PDA

View Full Version : Very disappointed about the Coach.....



Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 09:46 PM
1. MD and Posey are very very poor defender....
If u put both on the court, how many points should the team get to cover the lose...
2. No foul last 20 sec...90:92
tell me why..

If we play Roy, Tyler/Josh, Granger,Geroge,Collison in the fourth qua
We already win the game tonight

So it's all about the Coach, it's the reason why we lose so many games unnecessarily..

Psyren
11-05-2010, 09:46 PM
Again, why do we need a thread for this? Put in the game discussion.

Jon Theodore
11-05-2010, 09:49 PM
Our players lost this game, Jim O'Brien just sealed the deal. The Pacers REALLY played poorly all night long and did not deserve a win. Bucks played terrible for the most part also, they just played well when it mattered.

oxxo
11-05-2010, 09:51 PM
Our players lost this game, Jim O'Brien just sealed the deal. The Pacers REALLY played poorly all night long and did not deserve a win. Bucks played terrible for the most part also, they just played well when it mattered.

The point is Posey should not have gotten 28 minutes. Not even close. Paul George was playing GREAT. We would have won if he had gotten those minutes. I would bet everythign I own on it.

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 09:51 PM
Because of i want our Coach to see this!!
Anyone has JOB's email or phone no......

I am 14 years pacers fan from HongKong
But i watch every pacers games online
And i am so angry now..

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 09:53 PM
Our players lost this game, Jim O'Brien just sealed the deal. The Pacers REALLY played poorly all night long and did not deserve a win. Bucks played terrible for the most part also, they just played well when it mattered.

How can you win the game when you use wrong players and poor rotation like this?

flox
11-05-2010, 09:55 PM
1. No. They are better team defenders currently and we had no other options.
2. No. You don't foul in that sitatution. You have to trust your defense.

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 10:00 PM
1. No. They are better team defenders currently and we had no other options.
2. No. You don't foul in that sitatution. You have to trust your defense.

1.Please see the video again about game tonight only on 4th qua
Bucks has 24 points on 4th qua, so who make the points?
who are guarding them?

2.only 1-3sec different about the shot clock and real time..
so Bucks can hold the ball and make shot/attack the basket at final sec to let the game over.
why no foul and trust defense? make me sick...

Foul on Smits
11-05-2010, 10:01 PM
2. No. You don't foul in that sitatution. You have to trust your defense.

You are wrong. Bye

Mackey_Rose
11-05-2010, 10:02 PM
1. No. They are better team defenders currently and we had no other options.
2. No. You don't foul in that sitatution. You have to trust your defense.

1. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

2. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

flox
11-05-2010, 10:07 PM
1. Blame the turnovers. You can't score or attempt to score if you are turning over the ball at that rate. It's hard to play good defense when the opponent gets the ball while you are trying to exectute the offense. We probably would have won if we didn't turn over the ball so much. We don't take care of the rock.
2. You have to trust your defense to get the stop. We debatably got the stop. I don't think that was a foul on Roy.

flox
11-05-2010, 10:08 PM
You are wrong. Bye


1. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

2. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for being constructive and telling me why I'm wrong.

I can't believe the board has fallen to this sad, pathetic state.

Mackey_Rose
11-05-2010, 10:14 PM
Thanks for being constructive and telling me why I'm wrong.

I can't believe the board has fallen to this sad, pathetic state.

Don't blame the board for how hilarious your predictability is.

flox
11-05-2010, 10:16 PM
Yeah, sure, because my posts are the predictable ones.

kester99
11-05-2010, 10:16 PM
I hate how JOB forced Danny and Roy to turn the ball over 13 times.

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 10:18 PM
1. Blame the turnovers. You can't score or attempt to score if you are turning over the ball at that rate. It's hard to play good defense when the opponent gets the ball while you are trying to exectute the offense. We probably would have won if we didn't turn over the ball so much. We don't take care of the rock.
2. You have to trust your defense to get the stop. We debatably got the stop. I don't think that was a foul on Roy.

1. You can blame everything about lose a game, but let me told you that:
We have 19 TO tonight BUT Bucks also have 15 TO
But we are better team than Bucks(they have no Boguts on the court)
So it's the reason why we lose the game because of more 4 TO?
We can win the game easier when the team make right rotaion and put george,josh,tyler on the court
We shouldn't lose tonight game anyway!

2. It's just a poor decison! Even i don't agree about the last call, but we should make foul to stop the game anyway in that moment.
only 1-3 sec different between shot clock and game time
so it's tough to play defense and make winning shot

IndyMac
11-05-2010, 10:20 PM
There was a 3 sec difference in the clocks, so I thought it was the right call not to foul. We had been playing good defense on them the last few minutes. I don't know why you can be so upset about this though, I mean we DID end up fouling them with 5.5 sec left and they made both shots to clinch the game. I would like to know what difference you think it would have made if we had fouled them sooner? By not fouling, you at least give yourself a shot to tie or win if you get a stop.

Mackey_Rose
11-05-2010, 10:23 PM
There was a 3 sec difference in the clocks, so I thought it was the right call not to foul. We had been playing good defense on them the last few minutes. I don't know why you can be so upset about this though, I mean we DID end up fouling them with 5.5 sec left and they made both shots to clinch the game. I would like to know what difference you think it would have made if we had fouled them sooner? By not fouling, you at least give yourself a shot to tie or win if you get a stop.

It is elementary level stuff. You extend the game as long as you can. Say Roy didn't foul and they ran the clock down and took a shot with 3 seconds left. That gives us probably 1.5 seconds at the most to attempt a winner. Not going to be a high percentage shot.

As soon as Granger missed his shot we should have fouled.

pwee31
11-05-2010, 10:26 PM
1. No. They are better team defenders currently and we had no other options.
2. No. You don't foul in that sitatution. You have to trust your defense.

1. I don't feel Posey is the defender he use to be. Too slow, and doesn't move laterally very well. Only reason he is on the floor is because he can shoot the 3, let's just be honest.

2. I have to respectfully disagree. If you watched the game there was like a 2 seconds difference between the shot clock and game clock (not exaggerating, have the game DVRed). If the Bucks were smart they would have just held the ball to the final second and threw the ball in the air as the game would've been over. We actually lucked out Salmons attempted to drive to the lane. Too bad Roy was charged with a block

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 10:27 PM
There was a 3 sec difference in the clocks, so I thought it was the right call not to foul. We had been playing good defense on them the last few minutes. I don't know why you can be so upset about this though, I mean we DID end up fouling them with 5.5 sec left and they made both shots to clinch the game. I would like to know what difference you think it would have made if we had fouled them sooner? By not fouling, you at least give yourself a shot to tie or win if you get a stop.

So that means you will let the 27 sec down to 3 sec
and you predict that we will play good defense and make the winning shot?

please...we should put someone on the foul line when we still have time
If they miss shot, then we have opportunity to win the game
If they make 2 free throws ,then we can try to attack the basket and we still !have time! to change the game
If you let the 27 sec down to 3 sec and give Bucks time to make play? you can get things worse and no choices in the end of the game

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 10:28 PM
1. I don't feel Posey is the defender he use to be. Too slow, and doesn't move laterally very well. Only reason he is on the floor is because he can shoot the 3, let's just be honest.

2. I have to respectfully disagree. If you watched the game there was like a 2 seconds difference between the shot clock and game clock (not exaggerating, have the game DVRed). If the Bucks were smart they would have just held the ball to the final second and threw the ball in the air as the game would've been over. We actually lucked out Salmons attempted to drive to the lane. Too bad Roy was charged with a block

Thats our best team defender MD let Salmons drive to the lane

Mackey_Rose
11-05-2010, 10:33 PM
Yeah, sure, because my posts are the predictable ones.




That's the percentage play. We had been playing good defense all game, I thought we would have gotten them stopped as well. Not to mention our system dictates that we rarely take more than 1 second off the clock anyway before jacking up a contested three, so that's a play we are used to, and I imagine that the great Mike Dunleavy would have hit the game winner.

He may be shooting currently like he's drop kicking it at the rim, but the fact is, the guy is a dead eye shooter. I expect every attempt to find nothing but net. It will happen soon. He will use his superior IQ to will the ball in with his super powered telekinetic basketball mind.

I think the best thing we can take away from tonight is that Mike Dunleavy's team defense allowed us to hold them to only 94 points. Sure John Salmons absolutely killed him 1-on-1, but that's only half of defense, and most definitely doesn't tell the whole story. Anyone who spends time worrying about his on-the-ball defense is just not paying enough attention. Great job Mike, you really energized us defensively tonight.

I wrote that like 5 minutes before this thread got going.

I went over the top for sarcastic effect, but you certainly didn't fail to deliver.

I don't want to turn this too personal so I'm done tonight, but good luck defending JOB after that masterpiece. It obviously wasn't totally his fault we lost, but he made sure you and your cohorts have your work cut out for you.

jmoney2584
11-05-2010, 10:33 PM
It is elementary level stuff. You extend the game as long as you can. Say Roy didn't foul and they ran the clock down and took a shot with 3 seconds left. That gives us probably 1.5 seconds at the most to attempt a winner. Not going to be a high percentage shot.

As soon as Granger missed his shot we should have fouled.

As a genious myself, I recognize this trait in others. You sure, are a genious. Extend the game, make them hit their free throws and give us shot clock to actually make plays instead of an inbounds for a whack three point attempt that didn't even help.

Kamiyohk
11-05-2010, 10:38 PM
As a genious myself, I recognize this trait in others. You sure, are a genious. Extend the game, make them hit their free throws and give us shot clock to actually make plays instead of an inbounds for a whack three point attempt that didn't even help.

When you make fouls, You are expecting that they will miss their free throws right?
So how about if they miss the free throws?
Even they make the free throws, we still have time to change the game
If they make shot, 3 sec? thats why we have no time to make changes at the end of the game tonight

flox
11-05-2010, 10:42 PM
1. You can blame everything about lose a game, but let me told you that:
We have 19 TO tonight BUT Bucks also have 15 TO
But we are better team than Bucks(they have no Boguts on the court)
So it's the reason why we lose the game because of more 4 TO?
We can win the game easier when the team make right rotaion and put george,josh,tyler on the court
We shouldn't lose tonight game anyway!

Turnovers lead to fast break oppotunities and high percentage shots. In that context 4 turnovers is huge. We had 19 points off of there 15 turnovers. They had 28!!! off of our 19. Thats a 9 point difference- there's the game right there. In addition, they also had 8 more shot attempts than us- trace that to the turnovers.


2. It's just a poor decison! Even i don't agree about the last call, but we should make foul to stop the game anyway in that moment.
only 1-3 sec different between shot clock and game time
so it's tough to play defense and make winning shot

See below. See also the last part of this post
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1091067&postcount=27


There was a 3 sec difference in the clocks, so I thought it was the right call not to foul. We had been playing good defense on them the last few minutes. I don't know why you can be so upset about this though, I mean we DID end up fouling them with 5.5 sec left and they made both shots to clinch the game. I would like to know what difference you think it would have made if we had fouled them sooner? By not fouling, you at least give yourself a shot to tie or win if you get a stop.

Agreed

pwee31
11-05-2010, 10:49 PM
There was a 3 sec difference in the clocks, so I thought it was the right call not to foul. We had been playing good defense on them the last few minutes. I don't know why you can be so upset about this though, I mean we DID end up fouling them with 5.5 sec left and they made both shots to clinch the game. I would like to know what difference you think it would have made if we had fouled them sooner? By not fouling, you at least give yourself a shot to tie or win if you get a stop.


Once again, after watching the replay. There was 2 seconds between shot clock and game clock. There was still 3 seconds on the shot clock when Salmons was fouled at 5 seconds. Even Denari and Quinn were saying, "You've got to foul here" as the clock kept winding down.

As I stated before, the Bucks could have likely waited until 1 second on the shot clock and threw the ball in the air. Game would have been over.

If anyone else DVRed the game, please post and verify

jmoney2584
11-05-2010, 10:54 PM
When you make fouls, You are expecting that they will miss their free throws right?
So how about if they miss the free throws?
Even they make the free throws, we still have time to change the game
If they make shot, 3 sec? thats why we have no time to make changes at the end of the game tonight

Sorry if I am misunderstanding, but I am saying the same thing as you...we are in the same boat. I wanted them to foul when we had 30 sec left and extend the game so we had time to get off a decent shot in the event they miss their free throws. Maybe you knew I was in agreement, I just didn't understand your post. We're good though brother.

IndyMac
11-05-2010, 10:56 PM
I'm not saying it's always the right call, but in this game it was. We had been pressuring them on defense and gotten them to turn the ball over, why not let the defense try to do it again? O'Brien gave his players a chance to get a stop or turnover and give themselves a chance to tie or win the game. If the call on Roy goes the other way then we have the ball with a chance. Give Milwaukee credit, they didn't turn it over, got the foul and made the free throws. I would rather trust my players to make a play than to hope the other team fails to make free throws that will clinch a win.

Look if you want to question O'Brien, that's fine with me because I'm not going to defend him. I can't stand him and think he's a bad coach. And there are certainly times where it is better to foul and try to extend the game. But I think you guys are focused on the wrong thing, there were many more important decisions made during and before the game that contributed much more to our losing the game.

flox
11-05-2010, 10:57 PM
It is elementary level stuff. You extend the game as long as you can. Say Roy didn't foul and they ran the clock down and took a shot with 3 seconds left. That gives us probably 1.5 seconds at the most to attempt a winner. Not going to be a high percentage shot.

As soon as Granger missed his shot we should have fouled.
Most game winners aren't going to be high percentage shots anyway- it's why you don't foul. And if we only have to make a two instead of a three that's much better for us. As for 1.5 seconds- isn't that the same amount of time it took for Granger to nail that game winner against the Suns anyway? 1.5 seconds is plenty of time.



1. I don't feel Posey is the defender he use to be. Too slow, and doesn't move laterally very well. Only reason he is on the floor is because he can shoot the 3, let's just be honest.
He certainly isn't the best option we have and he's definitely lost a step- but I feel like he's pretty decent systematically, can make some big shots and stretch the floor well, and doesn't make as many fouls or mistakes as our other options. Would I like a better 4/5? Absolutely. Do I see why he's still given minutes over Tyler and McRoberts? Yes.


2. I have to respectfully disagree. If you watched the game there was like a 2 seconds difference between the shot clock and game clock (not exaggerating, have the game DVRed). If the Bucks were smart they would have just held the ball to the final second and threw the ball in the air as the game would've been over. We actually lucked out Salmons attempted to drive to the lane. Too bad Roy was charged with a block

I think we could have caught the ball, took a timeout, and got a shot off left. But I see your point. Still, I think it's too risky not to take a shot there and let them do what you described- if they get caught for a 24second call it's one of the worst things possible. I don't think they take that risk.


I wrote that like 5 minutes before this thread got going.

I went over the top for sarcastic effect, but you certainly didn't fail to deliver.

I don't want to turn this too personal so I'm done tonight, but good luck defending JOB after that masterpiece. It obviously wasn't totally his fault we lost, but he made sure you and your cohorts have your work cut out for you.

Fair enough. The negativity I don't think is warranted, but fair enough.

jmoney2584
11-05-2010, 11:01 PM
I'm not saying it's always the right call, but in this game it was. We had been pressuring them on defense and gotten them to turn the ball over, why not let the defense try to do it again? O'Brien gave his players a chance to get a stop or turnover and give themselves a chance to tie or win the game. If the call on Roy goes the other way then we have the ball with a chance. Give Milwaukee credit, they didn't turn it over, got the foul and made the free throws. I would rather trust my players to make a play than to hope the other team fails to make free throws that will clinch a win.

Look if you want to question O'Brien, that's fine with me because I'm not going to defend him. I can't stand him and think he's a bad coach. And there are certainly times where it is better to foul and try to extend the game. But I think you guys are focused on the wrong thing, there were many more important decisions made during and before the game that contributed much more to our losing the game.

Agreed. We shouldn't have even been in the position we were at the end of the game. Point is though, we were. You TRUSTED the defense to make the stop, I on the other end trusted the D but DID NOT trust the offense to get a good shot if we did make the stop so I was in favor of fouling so that we could maybe increase our odds by getting a couple shots at the hoop.

If we had taken care of the ball and been able to hit a lick in the second hald we would have won this game by a significant margin. Alas, nevermore.

BlueNGold
11-05-2010, 11:10 PM
While managing the clock was pretty much ignored down the stretch, I had already given up on the game. Until JOb decides to plant Posey and Solomon Jones on the bench until Tyler and Hans have fouled out...well, I'm not going to be pleased.

I understand Posey may have had his best game offensively...and didn't appear terrible on D for the moments I could stand to watch...but it's time to put the the old mare to sleep. Josh and McBob are the only future this team really has at the PF position...and they need to be on the floor. Sure, they can be inconsistent like anyone...but they've played better than Posey and much better than Solo who a) had more minutes than Tyler and McBob and b) had zero points, zero steals, zero rebounds...but found time to turn the ball over and commit 3 fouls himself. Why Solo gets on the floor at all is a mystery to me. As for Posey, yes he hit a few shots and he played his best game of the year while given nearly 30 minutes...but still didn't crack double figures.

Sorry, but I cannot explain it either...

pacer4ever
11-05-2010, 11:15 PM
While managing the clock was pretty much ignored down the stretch, I had already given up on the game. Until JOb decides to plant Posey and Solomon Jones on the bench until Tyler and Hans have fouled out...well, I'm not going to be pleased.

I understand Posey may have had his best game offensively...and didn't appear terrible on D for the moments I could stand to watch...but it's time to put the the old mare to sleep. Josh and McBob are the only future this team really has at the PF position...and they need to be on the floor. Sure, they can be inconsistent like anyone...but they've played better than Posey and much better than Solo who a) had more minutes than Tyler and McBob and b) had zero points, zero steals, zero rebounds...but found time to turn the ball over and commit 3 fouls himself. Why Solo gets on the floor at all is a mystery to me. As for Posey, yes he hit a few shots and he played his best game of the year while given nearly 30 minutes...but still didn't crack double figures.

Sorry, but I cannot explain it either...

and plant Mike dunleavy on the bench for PG24 and Rush

pacer4ever
11-05-2010, 11:18 PM
Most game winners aren't going to be high percentage shots anyway- it's why you don't foul. And if we only have to make a two instead of a three that's much better for us. As for 1.5 seconds- isn't that the same amount of time it took for Granger to nail that game winner against the Suns anyway? 1.5 seconds is plenty of time.



He certainly isn't the best option we have and he's definitely lost a step- but I feel like he's pretty decent systematically, can make some big shots and stretch the floor well, and doesn't make as many fouls or mistakes as our other options. Would I like a better 4/5? Absolutely. Do I see why he's still given minutes over Tyler and McRoberts? Yes.


I think we could have caught the ball, took a timeout, and got a shot off left. But I see your point. Still, I think it's too risky not to take a shot there and let them do what you described- if they get caught for a 24second call it's one of the worst things possible. I don't think they take that risk.



Fair enough. The negativity I don't think is warranted, but fair enough.

OK 1.5 AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND = 0.00


U ARE RETARTED IF U DONT FOUL WITH 25 seconds LEFT :censored: JOB


ALSO BENCH MIKE AND POSEY FOR TYLER AND PAUL DOWN THE STRECH WE WIN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IndyMac
11-05-2010, 11:30 PM
This is exactly my point, why are you typing in all caps? If you want to get all worked up over a decision that O'Brien has made there are so many more that are so much more worthy of typing in all caps about. The decision at the end of the game isn't what makes him a bad coach (whether it was right or not). It's all the other decisions he makes before, during and after games that make him a bad coach.

pacer4ever
11-05-2010, 11:37 PM
This is exactly my point, why are you typing in all caps? If you want to get all worked up over a decision that O'Brien has made there are so many more that are so much more worthy of typing in all caps about. The decision at the end of the game isn't what makes him a bad coach (whether it was right or not). It's all the other decisions he makes before, during and after games that make him a bad coach.

i have got use to thoes poor decsions. but not fouling with 2 sec differences in shot clock and game clock is really really unacceptable.

pacer4ever
11-05-2010, 11:39 PM
Once again, after watching the replay. There was 2 seconds between shot clock and game clock. There was still 3 seconds on the shot clock when Salmons was fouled at 5 seconds. Even Denari and Quinn were saying, "You've got to foul here" as the clock kept winding down.

As I stated before, the Bucks could have likely waited until 1 second on the shot clock and threw the ball in the air. Game would have been over.

If anyone else DVRed the game, please post and verify

u are correct i wont forget looking at the scoreboard. with 26 secs left and i was screaming FOUL

flox
11-05-2010, 11:40 PM
OK 1.5 AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND = 0.00


U ARE RETARTED IF U DONT FOUL WITH 25 seconds LEFT :censored: JOB


I don't know any other way to reason with you. 26 seconds left he gets the ball, 24 second shot clock, he has to take the shot at 1 or 0 left in the clock, lets say he takes it at 0, so shot leaves his hand a 2 (which probably will be called for 24 second violation), it misses, we rebound, lets say .5 left, take a time out, thats still enough time for a catch and shoot, something that granger has made in his career.

I am very confused as to why this is a problem.

Psycho T
11-05-2010, 11:40 PM
FYI.. The Pacers had a foul to give at the end of the game so they would have had to foul twice. That probably played a part in the decision not to foul but I dont understand it either way.

Hibbert
11-05-2010, 11:52 PM
I hate how JOB forced Danny and Roy to turn the ball over 13 times.

I can make the argument here that in the first half we only took 8 three pointers and we had a 60-52 lead. The first half we were actually playing basketball. In the third quarter Roy didn't take a single shot and not by choice. And in the 4th, we took 9 three's making only one of them. That's not the players' fault. He has to set a game plan and actually stick with it. He said they were going to be playing through Roy this year and I have only seen it for about 3 quarters of basketball out of 5 games now. Bogut was out, knowing this before hand and knowing that the Bucks don't have anyone else that can stop Roy, don't you think the "coach" would actually stick with his words and play through Roy? That and Josh and Tyler, one or both HAVE to play 25 min a night. Let them play through the fouls, 10 and 12min? There's no excuse.

pacer4ever
11-05-2010, 11:57 PM
I don't know any other way to reason with you. 26 seconds left he gets the ball, 24 second shot clock, he has to take the shot at 1 or 0 left in the clock, lets say he takes it at 0, so shot leaves his hand a 2 (which probably will be called for 24 second violation), it misses, we rebound, lets say .5 left, take a time out, thats still enough time for a catch and shoot, something that granger has made in his career.

I am very confused as to why this is a problem.

So if all things go 100% our way and they miss and go retarted by not rainbowing a shot up there. we get the ball with .5 seconds. Im sry That is failing as a coach u foul with 26 seconds and extend the game and give us a shot to win. Opposed to not fouling and losing us the game.

GLAD U ARE NOT THE COACH


:censored: u JOB

IndyMac
11-06-2010, 12:01 AM
Exactly! We shot 8 three's in the first half, scored 60 points and led by 8 at halftime. Then in the 4th quarter, while we are leading, we shoot one three after another, usually after only one pass. This is just bad game management. A well coached team would know to work the clock and get high percentage shots. And if they didn't, a good coach would call a timeout and chew them out for not knowing that.

Mark
11-06-2010, 12:08 AM
The thing that upset me the most was the lack of effort on offensive rebounding in the final two minutes. There were always three Bucks and zero Pacers under the basket. So frustrating.

I don't really want to bash JOB for this one, but I just have one criticism about playing Posey and Dun in the final minutes. If the gameplan is to get Granger/Hibbert/Collison (maybe) the final shots why would you need the extra offense of Dunleavy and Posey? There was only a remote chance they would be taking shots anyway, so in my opinion why wouldn't you just put a couple rebounders (and far superior defenders) in McBob and Hansbrough in?

But, all that said, Granger and Hibbert have to play better (i.e. less turnovers) throughout the game. They could have put the game away when they were up by 7 or 8 late in the 3rd.

Oh well, they improved on there performance from Wednesday night haha.

Eleazar
11-06-2010, 11:00 AM
Although I don't want to underplay the amount of turnovers because it was a lot, they weren't the reason this team lost. There was only a 4 turnover difference between the two teams which can easily be overcame. The problem really is with JOB and how much time he gives to certain players and how little he gives to other players. I don't care if both Dun and Posey have more experience than George, Hansbrough, and McRoberts combined they are in no way better players.

With Rush out I can understand playing Dun ahead of George and even giving him the majority of the minutes, but I can not understand the huge gap in minutes. If Dun isn't shooting well, which he hasn't yet he is not a 30+ minute per game player. I understand that at this point neither is George, but George can play at least 20 minutes a game not just 13. I didn't see the whole game, but to me it seemed like George was playing pretty well.

Posey should not be playing anything more than spot minutes if any of our big men are in foul trouble. He shouldn't be getting the 5th most minutes on the team, and as many minutes as McRoberts and Hansbrough (the 2 best PF's on the team) received combined. This is why this team lost. I don't care how well Posey played he most likely didn't play as well as a combination of McRoberts and/or Hansbrough would have played at the PF position. On top of that playing a true PF at the PF position gives you the best chances to win. It was true last year, this year, and back in 1891 the players that give you the best chance to win are those who are playing in their natural position. Posey is not a ****ing PF, neither was Murphy, so get the **** over yourself JOB.

McKeyFan
11-06-2010, 11:24 AM
While managing the clock was pretty much ignored down the stretch, I had already given up on the game. Until JOb decides to plant Posey and Solomon Jones on the bench until Tyler and Hans have fouled out...well, I'm not going to be pleased.
Agreed.


I understand Posey may have had his best game offensively...
Disagree. He made three threes. He made no moves, he made no significant passes. He made no foul shots.


but it's time to put the the old mare to sleep.
:laugh:


Solo who a) had more minutes than Tyler and McBob and b) had zero points, zero steals, zero rebounds...but found time to turn the ball over and commit 3 fouls himself.
Yep. Josh should get those backup center minutes.


until Tyler and Hans have fouled out...well, I'm not going to be pleased.
That's actually half as easy as you think it is.

Brad8888
11-06-2010, 11:34 AM
Jim O'Brien, AKA "The Difference Maker".

Chris and Quinn were absolutely correct, as most here are. We completely gave any control of the ending of the game away without so much as a whimper from the clueless O'Brien. Obviously, the correct decision was to gain control of the game clock by fouling when there were over 20 seconds to go on the clock. That way, the Pacers would have had a chance to hit a shot with time left, and enough time to foul again, and hopefully call a timeout, advance the ball to halfcourt, and have a chance to tie or win the game. To call a 20 sec. TO down 4 with 5 seconds left was lunacy. The game was over regardless of anything the Pacers could do because all Skiles had to do was provide token resistance without fouling, and that is what he, a good coach, did.

There are so many other things that O'Brien mismanaged in this game that I fear for the bandwidth requirements that posting it all would place on the servers of Pacers Digest, so I won't bother to post them all here.

Suffice it to say that, as usual, rotations had no basis in reality, there was absolutely no discipline offensively or defensively, and there was little to no concern about correcting the obvious issues the team was having from an execution standpoint throughout the course of the entire game. The answer, as usual, was to simply play faster, shoot more threes and quicker shots to get the all improtant pace factor elevated, and hope that the Bucks made more mistakes than we did. Skiles didn't let that happen. 30 offensive points later, the second half was over. The play of the Pacers throughout the game was remarkably similar to what we saw at Philadelphia, the players just had enough extra energy that a few more shots fell in the first half, and we got some rebounds in the first half because we still had enough legs to outquick the Bucks to the ball in that half.

Had Bogut played, even still recovering from his arm injuries, the Bucks would have won this game by over 20, and would have coasted during the 4th.

Well, O'Brien now has at least 14 games to win as a result of his coaching to achieve the impact that has been alleged in the now twice posted column regarding a study that I swear had to be actually co-authored by humor columnist Dave Barry, not economics professor Dave Berri.

tmhall11
11-06-2010, 11:36 AM
Ok... why is flox defending JOB so much... and why does he keep blaming everything on turnovers.. (the same thing JOB does...) Flox... are you JOB in disguise???

Mackey_Rose
11-06-2010, 11:38 AM
If O'Brien wanted to "trust the defense" why didn't he have the ball pushed up quickly on the possession before to try to get a real two for one situation instead of allowing a bad shot to be taken with only a two second time differential?

ReggiesUncle
11-06-2010, 12:37 PM
1. Blame the turnovers. You can't score or attempt to score if you are turning over the ball at that rate. It's hard to play good defense when the opponent gets the ball while you are trying to exectute the offense. We probably would have won if we didn't turn over the ball so much. We don't take care of the rock.
2. You have to trust your defense to get the stop. We debatably got the stop. I don't think that was a foul on Roy.

trust your defense to do what? there was only a few seconds difference between the shot clock and game clock. They could have held the ball longer and still made a shot or missed and the pacers would have had even less time to make a shot to tie

most definitely you should foul in that situation to extend the game...guy you foul could have missed the free throws and then you have more time to get a good look for the tying or winning shot

JOB needs to find a new j o b

jhondog28
11-06-2010, 12:40 PM
Ok... why is flox defending JOB so much... and why does he keep blaming everything on turnovers.. (the same thing JOB does...) Flox... are you JOB in disguise???

I think Flox is refreshing personally. He sticks to his opinions and does not go nuts after every loss and does not go insanely giddy after every win as most on the board seem to do.

ReggiesUncle
11-06-2010, 12:43 PM
I think Flox is refreshing personally. He sticks to his opinions and does not go nuts after every loss and does not go insanely giddy after every win as most on the board seem to do.

http://photos.indystar.com/photos/2010/11/5/427145/inline.jpg

jhondog28
11-06-2010, 12:44 PM
http://photos.indystar.com/photos/2010/11/5/427145/inline.jpg

I will say though that I still don't like JOB "pull my finger" as a coach.

McKeyFan
11-06-2010, 12:50 PM
Once again, after watching the replay. There was 2 seconds between shot clock and game clock. There was still 3 seconds on the shot clock when Salmons was fouled at 5 seconds. Even Denari and Quinn were saying, "You've got to foul here" as the clock kept winding down.

As I stated before, the Bucks could have likely waited until 1 second on the shot clock and threw the ball in the air. Game would have been over.

If anyone else DVRed the game, please post and verify
I agree with your position that we should have fouled early. But I also agree with what others wrote, that it could go either way and the bigger mistakes made were not on this particular decision.

That said, I think the chances are pretty decent that we would have had two seconds for a last shot (not enough, still). I don't think they could have just "thrown the ball in the air" and let the clock expire. If so, the 24 second clock would have expired, and we would have been rewarded the ball with two seconds left.

Best case scenario for Miluakee is they throw up a long rainbow shot just as the shot clock is expiring--and it successfully hits the rim. Then, yes, we would have been out of time.

But I do believe the percentages chances are higher for them to miss 1 out of four free throws (if we started fouling early), then for us to hit a last second shot with 2 seconds on the clock.

All that notwithstanding, the much better percentage would have been some passing around the horn and penetration before Granger just chucks a 20 footer with 26 seconds left in the game.