to see otherwise.

I think Jim didn't think Josh was an NBA player. He showed that when he played Dahntay and Dun at the 4, when Josh was fine and healthy to play. Josh proved him wrong. He didn't want to deal with it. Now, he has no choice on who to start. It won't shock me if eventually Posey takes his place though.

With AJ, it seems to be a bit more complicated. Because first it was:
"He's going to be a really good player, I'll have to find him minutes. He outplays the vets."
Then he sends Price back to the deep bench.
Then he said he was going to play AJ over TJ because AJ helps the team win more
Then he called AJ the steal of the draft, and said he could start right now for a .500 team (with potential to be a high calibeer PG)
Then he started him when Watson was at a funeral.
Then he benched him for no reason. (We liked what we saw so we benched him.)
Then came the draft position insults.
Then came the high compliments again (He's been the best player in preseason, I'll have to get him more minutes.)
Now it seems kind of obvious that the second TJ is healthy, TJ's getting the backup spot. He doesn't even like TJ, at least he liked Troy.

I mean sheesh..I don't even know what to think here. But regardless, you don't do the above to a young player. Particularly one that hasn't even given you a reason to jerk him around. (Like, as much as I like Rush, I can see why a coach might jerk him around a bit.) At least TJ's a vet, and probably just feels like "it's not me, it's coach."

flox
10-17-2010, 05:45 PM
There are people here who despise almost everything JOB does, no matter what.

You're like the opposite of that. He can do no harm. Everything he does is "how it should be".

Come on. Let's just be fair. When one of your young players has played basically the best game in his career and got most of his things done outside of garbagetime, but the team lost the match, then you don't publicly tell that what he's done is irrelevant. Sure the team lost, but you are also dealing with a person who you want to positively motivate.

The player did well, but the team lost. It happens, compliment the player and try to win the game by maybe using time-outs at different moments, use different lineups, etc, etc.

If we were a good team, what McRoberts would do would be irrelevant. It the long run of things, if a bench player has one good game, so what. It shouldn't mean anything- especially in a losing effort were we lost by 23.

And no, I think Jim has made a few mistakes. I'm pretty sure he messed up big time with TJ and needs to make his team have some better shot selection at times- I would love it if our team moved the ball more and did more reversals.




Now, if you are saying that JOb truly believed Troy helped win games...well, I am trying to give JOb more credit. We all know by looking at the past W/L with and without Troy that it's clearly not true. This season will confirm it.

I can't for this season to start so for once and for all we can see if you are me are right about Murphy. Without Murphy last season we would have lost at least 4 more games.



I mean sheesh..I don't even know what to think here. But regardless, you don't do the above to a young player. Particularly one that hasn't even given you a reason to jerk him around. (Like, as much as I like Rush, I can see why a coach might jerk him around a bit.) At least TJ's a vet, and probably just feels like "it's not me, it's coach."

I'm fine when you do to a young player. Some respond well to it (Parker), some don't (Kwame). Not everyone has to use positive motivation. Not everyone responds well or best to positive motivation.

Sookie
10-17-2010, 05:52 PM
I'm fine when you do to a young player. Some respond well to it (Parker), some don't (Kwame). Not everyone has to use positive motivation. Not everyone responds well or best to positive motivation.

It's not motivation. It's confusing and borderline nasty to a player.
"yea, you're outplaying the two guys ahead of you in the rotation...but I'm going to bench you"
Any player would be like "......"

And in Josh's case. That had to be defeating. He had the best game of his career against the best frontline in the NBA, after being benched in favor of two shooting guards..and coach thinks it's "irrelevant"

BringJackBack
10-17-2010, 05:52 PM
It wasn't a losing effort until Josh came out.

And almost every single thing Troy has ever done in the NBA has been a losing effort. Does that make all of his performances irrelevant.

flox
10-17-2010, 05:57 PM
It's not motivation. It's confusing and borderline nasty to a player.
"yea, you're outplaying the two guys ahead of you in the rotation...but I'm going to bench you"
Any player would be like "......"

And in Josh's case. That had to be defeating. He had the best game of his career against the best frontline in the NBA, after being benched in favor of two shooting guards..and coach thinks it's "irrelevant"
How do you know this? Are we sure this defeated Josh? Did he sulk around the court? Did he say that it hurt him? Did he play poorly afterwards? Does he suck today? Did the comment affect him to the point where he can't play on the floor anymore? Does he look unhappy? Is he not playing well? Was he so upset with this comment that he didn't work on his game anymore, refused to play for the summer league, gained 20 pounds, and quit basketball?

I mean, none of that happened right? He's the starting four on a NBA team right now. What, if any damage did that comment do to Josh? Has his comments affected Price the player or Price on the court?

Does it matter if he's benched for two wings? How badly do you think Blair was upset that he didn't get to see the floor at times because Pop wanted to play small ball and have the corpse of Mike Finley play the four? A lot? A little?




And almost every single thing Troy has ever done in the NBA has been a losing effort. Does that make all of his performances irrelevant.
Who knows- maybe? Has anyone ever asked this question before? I'd like to see his answer.

Hey coach, I know we lost today, but how do you feel about Troy's 15/10 tonight?

Irrelevant might be a good word to describe it.

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 06:07 PM
Hey coach, I know we lost today, but how do you feel about Troy's 15/10 tonight?

Irrelevant might be a good word to describe it.

Making that statement about a proven vet is an entirely different thing.

For a young player who had a great game, it is a poor way to motivate and help a player gain confidence. Seriously, that is the best way to put it. I just hope that is not standard operating practice for him, but I'm afraid it is.

BTW, this thread IS about Jim O'Brien...;)

flox
10-17-2010, 06:17 PM
For a young player who had a great game, it is a poor way to motivate and help a player gain confidence. Seriously, that is the best way to put it.

BTW, this thread IS about Jim O'Brien...;)

Ok, we'll agree to disagree then. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. I think it's an ok way to motivate someone

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 07:14 PM
Ok, we'll agree to disagree then. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. I think it's an ok way to motivate someone

IMO, the best managers are those who provide positive reinforcement when it's deserved. Instead, he gave him negative criticism. Under those particular circumstances, I don't think that was a good idea. It's not like he's some kind of prima donna that needs to be reeled in.

In any event, every game after that (except for one) where he was allowed on the floor more than 20 minutes, he scored in double figures. The one game where he did not get 10 or more...he got 9 against the Celtics defense in 22 minutes...not exactly bad.

Whether it was JOb's criticism or not, Josh played well. Now Josh is the best thing since sliced bread. From irrelevant to incredible. Some things are believeable...others are not.

Shade
10-17-2010, 07:28 PM
I want to be excited about this season. I really do. But everytime I try, it's tempered by the fact that Jim is still our coach.

And with a lockout looming, it's starting to look like it may be at least a couple more years before I can even think about looking forward to Pacers basketball again. :sigh:

Putnam
10-17-2010, 07:43 PM
You can't expect players or anyone else to respond positively if you aren't at all concerned about their feelings.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIGrYRiq3L1H4CbtfDvZl2snDQUJ5U3 0hD2vAxwJEkpMUSyd8&t=1&usg=__9goiglqiDmJGfCzeb1aBSuSvBKg=


Sometimes they do. It happens when the subordinate person recognizes that the other person is really in charge, and that the only options are his way or the highway. On the other hand, teachers like to say: "Kids don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." That is a very good slogan for elementary school teachers to follow.

So the question for us all to ask is whether the Indiana Pacers are more like soldiers and working adults, or more like school children. I'm hoping the former.

vnzla81
10-17-2010, 07:56 PM
The NBA is not the army, there a reason why players make more money than the coach and have guarantee contracts.

Once the players find out that you are a joke of a coach or don't like the way you talk to them, they would always find a way to get rid of you.

gummy
10-17-2010, 08:03 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIGrYRiq3L1H4CbtfDvZl2snDQUJ5U3 0hD2vAxwJEkpMUSyd8&t=1&usg=__9goiglqiDmJGfCzeb1aBSuSvBKg=


Sometimes they do. It happens when the subordinate person recognizes that the other person is really in charge, and that the only options are his way or the highway. On the other hand, teachers like to say: "Kids don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." That is a very good slogan for elementary school teachers to follow.

So the question for us all to ask is whether the Indiana Pacers are more like soldiers and working adults, or more like school children. I'm hoping the former.

Are those really the only choices? How about having a clear chain of command but giving credit when credit is due...what's wrong with that?

flox
10-17-2010, 08:08 PM
IMO, the best managers are those who provide positive reinforcement when it's deserved. Instead, he gave him negative criticism. Under those particular circumstances, I don't think that was a good idea. It's not like he's some kind of prima donna that needs to be reeled in.


Are your favorite managers all positive reinforcers? Who are they again?


It is more reasonable to suggest that Josh or his development was hurt by his comments,there was a positive effect, or there was no effect at all?

I think the answer, is, most likely, that there was no effect at all.

speakout4
10-17-2010, 08:14 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIGrYRiq3L1H4CbtfDvZl2snDQUJ5U3 0hD2vAxwJEkpMUSyd8&t=1&usg=__9goiglqiDmJGfCzeb1aBSuSvBKg=


Sometimes they do. It happens when the subordinate person recognizes that the other person is really in charge, and that the only options are his way or the highway. On the other hand, teachers like to say: "Kids don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." That is a very good slogan for elementary school teachers to follow.

So the question for us all to ask is whether the Indiana Pacers are more like soldiers and working adults, or more like school children. I'm hoping the former.
Sometimes there are more categories of responses than soldiers and children. Working adults don't necessarily fall into the category of soldiers. There is quite a range of responses to authority.

McKeyFan
10-17-2010, 08:16 PM
Sometimes there are more categories of responses than soldiers and children. Working adults don't necessarily fall into the category of soldiers. There is quite a range of responses to authority.
None of that works if the players feel like they have better judgement than the coach.

Because they probably do.

flox
10-17-2010, 08:17 PM
None of that works if the players feel like they have better judgement than the coach.

It's that kind of attitude that gets players fined. Dwight and Agent Zero are the last players I could think of that thought they knew better than the coach- look how that worked for them.

Putnam
10-17-2010, 08:47 PM
Sometimes there are more categories of responses than soldiers and children. Working adults don't necessarily fall into the category of soldiers. There is quite a range of responses to authority.


That's right. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just wanted to state a condition under which good results can happen even with an uncaring boss. I don't think NBA coaches and players ought to have the relationship a drill seargent has with his recruits.

I think a lot of posters around here are ridiculous in thinking they are smarter than Jim O'Brien is. But I think they are right that Jim's comments aren't always beneficial.




We all need to remember, though, that what O'Brien says in public and what he says in the locker room are two different things. And the locker room part, about which we know nothing, is the more important.

McKeyFan
10-17-2010, 08:47 PM
It's that kind of attitude that gets players fined. Dwight and Agent Zero are the last players I could think of that thought they knew better than the coach- look how that worked for them.

Dwight probably doesn't have better judgement than SVG.

This isn't grade school where the adult has better judgement by default. These are all adults, and often the players really do have better judgment than the coach.

Putnam
10-17-2010, 08:50 PM
These are all adults, and often the players really do have better judgment than the coach.



I know a lot of editors who think they know syntax and style better than writers do. How do you feel about editors?

McKeyFan
10-17-2010, 08:57 PM
I know a lot of editors who think they know syntax and style better than writers do. How do you feel about editors?

I pay editors to catch technicalities that they have more experience in detecting. But I overrule them when they make certain changes I feel are not as effective as the original. And I will allow a technical error at times if it serves the artistic purpose.

Oh. I guess you should know. I am usually the publisher, so I am the editor's boss.

TMI. Back to the point. In the classic scenario, if an editor has consistently bad judgment, a talented writer will eventually go somewhere else.

Hicks
10-17-2010, 09:05 PM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIGrYRiq3L1H4CbtfDvZl2snDQUJ5U3 0hD2vAxwJEkpMUSyd8&t=1&usg=__9goiglqiDmJGfCzeb1aBSuSvBKg=


Sometimes they do. It happens when the subordinate person recognizes that the other person is really in charge, and that the only options are his way or the highway. On the other hand, teachers like to say: "Kids don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." That is a very good slogan for elementary school teachers to follow.

So the question for us all to ask is whether the Indiana Pacers are more like soldiers and working adults, or more like school children. I'm hoping the former.

I say leave the drill sergeant BS for the military.

Maintaining a positive atmosphere/relationship with adults isn't automatically patronizing or coddling. It can be as effective as any other method of management.

On both the giving and receiving end, I've experienced both methods (more positive, or more critical), and positive was almost always better.

xBulletproof
10-17-2010, 09:22 PM
Effective management involves knowing who the target audience is. Someone people respond better to some things, and for some they respond better to the exact opposite.

There's no universal answer. Otherwise anyone could be good at managing people.

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 09:35 PM
Effective management involves knowing who the target audience is. Someone people respond better to some things, and for some they respond better to the exact opposite.

There's no universal answer. Otherwise anyone could be good at managing people.

No. Some people are not capable of providing positive reinforcement. Their egos simply don't allow it. Those people are known as poor managers...and employees typically can't stand them. They are usually blunt and stubborn too. Not really talking about JOb...honestly.

xBulletproof
10-17-2010, 09:39 PM
No. Some people are not capable of providing positive reinforcement. Their egos simply don't allow it. Those people are known as poor managers...and employees typically can't stand them. They are usually blunt and stubborn too. Not really talking about JOb...honestly.

..... No?

You might want to re-read what I posted. You said absolutely nothing that contradicted what I said.

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 09:51 PM
..... No?

You might want to re-read what I posted. You said absolutely nothing that contradicted what I said.

You said: "There's no universal answer. Otherwise anyone could be good at managing people."

This implies that IF there was a universal answer (e.g. positive reinforcement is always best), that ANYONE could do it. I disagree with that assertion. In fact, that is the reason for bad management in many cases. Many people are not capable because they fear that raising someone up will put their job at risk. ...or they are simply an egomaniac.

xBulletproof
10-17-2010, 10:00 PM
You said: "There's no universal answer. Otherwise anyone could be good at managing people."

This implies that IF there was a universal answer (e.g. positive reinforcement is always best), that ANYONE could do it. I disagree with that assertion. In fact, that is the reason for bad management in many cases. Many people are not capable because they fear that raising someone up will put their job at risk. ...or they are simply an egomaniac.

Soooo your whole point is that there are exceptions to every rule? I thought that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. Or that people were so anal that it needed to be said "almost anyone".

I guess that's why people always post "IMO", when it's pretty obvious that it's their opinion. I mean, they typed it. It wasn't anyone else. Maybe it deflects some of this silly nit-picking however.

flox
10-17-2010, 10:03 PM
I say leave the drill sergeant BS for the military.

Maintaining a positive atmosphere/relationship with adults isn't automatically patronizing or coddling. It can be as effective as any other method of management.

On both the giving and receiving end, I've experienced both methods (more positive, or more critical), and positive was almost always better.

Is anecdotal evidence really a way to view things? I almost always have responded better to people who were more critical about my performance than those who were coddling of me. The same is true of my friends - they found that they performed best when their asses were getting kicked.



This isn't grade school where the adult has better judgement by default. These are all adults, and often the players really do have better judgment than the coach.


Maybe. But then which players over which coaches. I want a list. Ignore the Pacers since we disagree on that one completely.

BlueNGold
10-17-2010, 10:09 PM
Soooo your whole point is that there are exceptions to every rule? I thought that was so obvious it didn't need to be said. Or that people were so anal that it needed to be said "almost anyone".

I guess that's why people always post "IMO", when it's pretty obvious that it's their opinion. I mean, they typed it. It wasn't anyone else. Maybe it deflects some of this silly nit-picking however.

This is not an exception to the rule. In fact, it's the rule. Most people in management positions don't properly give positive reinforcement because they will not or cannot do it. The reason why it's the rule is because it's a fact for many different reasons....some of which I have described.

We already know that TJ and JOb didn't talk for awhile because...as TJ described it...they were both being stubborn. Sorry, but that's not good management either...if it's true.

BTW, people on this forum described Jim as being stubborn. Ever heard of stubborn pride. That's all about ego, bullet...and ego is often the reason people cannot give positive reinforcement.

xBulletproof
10-17-2010, 10:13 PM
How you got to this point after what I said is .... strange. Might be the silliest debate on here anyone's tried to drag me into.

You win. I'm not even going to get into this mess. Wow.

McKeyFan
10-17-2010, 10:15 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but let me say this again: it doesn't really matter if JOB is old school negative or new school positive.

He has difficulty getting player respect either way because he doesn't have the basic common sense understanding in major areas. Sure, he has much technical and statistical acumen. But he can't figure out when to call a timeout (it's a right-brain momentum thing, not a technical thing), he doesn't know how to say the right thing about young players in press conferences, he doesn't know how to use Troy Murphy's skills in moderation, and he doesn't understand the importance of working the ball around the horn for a high percentage shot rather than going for the first opportunity.

When challenged, he gets more stubborn about his poor judgements.

Four years of this makes you question Bird's judgement even more.

Bball
10-17-2010, 10:25 PM
I can't imagine what it would be like for a player to be entering the 4th year of this ***-clown's mixed signals and 'against the grain' basketball.

About the only thing good I can think of after all this time is that the players and fans will appreciate just about anyone that replaces O'Brien.... At which point a couple of posters will not have to apologize for Jim O'Brien's version of basketball any longer.

I have no faith that he will do anything different even with a new look team and regardless of what he says. It's what he does that matters... There's simply no use in anyone, players, media, or fans paying attention to what he says at this point.

He may talk like Norman Dale but he coaches like George.

Hicks
10-17-2010, 11:00 PM
Is anecdotal evidence really a way to view things?

Well, first of all, if you're dismissing anecdotal evidence, I don't know why you thought using it yourself was a good idea (you and your friend's experiences). But whatever; I really don't have any interest in arguing about the value of anecdotal evidence.

But to try to answer your question, if you're asking if I value personal experience, you bet I do. However, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I believe in positive management based solely on that alone.

I think there are many who would agree with me in the fields of education and psychology.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I am certified in elementary education, and of course part of that training is learning about different ways to manage people and the pros/cons of each type.

While our target audience was children, what we learned could easily be adapted for adults, and I believe it's quite effective when done correctly.

Very important: Part of doing it the right way is to NOT CODDLE. It's very frustrating for me to read multiple times in this very thread where people are trying to equate positive management with coddling. They're not the same thing. If a leader is trying to coddle in order to stay positive, they're doing it wrong.

That's the last I have to say about the general merits of leadership styles; I don't have anything to gain by arguing about it any further, so I'll just say I agree to disagree.

Major Cold
10-17-2010, 11:48 PM
Regardless of if or if not what JOB says to the media, if the player is so emotionally soft, can they really hack the pressure of the NBA culture. Their feelings? Seriously?

Pamper them babes, spoon feed them. But when they are on the hardwood it does no good. Sure he could give credit. And he falters sometimes. But for crying out loud some players need tough love. Check out some comments by Jim about Roy....


This isn't preschool. It is a million dollar sport.

flox
10-18-2010, 01:21 AM
Well, first of all, if you're dismissing anecdotal evidence, I don't know why you thought using it yourself was a good idea (you and your friend's experiences). But whatever; I really don't have any interest in arguing about the value of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I figured, if anecdotal evidence is worth anything, I might as well post mine as well, at least so that people can see where I am coming from. Just curious- I generally don't value it very highly since the sample size is so small, but I know some others like it.

Like if I brought my work experience to it- I am asked to train a lot of new people when the first come to work here, and I generally try to be positive about it and make sure that they know when they do well- but my boss is very critical and not as positive, but everyone who trains with her does very well, and probably better than if I trained them.



But to try to answer your question, if you're asking if I value personal experience, you bet I do. However, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I believe in positive management based solely on that alone.

I think there are many who would agree with me in the fields of education and psychology.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I am certified in elementary education, and of course part of that training is learning about different ways to manage people and the pros/cons of each type.

While our target audience was children, what we learned could easily be adapted for adults, and I believe it's quite effective when done correctly.

Very important: Part of doing it the right way is to NOT CODDLE. It's very frustrating for me to read multiple times in this very thread where people are trying to equate positive management with coddling. They're not the same thing. If a leader is trying to coddle in order to stay positive, they're doing it wrong.

That's the last I have to say about the general merits of leadership styles; I don't have anything to gain by arguing about it any further, so I'll just say I agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I happen to believe more in the "drill sergeant bs" so I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this.


He has difficulty getting player respect either way because he doesn't have the basic common sense understanding in major areas. Sure, he has much technical and statistical acumen. But he can't figure out when to call a timeout (it's a right-brain momentum thing, not a technical thing), he doesn't know how to say the right thing about young players in press conferences, he doesn't know how to use Troy Murphy's skills in moderation, and he doesn't understand the importance of working the ball around the horn for a high percentage shot rather than going for the first opportunity.

When challenged, he gets more stubborn about his poor judgements.

Four years of this makes you question Bird's judgement even more.

You make all these claims but I don't think there's a lot of evidence supporting it.

I don't believe in momentum time outs. If a team can't play through bad times and needs something to bail them out I think they'll be weak in crunch time. I am very against momentum timeouts. I think the players need to play through it.

I don't think he's made a mistake with young players in press conferences- although it's probably better to not talk to the media at all about it.

Troy Murphy IMO was either used properly or slighted underused- he's a pretty efficient player and doesn't need a lot of sets run for him and can generate a lot of high percentage points as a trailer or a safety valve.

I agree about the last part about ball movement, but I don't think he's made a lot of poor judgments about anything at all. He's been right about Rush, and he's done a good job with the team for at least two of the three seasons and has put up what I think is a defensive miracle.

I don't quite understand why Jim O'Brien coaches like an old school coach he's considered stubborn and dumb and makes poor judgments, and when people like Sloan, Brown, Van Gundy and Popovich coach the same way it's all of a sudden they are geniuses- quite frankly O'Brien had a decent amount of success and hasn't as been as lucky as Sloan, Brown, Van Gundy, or Pop in the talent department.

Sookie
10-18-2010, 01:31 AM
If we're talking about work, studies have shown that people perform much better if they believe their superior actually cares for them.

It's funny because these are actually male/female studies. People had always thought that being aggressive, calculating, ambitious ("male traits") inspired good performance, but a new working model (the empathetic, caring "female trait" model) suggests that workers perform for their boss much better.

Just saying. Seems like adults aren't motivated well by jerks acting like jerks.

flox
10-18-2010, 01:49 AM
Just a question: Do people think that Jim doesn't care about his players?

Sookie
10-18-2010, 02:27 AM
Just a question: Do people think that Jim doesn't care about his players?

Do you really think these two comments were motivational?

I mean, I guess what JOB said about AJ could have been seen as motivational. Trying to get AJ to prove him wrong. I don't know why he bothers though, because apparently no matter how well AJ plays, he can't earn a rotation spot, and other players just get awarded them without doing anything.

But what about with Josh? Irrelevant? That's no motivational. I think Josh is a good energy player, but last season..he wasn't going to win or lose games for the team. And him growing as a player is something positive in itself.
I don't think it was motivation, I just don't think Jimmy looks that far ahead.

Do you know what was irrelevant at that point in time? Winning basketball games. Because no matter how many the Pacers won, they weren't making the playoffs. Josh's play wasn't irrelevant. Watson's was though.

Putnam
10-18-2010, 06:52 AM
Gah!

Speakout4 made a universal statement, which was correct in general, but which has exceptions to it. I made note of the military exception, which in no way disputes his otherwise correct point. By noting that a drill sergeant gets good results (of a sort) despite his lack of care for his recruits' feelings, I was not recommending that O'Brien treat the players like a drill sergeant.

The right relationship between a coach and his players lies somewhere between the drill sergeant's brutality and the coddling that a school teachers give her children. Exactly where along that continuum the best treatment lies is a matter I left open. I'll say that I do think players ought to be able to take sharp criticism.


And I'll say again that we don't know what happens in the Pacers locker room, and thus we have no idea about the relationship between these players and this coach. What he says in the press is small compared to what he says right to the players' faces.





.

Major Cold
10-18-2010, 08:16 AM
To me what we need is a new coach. Then we would know that not all the problems is the coach's fault. Extremisms are dangerous thinking. Like Putty said there needs to be a medium.

But I stand by my statements. If the players can't hack some public criticism then the most like can't hack much of the NBA.

Was what he said about AJ wrong? I agree what he said about Josh was wrong, but definately not worth the attention it has got.

Then again we shut Artest down when he made ill trade comments to the media. But wasn't there something that was a precursor? .............nevermind

Major Cold
10-18-2010, 08:18 AM
To me what we need is a new coach. Then we would know that not all the problems is the coach's fault. Extremisms are dangerous thinking. Like Putty said there needs to be a medium.

But I stand by my statements. If the players can't hack some public criticism then the most like can't hack much of the NBA.

Was what he said about AJ wrong? I agree what he said about Josh was wrong, but definately not worth the attention it has got.

Then again we shut Artest down when he made ill trade comments to the media. But wasn't there something that was a precursor? .............nevermind

HOOPFANATIC
10-18-2010, 08:36 AM
I think the question of whether Jim is too hard on the players is somewhat moot. His style has been certified by the front office and currently if you are a Pacer you have to accept it. My problem is that unlike Football and College Basketball the NBA simply does not have a precedent of authoritative Coaches who have had success. Ecspecially in the long term. I feel that thanks to the Jordan era that style has very little use today. The Top coaches are more manager/mentor and their players generally seem to have a good rapport with them, instead of an adversarial. Listen to how Tony Parker talks about Pop, how Ron talks about Phil,how Reggie talks about Bird. I think where Obrien goes completely wrong is making it a coach and team and not realizing that good coaches in the pros are part of the team. A team of professionals with one goal, win games.

Bball
10-18-2010, 08:54 AM
If you're going to be the drill sergeant then your methods darned well better be worth it to the players....

Of course the same is true for any method but the drill sergeant will flame out quickly without some type of results showing up quickly.

Unclebuck
10-18-2010, 09:00 AM
My problem is that unlike Football and College Basketball the NBA simply does not have a precedent of authoritative Coaches who have had success. Ecspecially in the long term. I feel that thanks to the Jordan era that style has very little use today.

The Top coaches are more manager/mentor and their players generally seem to have a good rapport with them, instead of an adversarial. Listen to how Tony Parker talks about Pop, how Ron talks about Phil,how Reggie talks about Bird. I think where Obrien goes completely wrong is making it a coach and team and not realizing that good coaches in the pros are part of the team. A team of professionals with one goal, win games.

I agree for the most part, except your sentence about the top coaches and what they are.

let me first say it isn't easy to put a label on a coach. If you have seen a lot of Phil Jackson, no one yells more at individual players (or gives mean looks to them) as they walk off the court. And he yells at young players a lot on the court in front of family and friends. He also takes shots at his own players in the media. so he is a mixed bag for sure.

Larry Brown yells probably more than any other NBA coach - he yells the entire game - I've heard it first hand. His off the court demeanor is completely different

Popovich is no softy - he'll read one of his players the riot act. he also also often highly critical in the media of his own players

Sloan is one of the toughest coaches ever to coach. he is often times blunt in the media, he tends to not singlle individual players out too often though, but he will.

Skiles is another very tough coach - he works his players extremely hard. he yells.

And those are the top 5 coaches, and I don't think any of them are what you think they are. They are tough coaches extremely demanding, more so than Jim O'Brien IMO - so I don't think the problem with Jim is that he is too tough or not tough enough - I think he is pretty good in that area

owl
10-18-2010, 09:30 AM
Gah!

Speakout4 made a universal statement, which was correct in general, but which has exceptions to it. I made note of the military exception, which in no way disputes his otherwise correct point. By noting that a drill sergeant gets good results (of a sort) despite his lack of care for his recruits' feelings, I was not recommending that O'Brien treat the players like a drill sergeant.

The right relationship between a coach and his players lies somewhere between the drill sergeant's brutality and the coddling that a school teachers give her children. Exactly where along that continuum the best treatment lies is a matter I left open. I'll say that I do think players ought to be able to take sharp criticism.


And I'll say again that we don't know what happens in the Pacers locker room, and thus we have no idea about the relationship between these players and this coach. What he says in the press is small compared to what he says right to the players' faces.





.


Do you work at Purdue? I noticed the Schleman hall location.

Putnam
10-18-2010, 10:10 AM
Do you work at Purdue? I noticed the Schleman hall location.


Yes, since about a month ago.

MagicRat
10-18-2010, 10:31 AM
Larry Brown yells probably more than any other NBA coach - he yells the entire game - I've heard it first hand. His off the court demeanor is completely different

Larry would've just said, "He hasn't got a clue what he is doing out there. It's a wonder he doesn't swallow his tongue."

BillS
10-18-2010, 11:19 AM
We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the players feel about JOB's actions. Unless this is the most hermetically sealed locker room in history, and unless the Indianapolis media is no longer looking for ways to criticize the Pacers, and unless the energy on the court and attempts to fit into the system are just meant to give the FO a false sense of security, it seems to me like the players have not tuned JOB out, that his method isn't p**sing anyone off, that any frustrations are simply normal frustrations that occur during any working relationship.

Have we seen any evidence otherwise that isn't just a guess or an attempt to explain actions that could be just as well explained in other ways?

Peck
10-18-2010, 12:14 PM
We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the players feel about JOB's actions. Unless this is the most hermetically sealed locker room in history, and unless the Indianapolis media is no longer looking for ways to criticize the Pacers, and unless the energy on the court and attempts to fit into the system are just meant to give the FO a false sense of security, it seems to me like the players have not tuned JOB out, that his method isn't p**sing anyone off, that any frustrations are simply normal frustrations that occur during any working relationship.

Have we seen any evidence otherwise that isn't just a guess or an attempt to explain actions that could be just as well explained in other ways?

Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.

vnzla81
10-18-2010, 12:17 PM
Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.

Yep I remember hearing Bob,also Mike Wells and DD

BillS
10-18-2010, 12:30 PM
Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.


Yep I remember hearing Bob,also Mike Wells and DD

I'd separate the ideas of "could not stand Jim" and "hated that he was extended".

A professional might not like a coach for many reasons and therefore be unhappy that he got extended, but one hopes this doesn't automatically extend to "the coach won't be effective". Considering that the name I heard most on this was Granger, it seems to me that by the end of the season he was working with Jim and that this season he's trying to work with him as well.

While it isn't your best situation, it isn't a disaster to not like your coach and not be particularly happy he got an extension.

Regarding the "could not stand Jim", what does that mean? Don't like how he coaches? Don't get along with him as a person? Don't want to hear him talk?

Considering that we heard constant sniping about how players hated Rick's system, why haven't we heard the same from players about JOB and why aren't they breaking it every time they step on the floor?

There is what I would call a "functional" dislike, in terms of "would prefer something else" and "don't like what we're doing" - something that you will never completely get rid of as long as you have different personalities involved. This is as opposed to a "dysfunctional" dislike, where the coach is tuned out, where players are whining and complaining, and where the coach punishes players for not following the guidelines. While we may be seeing some of the former, we aren't seeing the latter, so hatred from players and the permanent damage attributed to JOB are probably not there.

Sookie
10-18-2010, 12:36 PM
I think people are confusing yelling with what the problem with O'brien is.

I have no problem, I would think most have no problems, with coaches yelling at their players.

I also have no problem with using the media as a motivational tool, even if it is negative.

But what he said about McRoberts was not motivational. And what he said about Price, went too far. (Particularly when he was saying the opposite a month before) And was far more nasty than motivational. (And Larry Bird corrected him a few days later..so he at least thought JOB was wrong.)

They're big boys, they can take it. But it was unnecessary and unprofessional.

Brad8888
10-18-2010, 12:41 PM
Leadership comes from respect. Respect can either be earned or demanded through intimidation. Some people never can gain the respect of others due to the inability to successfully implement either strategy. O'Brien falls significantly toward the intimidation side in my view, but doesn't quite get the job done, and because of that he fails to get majority buy-in for his concepts, which renders him less effective as a coach than he might be otherwise. That also is likely the reason that he will probably not end up getting another head coaching position in the NBA, as this method no longer is as viable as it once was.

In the short term, respect can most easily be gained through intimidation, and that is why the military chooses to utilize the techniques it does to reign in the incoming recruits during bootcamp and early training. Then, once the recruits are broken down due to completely unfair treatment at times that dehumanizes them and makes them ready to receive and execute commands that under any other circumstances most certainly would never even consider, namely destroying property and ultimately killing people, the military changes tactics and gives some occasional positive reinforcement to actually motivate those who are now the most capable of destroying property and killing people without divergence of thought that would break down the required structure to continue effective operations.

Are there similarities from the military that stretch to the basketball court? To a small extent, yes. Do not take the following to mean that I see O'Brien as being even close in quality to him because he is unequivocally not, but, Bob Knight was the supreme example of this exact mentality in action. Ultimately, it got him fired from his job at IU while still being revered by his fans and most of his players, due primarily to his success early in his career, coupled with his outstanding graduation rate and his stand against cheating in recruiting and other violations of NCAA rules. I am still one of those fans today who hates what was done to him at the end of his IU career.

However, even Bob Knight himself recognized that his methods would never work at the professional level, and he likely would view it as being due to the fact that the players become soft due to the huge contracts that they receive, coupled with so few having been exposed to coaching with a similar mindset to his in high school and college. I believe that to be true to an extent as well, with the caveat being that there are also players who have a level of basketball IQ and professionalism that should be respected who would not respond well to intimidation.

With respect to the Pacers and the intimidation method of keeping players off balance due to inconsistency of reinforcement and therefore assumedly more receptive to following orders that I believe is a good portion of the way that O'Brien operates, which players do the Pacers have who actually have the inherent mental toughness to deal with both the breaking down and the inconsistency of later reinforcement that has been provided, whether it be positive or negative?

Hansbrough does, and he will probably do better than he might elsewhere as a result of this in my view. But, who else does? Posey? I don't know enough about him to even guess, other than to follow the observation that he apparently stood up to O'Brien, and O'Brien actually showed respect for Posey because they have had a player / coach relationship previously. Foster is probably tough enough to handle it, but he also doesn't require it to be motivated in my view.

It may be easier to identify who does not, in my view. Rush is the prime example. I also don't think Granger responds well to it, at all. Dunleavy doesn't respond well to it because he has a very high basketball and overall IQ and he has to recognize the weaknesses of the "commander's" plan despite being professional enough to generally follow it. Roy has overcome it, to Roy's credit, but he definitely has shown degradation of performance at times after being benched following good performances, especially his rookie season. The verdict is still out on McRoberts ultimately, and I believe he also is another player with high basketball IQ who knew that he was better than he was being permitted to show. Now, I suspect there may even be a little bit of "I'll show both you, and the world, how wrong you have been about me" coming out of Josh, which is a backhanded form of motivation from O'Brien in and of itself. I suspect that Price is getting ready to show his own "professionalism" by enduring low playing time compared to what he can bring to the floor. Hopefully he will be ready to lead the team by christmas, and hopefully O'Brien will permit it, instead of just accepting his lot in life until the Pacers get a coach who values what he brings at the point. Ford plainly didn't respond well, at all, and apparently tuned O'B out to a level that they couldn't stand to be around each other, despite TJ having most characteristics that O'Brien demands of the pg position. Epic fail with respect to Dahntay Jones, also, and that is probably a least a factor in why he gets absolutely no consideration at this point, and may be why he almost appears to willfully disrupt the team when he gets in games at this point.

Who knows about the rest of the roster? Collison seems to be a free thinker, and I am not sure how that might work. George is so young and raw that it is impossible to project. Same with Rolle, assuming he ends up with the franchise. Solomon Jones is such a non-factor that it is not even worth discussion. Stephenson, again, who knows? Obviously, he needs more structure and discipline in his life, and maybe O'Brien would get more out of him than others might, but I suspect that it would be just the opposite in reality. But ultimately it probably doesn't matter with Stephenson for quite some time, if ever, in that I still believe he will be cut due to both his utter lack of defense and the risk of either incarceration or possible future off court issues.

So, for me, there is one significant player, Hansbrough, who will probably benefit from O'Brien. Roy may be well enough adjusted now that he can progress from here. McRoberts may do well from here on out, but for how long may be questionable if some positive reinforcements are not given as time goes on. The cornerstone of the franchise, Granger, needs a different coach. My guess is that Collison ultimately would be better off with a different coach, but it is too early to tell.

Otherwise, will the rest of the players need to be replaced with others who have a different psychological makeup who are more likely to succeed under O'Brien, especially if Larry Bird, as I now suspect, advocates the exact same treatment of players, which was likely the very reason he no longer wanted to coach, and why he believes that players tune out their coaches after 3 years -- for the most part, who wouldn't?

So, for me, this is yet another example of why O'Brien is still the wrong coach for this franchise, and a coaching change would immediately produce a better overall result due to player buy-in on whatever system another coach would implement, even if it were strategically similar to O'Brien's.

flox
10-18-2010, 12:42 PM
Do you really think these two comments were motivational?

I mean, I guess what JOB said about AJ could have been seen as motivational. Trying to get AJ to prove him wrong. I don't know why he bothers though, because apparently no matter how well AJ plays, he can't earn a rotation spot, and other players just get awarded them without doing anything.

But what about with Josh? Irrelevant? That's no motivational. I think Josh is a good energy player, but last season..he wasn't going to win or lose games for the team. And him growing as a player is something positive in itself.
I don't think it was motivation, I just don't think Jimmy looks that far ahead.

Do you know what was irrelevant at that point in time? Winning basketball games. Because no matter how many the Pacers won, they weren't making the playoffs. Josh's play wasn't irrelevant. Watson's was though.

Really? I took both comments to be motivational if not for the players than for the team. Irrelevant can suggest that he doesn't care about player performances, it's about winning the basketball game. That's where we disagree- we are here to install a winning culture. That's Jim's job. To win the games- bottom line- no matter what. Winning is more important.

Irrelevant can suggest that until he can do it consistently, one good performance means nothing.


I agree for the most part, except your sentence about the top coaches and what they are.

let me first say it isn't easy to put a label on a coach. If you have seen a lot of Phil Jackson, no one yells more at individual players (or gives mean looks to them) as they walk off the court. And he yells at young players a lot on the court in front of family and friends. He also takes shots at his own players in the media. so he is a mixed bag for sure.

Larry Brown yells probably more than any other NBA coach - he yells the entire game - I've heard it first hand. His off the court demeanor is completely different

Popovich is no softy - he'll read one of his players the riot act. he also also often highly critical in the media of his own players

Sloan is one of the toughest coaches ever to coach. he is often times blunt in the media, he tends to not singlle individual players out too often though, but he will.

Skiles is another very tough coach - he works his players extremely hard. he yells.

And those are the top 5 coaches, and I don't think any of them are what you think they are. They are tough coaches extremely demanding, more so than Jim O'Brien IMO - so I don't think the problem with Jim is that he is too tough or not tough enough - I think he is pretty good in that area
I agree completely one hundred percent- these are good coaches who are hardball if not more hardball than Jim.

As for the whole "players don't like Jim, they hate that they were extended"- you do not let the prisoners run the asylum. No sir.

McKeyFan
10-18-2010, 12:44 PM
As for the whole "players don't like Jim, they hate that they were extended"- you do not let the prisoners run the asylum. No sir.

What if both the jailor AND the warden are insane?

geetee
10-18-2010, 12:44 PM
I find it hard to compare managing and motivating an office of workers (or a group of students) to motivating a basketbal team in the NBA. In my job I don't have new workers coming in year after year that are hand picked by my managers, to see if they can out perform me and take my job. For the most part, I feel secure in my job and because of that security, I believe a positive work environment is more condusive to motivate an employee to better themselves.

None of us really know what happens in the locker room. Maybe these young athlete's were getting full of themselves. Who knows? JOB could actually be doing these young players a favor. He sees their potential and is lighting a fire under them now so they don't squander it and find themselves out of the league in a year. Let's face it, it does appear that AJ, McBob and Hibbert are set for great seasons this year.

Since86
10-18-2010, 12:59 PM
But I stand by my statements. If the players can't hack some public criticism then the most like can't hack much of the NBA.

You're talking about two different things.

Players getting criticism from writers or from fans doesn't mean much in the long term. They aren't making out lineup cards, or making substitutions. They aren't the ones who ask players to play certain roles. Their thoughts, ultimately, have zero influence on the game.

That's not the case with the head coach.

Bball
10-18-2010, 01:00 PM
I'd separate the ideas of "could not stand Jim" and "hated that he was extended".

A professional might not like a coach for many reasons and therefore be unhappy that he got extended, but one hopes this doesn't automatically extend to "the coach won't be effective". Considering that the name I heard most on this was Granger, it seems to me that by the end of the season he was working with Jim and that this season he's trying to work with him as well.

While it isn't your best situation, it isn't a disaster to not like your coach and not be particularly happy he got an extension.

Regarding the "could not stand Jim", what does that mean? Don't like how he coaches? Don't get along with him as a person? Don't want to hear him talk?

Considering that we heard constant sniping about how players hated Rick's system, why haven't we heard the same from players about JOB and why aren't they breaking it every time they step on the floor?

There is what I would call a "functional" dislike, in terms of "would prefer something else" and "don't like what we're doing" - something that you will never completely get rid of as long as you have different personalities involved. This is as opposed to a "dysfunctional" dislike, where the coach is tuned out, where players are whining and complaining, and where the coach punishes players for not following the guidelines. While we may be seeing some of the former, we aren't seeing the latter, so hatred from players and the permanent damage attributed to JOB are probably not there.


I don't know why you go to the lengths you do to apologize or excuse Jim O'Brien. Can't it be just as true that we have a fairly professional group of players that just suck it up and mark the days on the calender until O'Brien is fired?

Carlisle had the unenviable task of coaching a team with a broken down diva with an inflated ego that had little respect from his teammates. Plus he had Artest and his desire for attention. That team was devoid of leadership, particularly after Reggie left. Reggie might not have been a demonstrative leader but he was the glue of that team. Of course the team tired of Carlisle trying to pretend JO was a leader and a worthy player to run the vast majority of the offense through.

Then you have Tinsley... Sjax... Sarunas... etc etc etc... Not exactly a team of professionals willing to quietly bring their lunch pail to practice and the games and allow JO to pretend to be dominant and a leader as his shots clanked off the side of the rim.

But now we have players thought to be a little more in tune with being 'professional' on and off the court. But also, they are mainly players who have a background of solid coaching in their recent past. And then you have O'Brien trying to get them to play against what they've been taught over the years.

And it's not working.

It's not hard to think that what Peck said didn't need any further analysis and was anything but exactly what it is on it's face: These players don't believe in Jim O'Brien's system for them and can no longer commit to it.

Hicks
10-18-2010, 01:01 PM
the coddling that a school teachers give her children.

:censored:

Since86
10-18-2010, 01:07 PM
We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the players feel about JOB's actions. Unless this is the most hermetically sealed locker room in history, and unless the Indianapolis media is no longer looking for ways to criticize the Pacers, and unless the energy on the court and attempts to fit into the system are just meant to give the FO a false sense of security, it seems to me like the players have not tuned JOB out, that his method isn't p**sing anyone off, that any frustrations are simply normal frustrations that occur during any working relationship.

Have we seen any evidence otherwise that isn't just a guess or an attempt to explain actions that could be just as well explained in other ways?


We were told that players weren't happy when Jim's option was picked up. Do we really need a Ron Artest in the lockerroom telling us all publicly about their differences?

I think we already have the opposite in Jim, and people aren't too keen on that idea. We don't want the coach saying stupid things in public, let alone the players.

Unclebuck
10-18-2010, 01:09 PM
Larry would've just said, "He hasn't got a clue what he is doing out there. It's a wonder he doesn't swallow his tongue."

Remember how brutal larry brown was in the media towards Scot Haskins - much worse than anything JOB has done

flox
10-18-2010, 01:11 PM
long post

Wow- thats some good stuff there. How do you know so much about what the players think and what is going on in the locker room and what is going on inside the player's minds? Wow.


You're talking about two different things.

Players getting criticism from writers or from fans doesn't mean much in the long term. They aren't making out lineup cards, or making substitutions. They aren't the ones who ask players to play certain roles. Their thoughts, ultimately, have zero influence on the game.

That's not the case with the head coach.

So...a coach cannot or should not criticize his players? Or as coach pop once said to the media- "they played like dogs?"


I don't know why you go to the lengths you do to apologize or excuse Jim O'Brien. Can't it be just as true that we have a fairly professional group of players that just suck it up and mark the days on the calender until O'Brien is fired?

But now we have players thought to be a little more in tune with being 'professional' on and off the court. But also, they are mainly players who have a background of solid coaching in their recent past. And then you have O'Brien trying to get them to play against what they've been taught over the years.

Uh, what? I highly doubt that this is the case.



And it's not working.

It's not hard to think that what Peck said didn't need any further analysis and was anything but exactly what it is on it's face: These players don't believe in Jim O'Brien's system for them and can no longer commit to it.

I highly disagree with that. Why would the players work so hard then?

Unclebuck
10-18-2010, 01:11 PM
Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.

I honestly don't remember any of that. The only thing I recall was after Mel Daniels was canned and some of his comments, I don't recall any of the players suggesting anything

Unclebuck
10-18-2010, 01:14 PM
Considering that we heard constant sniping about how players hated Rick's system, why haven't we heard the same from players about JOB and why aren't they breaking it every time they step on the floor?


That is an excellent point there were a lot more rumblings regarding Rick's system from current and former players.

I mean can anyone find a quote from a former player of Jim's that is negative. I don't recall any and there were many quotes negative towards Rick Carlisle and Isiah from "good guys" and bad.

Since86
10-18-2010, 01:17 PM
So...a coach cannot or should not criticize his players? Or as coach pop once said to the media- "they played like dogs?"

Yep, that's exactly what I said.

Since86
10-18-2010, 01:19 PM
That is an excellent point there were a lot more rumblings regarding Rick's system from current and former players.


From whom? The grubblings about his system were on here, IIRC.

Am I the only one that remembers JO going off in the lockerroom 8 games into Rick's last season here, because Rick decided to change up the offense and it pissed JO off? I'm starting to think that I had a dream about it.

BillS
10-18-2010, 01:20 PM
I think no one will convince anyone here of anything, as each person thinks his/her theory is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

From what I see on the floor in preseason, the players are working together and are excited to be out there. At worst, the theorized hatred of O'Brien and complete lack of faith in his system isn't hurting their attitudes. At best, the players' feelings aren't as extreme as some would like to indicate.

flox
10-18-2010, 01:23 PM
Yep, that's exactly what I said.

Oh ok..well then I disagree. If everything is all sunshine and puppies and there's no criticism- how do people know when something's gone terribly, terribly wrong?

Unclebuck
10-18-2010, 01:24 PM
Not that it matters, but I think it is interesting to read Paul Pirece's comments towards Jim O'Brien.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2007/11/12/obrien_finds_pace_just_right_in_indiana/


O'Brien finds pace just right in Indiana
By Marc J. Spears


November 12, 2007

When the undefeated Celtics run across the Conseco Fieldhouse floor tomorrow night, ex-Boston and current Pacers coach Jim O'Brien probably can't help but wonder, "What if?"

The last time Boston enjoyed an extended postseason run was when O'Brien coached the franchise to its last Eastern Conference Finals appearance, in the 2001-02 season. But during the 2003-04 season, distraught after several roster moves the Celtics made, he resigned.

"They disbanded a group that I felt close to," O'Brien recently said in a phone interview. "I felt everybody would be best served as they retooled the franchise [that I] have a chance to move on to coach in a new place."

O'Brien spent four seasons as the Celtics' coach, compiling a 139-119 record with postseason appearances in '02 and '03. He led Boston to its first trip to the Eastern finals since 1988.

"He's a straight shooter type of guy," said Celtics forward Paul Pierce, whose team had yesterday off. "He demands a lot of his players. I'm surprised he has been out of coaching that long. I think we had a good relationship. We had an open relationship. He was real demanding of his players.

"I looked at him as one of those old-school coaches. He's a throwback coach. He preaches a lot of defense. He always preached about that. I think [the Pacers] are going to like him."

O'Brien, whose teams also favored the 3-pointer, seemed happy in Boston until new ownership opted for change.

In 2003 the Celtics were sold by Paul Gaston to Boston Basketball Partners, LLC. Before Boston was eliminated in the second round of the '03 playoffs, ex-Celtic Danny Ainge was hired as director of basketball operations.

Ainge dealt Antoine Walker and Tony Delk to Dallas for Raef LaFrentz, Chris Mills, Jiri Welsch, and a 2004 first-round pick in October of '03. During the '03-04 season, Ainge dealt Eric Williams, Tony Battie, and Kedrick Brown to Cleveland for Ricky Davis, Chris Mihm, Michael Stewart and a second-rounder.

Reportedly disappointed by that trade, O'Brien stepped down and was replaced by assistant John Carroll on an interim basis. Doc Rivers was hired to lead the Celtics the next season.

"We had a great thing going there," O'Brien said. "We had almost an ideal situation where I loved the players. They did it with their work ethic. As a result there was a close bond of players and coaching staff. We had a terrific couple years.

"[Watching the trades] was painful. A group like that is hard to replace. [Ainge] had his reasons to tear it down and build it up to win a championship. It was too painful for me."

Said Ainge: "He's a good coach. A good person. I wish him well. I have no ill feelings about Jim O'Brien. He just wasn't comfortable in the situation he was in. I understood it."




__________________________________________________ _____

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2007/11/12/obrien_finds_pace_just_right_in_indiana/

By Greg Sandoval, Washington Post

"A.I. is going to love playing for O'Brien," said Pierce, who was critical of the Celtics for not doing enough to keep the coach. "Coach O'Brien is going to bring the best out in him."

O'Brien, who resigned from the Celtics a year ago, is playful, loyal, direct and always prepared, say his players. He's as old-school as they come in insisting that his players protect the basket and hustle. On offense, O'Brien is more new age.

Said 76ers forward Kyle Korver: "I'll tell you what: His honesty and the fact that he coaches a fun style, the run and gun, and playing hard on defense, has a lot of guys on this team enjoying his system."

Korver, among the 76ers' three new starters, is one of O'Brien's projects. The budding star is a sharp-shooting second-year player who has averaged 12.9 points and 31.4 minutes this season. Korver finished last season with a lackluster 4.5 points and 11.9 minutes.

A fan favorite in Philadelphia for his resemblance to actor Ashton Kutcher and his dead-eye accuracy from behind the three-point line, Korver says that he respects O'Brien for his willingness to play inexperienced players even if it means benching more established but underperforming stars.

"He knows how he wants the team to play," Korver said. "He's told us that if we don't want to do it that way he doesn't care who we are or how much money we make. We won't play here."

Since86
10-18-2010, 01:47 PM
Oh ok..well then I disagree. If everything is all sunshine and puppies and there's no criticism- how do people know when something's gone terribly, terribly wrong?

I really didn't think I needed the statement to be in green for you to realize sarcasm.

Some people respond to harsh criticism, I am one of those people. But I learned pretty quickly in High School, that not everyone is like me.

Is it really that hard for you to atleast admit that different people respond differently to motivational tactics, and that maybe Jim isn't motivating all his players the right way?

I'm not talking about that he is most definately wrong, I'm just saying can you atleast entertain the idea that he might be?

I'm starting to think that we now have two perfect humans that have walked this earth judging by some of the defenses.

flox
10-18-2010, 02:01 PM
Well- I think what he's doing is working. Sure, other ways might work, and sure, it might not work on everyone. But overall if this is the way he chooses to motivate his players, I'm fine with it. That's all. I don't see the problem that other people see. I think this is a perfectly acceptable tactic to use- and while it can be changed it doesn't need to and it doesn't mean that he's wrong to do it.

90'sNBARocked
10-18-2010, 02:07 PM
O'Brien finds pace just right in Indiana
By Marc J. Spears


Nice find , I would love to knwo specifically what Paul enjoyed but ggod read.

What I find funny is that Jim stresses defense so much , yet I rarely see it on the court

Not a jab on Jim but I have never looked at a JOB lead team and thought I was watching the Bulls/Pacers from the early 90's

Unclebuck
10-18-2010, 02:11 PM
Nice find , I would love to knwo specifically what Paul enjoyed but ggod read.

What I find funny is that Jim stresses defense so much , yet I rarely see it on the court

Not a jab on Jim but I have never looked at a JOB lead team and thought I was watching the Bulls/Pacers from the early 90's

Just an aside - if you go back and watch or remember the Celtics vs Pistons Eastern conference semi-finals (2nd round series) in 2002 - that was some of the best defense I have seen ever - as good as Knicks vs Heat of the late 90's. I don't entirely know why Jim has not been able to get the pacers to play the defense he was able to get the Celtics to play - that is what I thought we were getting when we were hiring Jim. Jim also didn't coach a passing style offense at all - it was a stagnant offense for the m,ost part built around his star players. i think the only area where the offense is similar is in the number of threes

BillS
10-18-2010, 02:13 PM
I'm starting to think that we now have two perfect humans that have walked this earth judging by some of the defenses.

And from some of the criticism, you'd think O'Brien just returned from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

McKeyFan
10-18-2010, 02:18 PM
And from some of the criticism, you'd think O'Brien just returned from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Have you considered my servant Josh?

He's irrelevant.

How about my servant Tyler?

Skin for skin! Let's see what he can do with vertigo.

What about Paul George?

Wait until I put him through all those hard practices and drills.

Okay, just don't kill him.

BillS
10-18-2010, 02:25 PM
Have you considered my servant Josh?

He's irrelevant.

How about my servant Tyler?

Skin for skin! Let's see what he can do with vertigo.

What about Paul George?

Wait until I put him through all those hard practices and drills.

Okay, just don't kill him.

:rotflmao:

Since86
10-18-2010, 02:35 PM
And from some of the criticism, you'd think O'Brien just returned from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

He's walking in something, that's for sure.

BillS
10-18-2010, 02:59 PM
He's walking in something, that's for sure.

He's walking on s...... shaving cream. Be nice and clean. Shave every day and you'll always look keen :buddies:

Peck
10-18-2010, 03:32 PM
That is an excellent point there were a lot more rumblings regarding Rick's system from current and former players.

I mean can anyone find a quote from a former player of Jim's that is negative. I don't recall any and there were many quotes negative towards Rick Carlisle and Isiah from "good guys" and bad.

Your kidding right?

I mean have you forgotten Sameul Dalembert saying that he would play on one leg if it meant for a chance for him to beat Jim O'Brien.

or

Grant Long saying that he never had a coach in his life ask him not to set a pick and instead work on his three point shot his last year in the league.

How about his former employer from

http://articles.mcall.com/2005-05-24/sports/3604400_1_sixers-continuity-o-brien-s-job/2

Pressed for details, King mentioned O'Brien's use of personnel, a lack of development by some of the Sixers' younger players, the team's struggles on defense, and O'Brien's sometimes stubborn adherence to a system that didn't seem to work.

You've got to look at your style of play and the players, and you've got to figure a way to make the system work for them, not force them to make the system work," said King

In fact I will go so far as to say I have never in my life heard or seen a coach who had so openly had feuds with former players and vice versa.

He made damning comments about Chris Webber which resulted in a media exchange between the two the led to these comments here

Chris Webber doesn't get riled up playing against his former Sixers team, nor does he hold any real animosity toward Maurice Cheeks.

But Jim O'Brien?

Webber fired back at his first ex-Sixers coach Friday, saying that O'Brien lied in telling reporters last month that Webber dogged practices and refused to play in the low post after being traded to Philadelphia during the 2004-05 season.

"I don't know why he said that," Webber said. "He must have been trying to justify why he was fired or why players didn't like him."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/01/SPMHVBTJV.DTL#ixzz12jyeicSd

BringJackBack
10-18-2010, 03:38 PM
I like it when posters back up their opinions with facts, articles, and past quotes I'll tell you what.

cordobes
10-18-2010, 03:53 PM
O'Brien was an assistant to Pitino and it shows. He's more well-know for the physical, gruelling, demanding practices then for getting on the players faces too much, even though he's a tough coach - but, again, he was an assistant to Pitino and not to some absolute freak like Bob Huggins or something.

I wouldn't worry too much about this stuff. Players don't tune out coaches because of this. They may respond better or worse, but there aren't big swings one way or the other in terms of development except in very extreme situations, which isn't the case. Zach Lowe is a very good writer but he's making a mountain out of a molehill with this. Call it honest and refreshing, as that governor would say.


I don't entirely know why Jim has not been able to get the pacers to play the defense he was able to get the Celtics to play

Boston had better defenders, I think. That 2002 team you mentioned, they had plenty of solid defenders and it was a veteran team. Eric Williams, Tony Delk, Rogers, Anderson... those were experienced guys, with tremendous work-rates and capable defenders. And Pierce was very, very good defensively. As well as Battie, another top defender. It was also a very quick and long team, they were able to put a lot of pressure on the ball.

He never had that level of defensive talent on the Pacers + in the Pacers he had to deal with the kind of stuff that gives nightmares to defensive coaches, like the Hibbert/Murphy combo, lack of rebounding ability, no defense at the point of attack, etc.

The Celtics were also a very good defensive rebounding team; able to limit the other teams to an one-and-done offense.


Jim also didn't coach a passing style offense at all - it was a stagnant offense for the m,ost part built around his star players. i think the only area where the offense is similar is in the number of threes

Those days, more teams had stagnant offenses. It was very reliant on Pierce/Walker making plays, yeah, but the 4out offense was the same, both teams play at a relatively high pace, the Pacers also run lots of plays to get shots to their best scorers, especially Granger (even though the kind of play is different) and there are many common quick hitters - the bigs getting the ball on the elbow to hit a cutter or take a jump-shot, for example.

Brad8888
10-18-2010, 04:04 PM
Wow- thats some good stuff there. How do you know so much about what the players think and what is going on in the locker room and what is going on inside the player's minds? Wow.

Wow, how do you? Wow...

I just have watched games and read enough, and seen enough interviews to recognize to be issues, and like you I have formed an opinion.

This opinion, which is apparently more or less shared by others that you likely (of all things) respect more than you do me, is not unique, nor is yours. Neither is necessarily more valid than the other, either.

That said, I do not share your view any more than you share mine despite both of us having expressed them, and, unless you are either employed by the Pacers in a position to know differently, or are one of the players yourself, you have no more basis for your opinion than I have for mine, because neither of those criteria apply to me.

flox
10-18-2010, 04:37 PM
Your kidding right?

I mean have you forgotten Sameul Dalembert saying that he would play on one leg if it meant for a chance for him to beat Jim O'Brien.

or

Grant Long saying that he never had a coach in his life ask him not to set a pick and instead work on his three point shot his last year in the league.

How about his former employer from

http://articles.mcall.com/2005-05-24/sports/3604400_1_sixers-continuity-o-brien-s-job/2

Pressed for details, King mentioned O'Brien's use of personnel, a lack of development by some of the Sixers' younger players, the team's struggles on defense, and O'Brien's sometimes stubborn adherence to a system that didn't seem to work.

You've got to look at your style of play and the players, and you've got to figure a way to make the system work for them, not force them to make the system work," said King

In fact I will go so far as to say I have never in my life heard or seen a coach who had so openly had feuds with former players and vice versa.

He made damning comments about Chris Webber which resulted in a media exchange between the two the led to these comments here

Chris Webber doesn't get riled up playing against his former Sixers team, nor does he hold any real animosity toward Maurice Cheeks.

But Jim O'Brien?

Webber fired back at his first ex-Sixers coach Friday, saying that O'Brien lied in telling reporters last month that Webber dogged practices and refused to play in the low post after being traded to Philadelphia during the 2004-05 season.

"I don't know why he said that," Webber said. "He must have been trying to justify why he was fired or why players didn't like him."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/01/SPMHVBTJV.DTL#ixzz12jyeicSd

Yeah, and look how well that turned out for Philly- look how well that turned out for AI, Webber, and Dalembert- who ended up being shopped. And look how well that turned out for philly- making the playoffs then missing it for 2 seasons after cheeks came in and then making the playoffs with a (40-42) record where as nice guy mo got the team to underachieve.

I think the evidence points to Jim coming out better than that entire philly team.


Wow, how do you? Wow...

I just have watched games and read enough, and seen enough interviews to recognize to be issues, and like you I have formed an opinion.

This opinion, which is apparently more or less shared by others that you likely (of all things) respect more than you do me, is not unique, nor is yours. Neither is necessarily more valid than the other, either.

That said, I do not share your view any more than you share mine despite both of us having expressed them, and, unless you are either employed by the Pacers in a position to know differently, or are one of the players yourself, you have no more basis for your opinion than I have for mine, because neither of those criteria apply to me.

Well, I don't profess to have any of the insights that you do?

All I've stated is that we've seen no visible impact and no public statements of discontent with the way Jim uses or treats his players, and there is no visible impact of the players showing

I mean when you make strong statements like
Dunleavy doesn't respond well to it because he has a very high basketball and overall IQ and he has to recognize the weaknesses of the "commander's" plan despite being professional enough to generally follow it. Roy has overcome it, to Roy's credit, but he definitely has shown degradation of performance at times after being benched following good performances, especially his rookie season. The verdict is still out on McRoberts ultimately, and I believe he also is another player with high basketball IQ who knew that he was better than he was being permitted to show.

I really expect you to have enough information to make those statements. He "he has to recognize the weaknesses of the "commander's" plan"? What weakness are these? Why does this bother him? What systems in the NBA don't have weaknesses? I can't think of a single system in the NBA that doesn't have some weakness. And even so, how do you explain that Dunleavy had a career season under O'Brien even though he doesn't respect him?

What about Roy? Degradation based off of benching? Maybe not because he had a misdiagnosed asthma problem? Maybe because he was a rookie- and rookies are by nature inconsistent? But this is a direct result of his "commander" style of coaching? Why does it have be a direct result of the commander style coaching?

What about McRoberts? His high basketball IQ lead him to declare too early, made him get drafted in the second round- then he was shipped to the d-league where he had poor body language and it looked like he would fall out of the league.

He comes here and becomes the now starting PF- and he's frustrated? He's upset that his coach is a "commander" style coach? He was frustrated with his lack of playing time- even though he should be grateful that Indiana saved his career?

Where do you get all of these assertions from? I see these lines drawn but I don't see where they lead.

Peck
10-18-2010, 04:46 PM
I think the evidence points to Jim coming out better than that entire philly team.

Because of the playoff runs Indiana has made? Or the year that he sat out not coaching anyone because no one came knocking although there were openings?

Some of the players were garbage, no doubt. But I was just directly responding to Uncle Buck's question that of anybody finding quotes from former players saying something bad of Jim.

I found them.

flox
10-18-2010, 04:50 PM
I think the evidence points to Jim coming out better than that entire philly team.

Because of the playoff runs Indiana has made? Or the year that he sat out not coaching anyone because no one came knocking although there were openings?

Some of the player were garbage, no doubt. But I was just directly responding to Uncle Buck's question that of anybody finding quotes from former players saying something bad of Jim.

I found them.

Yeah, and look what happened to Webber after that season. He was benched in the 4th quarter and bought out from the team because he was a cancer.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/sixers/2008-01-21-obrien-webber_N.htm


Webber bounced back under Cheeks in 2005-06 with solid averages of 20.2 points, 9.9 rebounds and 3.4 assists in 75 games. But he fell out of favor with Cheeks early last season, was benched in several fourth quarters and accepted a contract buyout in January.

He finished last season with Detroit.

This is exactly what happens when you let the prisoner run the asylum. He starts questioning his team, his role, his coach- and eventually leads to a buyout.

I can't find the Dalembert quote but I trust you on that one. I don't disagree that Jim's style doesn't mesh well with some players, but I think those players are the problem, not the coach. It turns out Webber was the issue in Philly, not Jimmy.

Peck
10-18-2010, 04:54 PM
Yeah, and look what happened to Webber after that season. He was benched in the 4th quarter and bought out from the team because he was a cancer.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/sixers/2008-01-21-obrien-webber_N.htm



This is exactly what happens when you let the prisoner run the asylum. He starts questioning his team, his role, his coach- and eventually leads to a buyout.

I can't find the Dalembert quote but I trust you on that one. I don't disagree that Jim's style doesn't mesh well with some players, but I think those players are the problem, not the coach. It turns out Webber was the issue in Philly, not Jimmy.

No doubt that the players in question are players of question, except Grant Long who had a long career and never was a problem for any team that I can recall.

However the point being that Jim was beloved by his former players & in fact for some that is not the case. Some, yes. Others, no. Just like any coach or manager for that matter, Jim is no different there.

However I can not recall any other coach that I have heard or read a former player speak so negatively of other than Eddie Johnson about Larry Brown.

Gamble1
10-18-2010, 05:00 PM
Darren Collison was on the Dakich show a couple of days ago. When asked what he'd done today he said, "We just watched a lot of film, get yelled at." Dakich says you were up 20 in the second half, what the hell? "There's never nothing we can do right around here, but it's good for us. It's good yelling."

Sounds like he's letting them know face-to-face.....
My problem with all of this is that players have to respond to it in a positive way and before anyone says that JOB had a late run during the season I would like to say thats not good enough.

I want a constistent effort not some consolation prize of, "Ohh He didn't lose the team excuse even when they lost a lot."

Brad8888
10-18-2010, 06:05 PM
O'Brien is the subject of the thread, and tangentially with respect to the bluntness aspect of the original article, I believe that he, like any other coach, employs methods that are more effective for some players than they would be for others, and I also believe that his methods are becoming more outdated as time passes, rendering him less effective than he otherwise would be. You unequivocally disagree with that assessment, and you are not alone in that disagreement. It is telling that there is such a divide over this issue, though, at least in my view.

There, the first paragraph keeps this post relevant to the subject at hand.

Otherwise, good luck to you, flox, in continuing to support your position. You have every right to your opinion, and the expression of it, and I have the same rights to mine. I had chosen to express my opinions of how I believe the players might have been reacting or may react in the future as opposed to simply looking at the entire team as a whole. You have made it abundantly clear that my opinions hold no validity within your reality system, and I have no problem with that. You may be correct, but neither of us will ever know the actual truth with respect to this subject.

I will add that I am guilty of overreaction to the opinions of others fairly frequently, and have likely done so in this case, which I apologize for, and this discussion has made me come to realize that I need to work on that going forward.

Nothing I say, no matter how heated and snarky I might choose to become, or how many articles I might choose to find that support my opinions (on top of those provided by Peck) will change your opinion, and most assuredly at this point nothing you will say will cause mine to change because I do not have any more reason to see things your way than I previously did even after you rightfully, and more succinctly, expressed your viewpoint (and I also read the supporting articles that UB provided as well), and continued discussion of this will serve no purpose from my side of things other than to further sharpen the debate, which is actually pointless anyway other than as a release of frustration, though with different causes depending on whether it is feeling frustration with respect to the performance of the coach, or frustration felt by those who like the coach who can no longer stand the continual badgering about the ineffectiveness of the coach. It has become fairly toxic either way you slice it in my view.

If you wish to continue, fire away. I will likely read your response because, to date, I have yet to place anyone on this forum on my "ignore" list because I don't want to succumb to the temptation of doing so out of recognition of the fact that my views are not at all the only possible valid ones on any given subject. I can, and frequently do, learn from the postings of others that I disagree with, and I have from yours. However, as I am sure you will appreciate, my likelihood of directly responding to any further posts from you regarding this subject has lessened significantly because I also recognize that you may not value any further posts I make with respect to this subject much anyway, so why should I further inflame the situation?

flox
10-18-2010, 06:17 PM
No doubt that the players in question are players of question, except Grant Long who had a long career and never was a problem for any team that I can recall.

However the point being that Jim was beloved by his former players & in fact for some that is not the case. Some, yes. Others, no. Just like any coach or manager for that matter, Jim is no different there.

However I can not recall any other coach that I have heard or read a former player speak so negatively of other than Eddie Johnson about Larry Brown.

Yes yes I agree with that. I just don't think Chris Webber ever "got it". Which is disappointing. =/



I will add that I am guilty of overreaction to the opinions of others fairly frequently, and have likely done so in this case, which I apologize for, and this discussion has made me come to realize that I need to work on that going forward.

Nothing I say, no matter how heated and snarky I might choose to become, or how many articles I might choose to find that support my opinions (on top of those provided by Peck) will change your opinion, and most assuredly at this point nothing you will say will cause mine to change because I do not have any more reason to see things your way than I previously did even after you rightfully, and more succinctly, expressed your viewpoint (and I also read the supporting articles that UB provided as well), and continued discussion of this will serve no purpose from my side of things other than to further sharpen the debate, which is actually pointless anyway other than as a release of frustration, though with different causes depending on whether it is feeling frustration with respect to the performance of the coach, or frustration felt by those who like the coach who can no longer stand the continual badgering about the ineffectiveness of the coach. It has become fairly toxic either way you slice it in my view.

If you wish to continue, fire away. I will likely read your response because, to date, I have yet to place anyone on this forum on my "ignore" list because I don't want to succumb to the temptation of doing so out of recognition of the fact that my views are not at all the only possible valid ones on any given subject. I can, and frequently do, learn from the postings of others that I disagree with, and I have from yours. However, as I am sure you will appreciate, my likelihood of directly responding to any further posts from you regarding this subject has lessened significantly because I also recognize that you may not value any further posts I make with respect to this subject much anyway, so why should I further inflame the situation?

Oh well..I was just wondering if you had more information that you knew that I didn't. Specific games you could point to where you saw Dunleavy question plays. Hibbert looking upset after being benched and talking to others about it. Josh saying how the coach is misusing him- stuff like that usually comes out when the players are really frustrated.

It's always about collecting data to put more stuff in your reality filter- if you don't continue tweaking and upgrading the reality filter might become out of date!

Sookie
10-18-2010, 06:30 PM
Yes yes I agree with that. I just don't think Chris Webber ever "got it". Which is disappointing. =/



Oh well..I was just wondering if you had more information that you knew that I didn't. Specific games you could point to where you saw Dunleavy question plays. Hibbert looking upset after being benched and talking to others about it. Josh saying how the coach is misusing him- stuff like that usually comes out when the players are really frustrated.

It's always about collecting data to put more stuff in your reality filter- if you don't continue tweaking and upgrading the reality filter might become out of date!

That's the point with this specific team.

We have a group of players that are extremely professional..aka they keep their mouths shut.

Not even TJ Ford, who was quite obviously not happy with JOB (and vice versa) ever said anything to the press or did anything other than cheer on the teammates that took his place in the lineup.

So no, Josh, AJ, Brandon, Dun, Danny, Roy, TJ, Dahntay and others will probably never say anything to the press while they are in the situation they are in now.

That doesn't mean they like him, or respect him, or want him as a coach. It just means they act like grownups in a profession where many players act like five year old children throwing a temper tantrum.

flox
10-18-2010, 06:35 PM
Yes yes, I can agree to that. But in the case of TJ and O'Brien we could see that.

Other than some words by Jones, I don't see that happening with everyone else. That suggests that at least it hasn't gotten to a point of TJ and O'Brien bad- if the bad is there at all.

Sookie
10-18-2010, 06:46 PM
Yes yes, I can agree to that. But in the case of TJ and O'Brien we could see that.

Other than some words by Jones, I don't see that happening with everyone else. That suggests that at least it hasn't gotten to a point of TJ and O'Brien bad- if the bad is there at all.

No, we obviously don't know.

But truthfully, would you like a coach that:
Tells you he's going to find you minutes because you'll be a really good player soon.
Then places you in the deep bench for a month.
Then allows you to play because you "give the team a better chance to win."
Then calls you the steal of the draft, and says you could start on a .500 team right now.
Then benches you.
Then says you aren't good enough to be a starter because of where you were drafted.
Then says you are playing the best on the team in preseason and that he'll have to give you minutes.
Then makes it pretty clear you'll most likely still be third string.

Jeez, this is all in a year.

or how about one that:
decides to play two shooting guards at the PF position, instead of you
when finally given an opportunity to play, against the best front court in the league, you play your best game.
He says it's irrelevant.

You'd have no problem with a coach that did that?
Do you want me to get into the Brandon, TJ, Dahntay, and Roy scenarios?

We have no idea whether they do or not, as was said, they aren't talking because they act like adults, but me personally..I'd have a hard time with a boss like that.

Brad8888
10-18-2010, 06:47 PM
Yes yes I agree with that. I just don't think Chris Webber ever "got it". Which is disappointing. =/



Oh well..I was just wondering if you had more information that you knew that I didn't. Specific games you could point to where you saw Dunleavy question plays. Hibbert looking upset after being benched and talking to others about it. Josh saying how the coach is misusing him- stuff like that usually comes out when the players are really frustrated.

It's always about collecting data to put more stuff in your reality filter- if you don't continue tweaking and upgrading the reality filter might become out of date!

Surprisingly, I do have things that I can point to with respect to Dunleavy and Hibbert, especially, and more of the poor body language you refer to with respect to McRoberts.

On Dunleavy, there was a discussion last year after Dunleavy came back and O'Brien praised his high IQ in an interview with the Indy Star. The discussion was about how disconnected that Dunleavy appeared to be after having come out of the gate looking like the old Mike who made the entire offense flow and was very effective. Then, suddenly, as if a light switch had turned off, he started making truly bad decisions and sometimes would look over at the bench after his turnovers and have an odd look that appeared to be almost like he had executed exactly as he had been told to, and that the turnover happened because he had followed orders instead of making the correct basketball decision. IIRC, there were others who noticed the same thing.

On Hibbert, I will never forget seeing him sit on the bench with a towel covering his head crying at the end of a couple of games during his rookie season that he had been playing well and ended up being benched because he had made a couple of mistakes. Those had also been discussed here in threads during that time.

With respect to McRoberts, O'Brien without question did not like him, and followed up another good performance that happened even before the now infamous "irrelevant" comment with a couple of DNP-CD's and then a particularly egregious, in my view, 23 second stint at the end of a game that was not in doubt for about the entire 4th quarter. It was blatant that O'Brien was on a power trip at that time as well, just as much as he was with the "irrelevant" comment, but there were so many other issues going on that I don't think it got much attention here or anywhere else. As a fan of McRoberts I noticed it, and watched as Josh basically went out and stood, and assumed his place along the foul lane when a free throw was shot IIRC. He should have been upset about it, and he was. That was the most blatant time I can recall where Josh showed that emotion with respect to how O'Brien treated him.

Those are supporting statements that have helped shape my reality filter that I had not provided previously, if those help you understand why I hold my opinions. I am not certain whether the posts I am referring to would be easily found because I don't remember if they were the original thread subjects or just additional observations that came up with earlier iterations of the O'Brien bashing of those times.

BillS
10-18-2010, 06:48 PM
That's the point with this specific team.

We have a group of players that are extremely professional..aka they keep their mouths shut.

Not even TJ Ford, who was quite obviously not happy with JOB (and vice versa) ever said anything to the press or did anything other than cheer on the teammates that took his place in the lineup.

So no, Josh, AJ, Brandon, Dun, Danny, Roy, TJ, Dahntay and others will probably never say anything to the press while they are in the situation they are in now.

That doesn't mean they like him, or respect him, or want him as a coach. It just means they act like grownups in a profession where many players act like five year old children throwing a temper tantrum.

Except that our media representatives have turned from parroting the Pacer line on everything many years ago to looking for anything they can fan into controversy.

It wouldn't take a statement to the press, just a reaction or a cross look or a "shucks" when sat down - all reactions that would be very natural and awfully hard to hide. Given we have young players who haven't quite learned the art of fooling the media, I'd expect something to slip.

I really think that last year we had a locker room where lots of players were frustrated with lots of things - other players, Jim, themselves (for not being able to get on the floor and play their own best). That leads to bad chemistry, which was reported as such, and people getting unhappy with each other.

We are certainly not seeing any indications of even underlying problems this year. That doesn't mean the situation won't change, given what might happen when the season actually starts, but right now it seems to be copacetic. I think the players, just like Peck, are giving Jim and each other another chance considering the changes in personnel and playing style.

BillS
10-18-2010, 06:53 PM
Surprisingly, I do have things that I can point to with respect to Dunleavy and Hibbert, especially, and more of the poor body language you refer to with respect to McRoberts.

On Dunleavy, there was a discussion last year after Dunleavy came back and O'Brien praised his high IQ in an interview with the Indy Star. The discussion was about how disconnected that Dunleavy appeared to be after having come out of the gate looking like the old Mike who made the entire offense flow and was very effective. Then, suddenly, as if a light switch had turned off, he started making truly bad decisions and sometimes would look over at the bench after his turnovers and have an odd look that appeared to be almost like he had executed exactly as he had been told to, and that the turnover happened because he had followed orders instead of making the correct basketball decision. IIRC, there were others who noticed the same thing.

On Hibbert, I will never forget seeing him sit on the bench with a towel covering his head crying at the end of a couple of games during his rookie season that he had been playing well and ended up being benched because he had made a couple of mistakes. Those had also been discussed here in threads during that time.

With respect to McRoberts, O'Brien without question did not like him, and followed up another good performance that happened even before the now infamous "irrelevant" comment with a couple of DNP-CD's and then a particularly egregious, in my view, 23 second stint at the end of a game that was not in doubt for about the entire 4th quarter. It was blatant that O'Brien was on a power trip at that time as well, just as much as he was with the "irrelevant" comment, but there were so many other issues going on that I don't think it got much attention here or anywhere else. As a fan of McRoberts I noticed it, and watched as Josh basically went out and stood, and assumed his place along the foul lane when a free throw was shot IIRC. He should have been upset about it, and he was. That was the most blatant time I can recall where Josh showed that emotion with respect to how O'Brien treated him.

Those are supporting statements that have helped shape my reality filter that I had not provided previously, if those help you understand why I hold my opinions. I am not certain whether the posts I am referring to would be easily found because I don't remember if they were the original thread subjects or just additional observations that came up with earlier iterations of the O'Brien bashing of those times.

As you said, no one is going to change anyone's opinions, but I would like you to take a look at how many of those supporting statements are your own (or your and other fans') interpretations of what was going on in players' heads. Human beings are pattern-recognizing animals, which means we often find patterns that aren't there - particularly when those patterns reinforce an already held belief.

No one but those players themselves can say you are wrong, but no one but those players can say you are right, either.

Brad8888
10-18-2010, 08:24 PM
As you said, no one is going to change anyone's opinions, but I would like you to take a look at how many of those supporting statements are your own (or your and other fans') interpretations of what was going on in players' heads. Human beings are pattern-recognizing animals, which means we often find patterns that aren't there - particularly when those patterns reinforce an already held belief.

No one but those players themselves can say you are wrong, but no one but those players can say you are right, either.

Good point, Bill. That is the nature of observations and opinions with respect to anything, and it certainly applies to both this and virtually any other discussion that ever occurs on this board with respect to the Pacers unless it is simply a statistical summary of a given game, player, or team. Differences in opinion come about specifically due to different people having different experience sets that lead them to focus on and interpret whatever the available data set is for them as an individual and in doing so identify whatever patterns they believe are present, in a divergent manner.

And, by the way, the media also makes unsubstantiated observations about similar things regarding player dissatisfaction on occasion (Kravitz and Wells) and then directs interviews, if there are any, in such a manner that what is reported supports the reporter's viewpoints whether accurate or not, or conducts interviews that simply are being done to promote the viewpoints that the franchise is trying to promote (Brunner mostly in my opinion). This also further skews the interpretations that we have as fans that are based on our sometimes faulty pattern recognition, thereby providing additional fuel to the fire in a lot of cases, and media distrust in still others at times.

flox
10-18-2010, 11:43 PM
No, we obviously don't know.

But truthfully, would you like a coach that:
Tells you he's going to find you minutes because you'll be a really good player soon.
Then places you in the deep bench for a month.
Then allows you to play because you "give the team a better chance to win."
Then calls you the steal of the draft, and says you could start on a .500 team right now.
Then benches you.
Then says you aren't good enough to be a starter because of where you were drafted.
Then says you are playing the best on the team in preseason and that he'll have to give you minutes.
Then makes it pretty clear you'll most likely still be third string.

Jeez, this is all in a year.

I'm ok with all of that.


or how about one that:
decides to play two shooting guards at the PF position, instead of you
when finally given an opportunity to play, against the best front court in the league, you play your best game.
He says it's irrelevant.

You'd have no problem with a coach that did that?
Do you want me to get into the Brandon, TJ, Dahntay, and Roy scenarios?
Nope. None at all. That's fine. That's perfectly fine with me.


We have no idea whether they do or not, as was said, they aren't talking because they act like adults, but me personally..I'd have a hard time with a boss like that.

Ok...but you aren't them. They aren't you. They might see it the same way you do.

/shrug.


Surprisingly, I do have things that I can point to with respect to Dunleavy and Hibbert, especially, and more of the poor body language you refer to with respect to McRoberts.

On Dunleavy, there was a discussion last year after Dunleavy came back and O'Brien praised his high IQ in an interview with the Indy Star. The discussion was about how disconnected that Dunleavy appeared to be after having come out of the gate looking like the old Mike who made the entire offense flow and was very effective. Then, suddenly, as if a light switch had turned off, he started making truly bad decisions and sometimes would look over at the bench after his turnovers and have an odd look that appeared to be almost like he had executed exactly as he had been told to, and that the turnover happened because he had followed orders instead of making the correct basketball decision. IIRC, there were others who noticed the same thing.

hmm I can't believe I missed that. I'll go have to look for it. But he was mentally checked out last year.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1062817&postcount=13

So it might have been that. I don't know. I'll have to go back. But yeah, it could be that he executed he failed, and he was looking like well, i'm smarter than the coach and that is why the turnover happened- because I saw a flaw.

It could also be player error, or a person didn't cut right, or he didn't pass right. Who knows.



On Hibbert, I will never forget seeing him sit on the bench with a towel covering his head crying at the end of a couple of games during his rookie season that he had been playing well and ended up being benched because he had made a couple of mistakes. Those had also been discussed here in threads during that time.

Crying? Wow. Respect for Roy Hibbert went below what it was (it was already very low). If I see my rookie crying because he got pulled because he made a couple of mistakes I'd ship him out immediately. No mental toughness at all. You make mistakes- you pay for it- you get benched. Happens to rookies all around the league. And he was CRYING? Wow. I'd ship his *** out now. I can't believe I missed that. I would have been all over that. I'm a big fan of tough love on rookies- it helped shape up one of my favorite players- Tony Parker. He definitely wouldn't have been a finals MVP if Pop didn't bench him so much.

Could you link me specifically to where we saw Hibbert crying? Thats Adam Morrison level of embarrassment there.



With respect to McRoberts, O'Brien without question did not like him, and followed up another good performance that happened even before the now infamous "irrelevant" comment with a couple of DNP-CD's and then a particularly egregious, in my view, 23 second stint at the end of a game that was not in doubt for about the entire 4th quarter. It was blatant that O'Brien was on a power trip at that time as well, just as much as he was with the "irrelevant" comment, but there were so many other issues going on that I don't think it got much attention here or anywhere else. As a fan of McRoberts I noticed it, and watched as Josh basically went out and stood, and assumed his place along the foul lane when a free throw was shot IIRC. He should have been upset about it, and he was. That was the most blatant time I can recall where Josh showed that emotion with respect to how O'Brien treated him.

Fair enough. I see it happen to other reserves (james white on the spurs), so I'm surprised McRoberts got that upset for a 23 second check in like an empty the bench kind of thing. That's weird. But ok. I'll accept that. But thats the life of an NBA bench player- you have a good game and then you don't see the floor for a while. That's pretty much normal. I don't understand why this is so egregious in this specific case, but still, the evidence is there I suppose.

Sookie
10-18-2010, 11:49 PM
I'm ok with all of that.

Nope. None at all. That's fine. That's perfectly fine with me.



Really? Why? I suppose not everyone would dislike being repeatedly punched in the stomach...

Or are you lying to fit your opinion? How do you think the average person would feel, and why?

Low opinion of Hibbert? Really?

vnzla81
10-18-2010, 11:54 PM
Really? Why? I suppose not everyone would dislike being repeatedly punched in the stomach...

Or are you lying to fit your agenda? How do you think the average person would feel, and why?

Low opinion of Hibbert? Really?

Haven't you learn yet? He is fine with everything JOB does, he is like a god to him.

flox
10-19-2010, 02:20 AM
Really? Why? I suppose not everyone would dislike being repeatedly punched in the stomach...

Or are you lying to fit your opinion? How do you think the average person would feel, and why?

Well, I don't really want to go through a lot of details, but I've been punched in the stomach a lot and every time I've come up a stronger person- it's hurt and it really didn't feel good, but it turns out in the long run it was better for me. In my professional life, in my academic life, and in my personal life.

If I didn't develop the mental toughness or whatever, I think I would have broken a long time ago. But then again, no one has quite failed as spectacularly has I have failed, so, who knows.




Low opinion of Hibbert? Really?

I've been on the record for this board as one of the biggest haters of Hibbert- I don't think he's really worth much, and I've never really liked him as a player- I think he doesn't fit in with today's NBA. My opinion of Roy Hibbert is very very low considered to the rest of the board, and probably lower then the average hardcore nba's opinion of Hibbert. I don't think he's that good and I don't think he'll lead us to the promised land. While he has certainly exceeded expectations of mine (i thought he'd be a backup center at best), I still don't think he's a very good player. I still view him as right now an average to slight above average NBA center who's ceiling is an offensive version of Samuel Dalembert.


Haven't you learn yet? He is fine with everything JOB does, he is like a god to him.

Well, no, not really. I don't like his ball movement.

pacer4ever
10-19-2010, 02:50 AM
Well, I don't really want to go through a lot of details, but I've been punched in the stomach a lot and every time I've come up a stronger person- it's hurt and it really didn't feel good, but it turns out in the long run it was better for me. In my professional life, in my academic life, and in my personal life.

If I didn't develop the mental toughness or whatever, I think I would have broken a long time ago. But then again, no one has quite failed as spectacularly has I have failed, so, who knows.




I've been on the record for this board as one of the biggest haters of Hibbert- I don't think he's really worth much, and I've never really liked him as a player- I think he doesn't fit in with today's NBA. My opinion of Roy Hibbert is very very low considered to the rest of the board, and probably lower then the average hardcore nba's opinion of Hibbert. I don't think he's that good and I don't think he'll lead us to the promised land. While he has certainly exceeded expectations of mine (i thought he'd be a backup center at best), I still don't think he's a very good player. I still view him as right now an average to slight above average NBA center who's ceiling is an offensive version of Samuel Dalembert.



Well, no, not really. I don't like his ball movement.

LOL Dalembert LOL he has no Ofnse lol Hibbert is way better on ofnse

Sookie
10-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Well, I don't really want to go through a lot of details, but I've been punched in the stomach a lot and every time I've come up a stronger person- it's hurt and it really didn't feel good, but it turns out in the long run it was better for me. In my professional life, in my academic life, and in my personal life.

If I didn't develop the mental toughness or whatever, I think I would have broken a long time ago. But then again, no one has quite failed as spectacularly has I have failed, so, who knows.




I've been on the record for this board as one of the biggest haters of Hibbert- I don't think he's really worth much, and I've never really liked him as a player- I think he doesn't fit in with today's NBA. My opinion of Roy Hibbert is very very low considered to the rest of the board, and probably lower then the average hardcore nba's opinion of Hibbert. I don't think he's that good and I don't think he'll lead us to the promised land. While he has certainly exceeded expectations of mine (i thought he'd be a backup center at best), I still don't think he's a very good player. I still view him as right now an average to slight above average NBA center who's ceiling is an offensive version of Samuel Dalembert.



Well, no, not really. I don't like his ball movement.

So you think AJ Price needs to be more mentally tough? Really? That's silly.

And you think jerking him around will do that? Really, do you think a bunch of confusing and bipolar statements as well as insults will make him more mentally tough than say...rehabing from a major stroke? Or an ACL tear? Or a broken kneecap? Or dealing with the backlash of an entire basketball community because of a mistake he made, and changing that community's opinion about him?

See, I don't. I don't think what JOB did and is still doing would help AJ in any way. I think he's simply being unprofessional. And his comments have no intention to help AJ, they're just mean. And it comes off as a 50 year old man power tripping on a kid.

With Josh, once again, unprofessional. I didn't watch him for years, like I have for AJ, so I can't tell you whether he's mentally tough. But I do know, if he's dealt with O'brien's crap for years, then he's at least a mature kid. And O'brien seems to be just as unprofessional and "power trippy" with Josh. (And Roy, and Brandon..and give Collison and George a few months.)

As for Hibbert..wow, don't think I've met a Pacers fan that likes JOB, Troy and TJ, but not Hibbert..I think Roy, will easily, have a more successful NBA career than the other three, probably put together.

Since86
10-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Except that our media representatives have turned from parroting the Pacer line on everything many years ago to looking for anything they can fan into controversy.

It wouldn't take a statement to the press, just a reaction or a cross look or a "shucks" when sat down - all reactions that would be very natural and awfully hard to hide. Given we have young players who haven't quite learned the art of fooling the media, I'd expect something to slip.


Ummmm, when did this switch take place? Was I the only one not notified?

BillS
10-19-2010, 01:12 PM
Ummmm, when did this switch take place? Was I the only one not notified?

Are you saying you think they still treat the Pacers with kid gloves or are you saying you thought they always looked for bad things to say?

Since86
10-19-2010, 01:19 PM
Are you saying you think they still treat the Pacers with kid gloves or are you saying you thought they always looked for bad things to say?

I'm saying they still treat them with kid gloves. Considering they haven't even wrote an article being critical of Lance even being in the situation he's in. Have they pressed Larry about what his plan for Lance is, regarding the situation? Nope.

Google "Lance Stephenson domestic abuse" and through the first 5 pages you won't find one single link to the IndyStar. Not one. But you will find them from NY, Detroit, Yardbarker, IndyCornRows, a couple from bossip, and even the HuffingtonPost. But none from the IndyStar.


The Mel Daniels firing wasn't even a controversy. They reported it, and then suddenly moved on. No deep digging.

When JOb had his option picked up, we were told that some players weren't happy. That was it. They didn't even dig into which players, or why they were unhappy, or anything.

Unless Fox59 doing a piece on hazing now equals "taking off the kid gloves," I would say that the IndyStar is still quite firmly in the Pacers PR camp.

BillS
10-19-2010, 01:25 PM
Um, you do realize that Google ranking is based (among other things) on the number of links TO that page, right? I'd suspect people would link to national papers before they link to the Indy Star. If you want to see the local coverage, checking the local coverage web sites would be a better way of sampling. In just a quick check I found the blog from Mike Wells.

I suppose it is a matter of perception. I've seen the media pretty much ignore anything positive from the Pacers and jump again and again on problems - including articles in the e-version of the Star. This includes the piling on regarding the CIB, though clearly if someone also disagreed with the CIB negotiations, they wouldn't see it as a negative.

Since86
10-19-2010, 01:31 PM
And when did the whole IndyStar ever jump on good stories to begin with? Mike Wells, or even Brunner (?), would write fluff pieces here and there but they would never really hold traction outside of Pacer fans. Bad news sells, that's how it works. But let's not pretend like they're out for blood and looking for anything to get dirt on the Pacers.

In fact, it's the opposite. They mention the news, like Mel getting fired and Lance getting arrested, but after that it's hardly mentioned.

That's not being harsh on the franchise. They let stories die.

Hicks
10-19-2010, 01:37 PM
Well, no, not really. I don't like his ball movement.

You don't like that he's using a passing offense?

flox
10-19-2010, 06:38 PM
LOL Dalembert LOL he has no Ofnse lol Hibbert is way better on ofnse
Offensive version of Dalembert is what I typed.

So you think AJ Price needs to be more mentally tough? Really? That's silly. I never quite said that. I said that I wouldn't mind because it would make me mentally tougher and make me work harder. I don't know what effect it would have on AJ, but going from what he's shown on the court it seems to have little to no negative effect on AJ, and unknown positive effect on AJ.



And you think jerking him around will do that? Really, do you think a bunch of confusing and bipolar statements as well as insults will make him more mentally tough than say...rehabing from a major stroke? Or an ACL tear? Or a broken kneecap? Or dealing with the backlash of an entire basketball community because of a mistake he made, and changing that community's opinion about him?

See, I don't. I don't think what JOB did and is still doing would help AJ in any way. I think he's simply being unprofessional. And his comments have no intention to help AJ, they're just mean. And it comes off as a 50 year old man power tripping on a kid.

Fair enough. AJ's dealt with a lot in his life. It shouldn't matter how he's treated- he's shown that he can deal with it. And well, I never viewed anything Coach O'Brien said to AJ as insulting- but I think if a player felt insulted by a coach we would know about it. We've known about TJ and O'Brien.

/shrug



And I don't view O'Brien as power trippy as much as you do. For me, giving rookies inconsistent minutes does not suggest a power trip. Benching them even when they are playing well happens all the time.

However, I disagree with you on one key point. I think TJ has more talent and is a much better point guard than Price. To not give up on him and try to get him going and to get him to fit the team is very important if we want this team to win and get better. I see no problem with Price being benched and seeing spotty play if it's to get TJ going. He's one of our best threats from midrange- and we have no real other midrange scorers.




With Josh, once again, unprofessional. I didn't watch him for years, like I have for AJ, so I can't tell you whether he's mentally tough. But I do know, if he's dealt with O'brien's crap for years, then he's at least a mature kid. And O'brien seems to be just as unprofessional and "power trippy" with Josh. (And Roy, and Brandon..and give Collison and George a few months.)

Well, now, I think from that list that you think he treats new players poorly and treats them differently from vets. I think thats the life of an NBA rookie.

But I don't think Jim's been unprofessional to them- I think he's been the opposite- he's being honest to them at that specific point and time.




As for Hibbert..wow, don't think I've met a Pacers fan that likes JOB, Troy and TJ, but not Hibbert..I think Roy, will easily, have a more successful NBA career than the other three, probably put together.

Well, I'm not your average Pacers fan. And that's fair enough. We'll see. I disagree tremendously however.


You don't like that he's using a passing offense?
Well, I like the ball to be dominated by the primary playmakers. I think he misused TJ in this part. I think TJ, Dunleavy, and Granger were the primary playmakers in the past 3 seasons. I think Hibbert/Collison is now a playmaker as well. I like the ball being dominated by the primary playmaker for the given offensive position or offensive set, and then letting them create. I would want him to play TJ on the ball, and let him create. The same with Dunleavy and a lesser extent Granger.

With this season I'll have to bite my distaste since we have too many playmakers- Collison, Dunleavy, Granger and Hibbert are all starting and can dominate the ball and make a good play and create offense. With this case I think we'll have to use a passing offense. I think it's a pity because I think Murphy would have benefited the most from this offense. Although I suppose that if Rush starts (sigh), then he will also benefit a lot from this offense as well. McRoberts with the three point range is something that is very important in this case.