Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #1

    Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

    Notice the bolded quotes.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1720254

    O'Brien steps down as Celtics coach
    Associated Press

    WALTHAM, Mass. -- Danny Ainge's reshaping of the Boston Celtics clashed with Jim O'Brien's view of the team. So, O'Brien became part of that makeover.

    O'Brien stepped down Tuesday with his team in a 2-5 slump with players Ainge brought in since taking over last May 9 as executive director of basketball operations.

    Ainge wants a younger team with more offense that can become a consistent contender even if it means taking a step or two back now. O'Brien relied on veterans and defense and cared more about this season's record.

    "The philosophical differences, I thought, were much smaller than Jim thought," said Ainge, who had given O'Brien a two-year contract extension through 2005-06. "I was willing to work through those. Jim did not see that long-term vision that I saw."

    A source told ESPN's David Aldridge that O'Brien actually offered to resign effective at season's end. However, the Celtics told O'Brien that if he was going to leave, he should do so immediately, the source said.

    Now John Carroll, O'Brien's assistant, will get a chance to pursue that vision as interim coach and will have that job for the rest of the season, Ainge said.

    "He's done a great job as an assistant coach to this point," Ainge said.

    Carroll, who makes his debut Wednesday night against Detroit, was in his seventh season as a Celtics assistant and had been head coach at Duquesne from 1989-95.

    Assistant coach Dick Harter, a defensive specialist, was let go.

    O'Brien was an assistant when he became head coach on Jan. 8, 2001, after Rick Pitino stepped down. O'Brien led the Celtics to a 139-119 regular-season record and to the Eastern Conference finals and semifinals the past two seasons.

    Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck praised O'Brien and said the former coach felt the reconstructed team might be better off with someone else leading it.

    "He was not sure he's the man for that job," Grousbeck said. "He didn't want to take our money and our time under false pretenses."

    When Ainge was appointed, O'Brien voiced strong support.

    "I think it's wonderful. I think it's a great move by our owners," O'Brien said. "In the future, people will look back, I think they will think it's a real step forward and a turning point for our franchise."

    On Tuesday, a call to Lonnie Cooper, O'Brien's agent, wasn't returned.

    The hiring of Ainge was the first of many changes for the Celtics, who have just three active players -- Paul Pierce, Mark Blount and Walter McCarty -- who were on the team last season.

    Ainge traded Antoine Walker to Dallas on Oct. 20, then sent veteran team leaders and defenders Eric Williams and Tony Battie to Cleveland on Dec. 15. He also worked with players at practice and made suggestions to O'Brien about who should play.

    Ainge said it was his "prerogative" to make suggestions, just as it was proper for O'Brien to voice his opinion about potential trades.

    Ainge's preference for young players, such as first-round draft pick Marcus Banks, "is an understandable difference" between him and O'Brien, Ainge said.

    Instead, O'Brien used Mike James at point guard while Banks was his primary replacement.

    "We felt there was a ceiling on the success of the old players," Ainge said. "So we didn't always agree on the players who should be on the court."

    The Celtics are 22-24 and in second place in the weak Atlantic Division. The first-place team, the New Jersey Nets, fired its coach, Byron Scott on Monday. Two other Atlantic Division coaches, Don Chaney of New York and Doc Rivers of Orlando, also were fired during the season.

    But Ainge said he was surprised that O'Brien offered his resignation Tuesday morning during one of their regular meetings to discuss their philosophical differences.

    "This isn't exactly how I thought this day would end," Ainge said.

    O'Brien was "100 percent on board" with the trade of Walker to Dallas, Ainge said, but didn't fully support the trade with Cleveland that brought Ricky Davis, Chris Mihm and Michael Stewart.

    "He understood the trade from a logistical standpoint," Ainge said. "But, again, I had a longer-term vision than Jim O'Brien had."

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2066717
    Mo Cheeks will take over as new coach
    Associated Press

    PHILADELPHIA -- Maurice Cheeks is running the show again for the Philadelphia 76ers.

    In a surprising move nearly three weeks following the end of their season, the Sixers fired Jim O'Brien on Monday after one season as coach and replaced him with Cheeks, one of the most popular players in franchise history.

    "Mo is family. Mo bleeds 76ers. He bleeds Philadelphia," team president Billy King said.

    Cheeks will be introduced as Philadelphia's 21st head coach at a Tuesday news conference.

    Philadelphia is certainly banking on the former point guard to have a happier homecoming than O'Brien, a Philadelphia native who played for Saint Joseph's. O'Brien's stubbornness and seemingly unwavering belief in a system that didn't fit his players cost him his job despite a 43-39 record and a return to the playoffs.

    "I just felt the direction we were going and the overall play wasn't where we wanted to go," King said.

    O'Brien just finished the first year of a three-year deal that included an option and paid him about $4 million a year. O'Brien, though, was not very popular with his players -- most notably former All-Star Chris Webber -- who often complained about their roles.

    King said after the Sixers were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs by Detroit that he planned to bring O'Brien back. After meeting with his players and other members of management, King had a change of heart and decided over the weekend he had to make a change.

    Certainly, King knows a thing or two about making changes -- Cheeks will be the fifth Sixers coach in four years under his watch. Larry Brown left for Detroit following the 2002-03 season, and assistant Randy Ayers was promoted and fired 52 games into the 2003-04 season before he was replaced by Chris Ford.


    "I knew this thing was coming, and it wasn't an easy thing for anybody," Brown said from Miami before coaching the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. "Knowing Billy, it's not easy to let a coach go. His relationship with Randy was pretty strong. I think it was hard for him to let Chris go. He was excited about having Jimmy, but I don't think it ever gets easy."

    Cheeks was one of the most popular 76ers from 1978-89 and played on Philadelphia's last championship team in 1983. He also spent seven seasons as an assistant coach for the 76ers, was part of the staff under Brown when they went to the NBA Finals in 2001 and developed a strong bond with Allen Iverson.

    Cheeks was fired March 2 after nearly four seasons as coach of the Trail Blazers. He had a 162-139 record in Portland, the fourth-highest win total in Blazers history.

    Cheeks guided the team to the playoffs his first two seasons, but the players hardly made Cheeks' tenure easy -- on or off the court.

    The team was nicknamed the "Jail Blazers" after several brushes with the law, many of them involving marijuana possession.

    "If players have problems with Mo Cheeks ... then there's got to be something wrong with those players," King said.

    But Cheeks' return to the city where he was a four-time All-Star shouldn't come as a surprise. The Trail Blazers turned down Philadelphia's request to speak to Cheeks as a possible replacement for Brown, but the former point guard always remained popular with Philly fans and was at the top of the Sixers' short list to take over for Ford.

    Now, they'll get their wish.

    "We do not want to change coaches [again]," Sixers chairman Ed Snider said. "We've seen enough coaches."

    The Sixers will pay Ayers, O'Brien and Cheeks next season.

    "I don't think it's something we're very proud of, but I don't think it reflects poorly," Snider said.

    O'Brien is the son-in-law of Hall of Fame coach Jack Ramsay. He led the Sixers to a 10-win improvement from a year ago and they returned to the playoffs, largely on the back of a healthy, happy Iverson.

    While O'Brien avoided public spats with Iverson, he did not have the full support of the rest of the team. Some of the younger players, like Samuel Dalembert and Willie Green, felt they did not develop like they should have under O'Brien and were unsure about their roles.

    "In looking at the development of some of them, yeah, I wasn't pleased," King said.

    The Sixers also failed to really understand O'Brien's defense, a sticking point even in the postseason.

    "Some of the criteria on our defense wasn't there," King said.

    Cheeks, who once famously came to the rescue of a 13-year-old girl who forgot the words to the national anthem before a playoff game, now hopes to bail out his former team and bring them another championship.

    "Mo has played this game here in Philadelphia, won a championship here in Philadelphia, understands players, understands defenses, understands the way I think we want to play," King said.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

    Ainge's quotes are meaningless. He dumped the youth philosophy for Allen and Garnett.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Ainge's quotes are meaningless. He dumped the youth philosophy for Allen and Garnett.
      And who wouldn't have, given the opportunity?

      Goals for the team were to develop, until they had the opportunity to go from "maybe good in a couple years" to "instant contender."

      You're going to fault him for instantly changing the whole dynamic of the organization because he turned young question marks into future HOFers?

      Harsh.
      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        And who wouldn't have, given the opportunity?

        Goals for the team were to develop, until they had the opportunity to go from "maybe good in a couple years" to "instant contender."

        You're going to fault him for instantly changing the whole dynamic of the organization because he turned young question marks into future HOFers?

        Harsh.
        Part of it to me doesn't make sense. You fire a guy for going against a youth movement, then down the road you blow it up because the youth movement wasn't good enough.

        Sure, landing those guys was good on Ainge's part, the logic doesn't make any sense.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          Part of it to me doesn't make sense. You fire a guy for going against a youth movement, then down the road you blow it up because the youth movement wasn't good enough.

          Sure, landing those guys was good on Ainge's part, the logic doesn't make any sense.

          I love the "young prospects" that those GM's were whining that JOB wasn't playing enough.

          Marcus Banks?
          Willie Green?

          Both of those teams took significant steps BACKWARDS after JOB left.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
            Ainge's quotes are meaningless. He dumped the youth philosophy for Allen and Garnett.
            Yep. Probably because he knew building a team around a bunch of non-lottery picks, for as good of the picks that Ainge made, had a low probability of creating a team that actually mattered.

            Also should be noted that the 76ers have yet to surpass JOB's win total since firing him. Yeah, JOB probably wasn't the coach that was going to take 76ers anywhere and they were probably right to make a change, but they've gone through several other coaches since and have yet to improve upon his results.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              Part of it to me doesn't make sense. You fire a guy for going against a youth movement, then down the road you blow it up because the youth movement wasn't good enough.

              Sure, landing those guys was good on Ainge's part, the logic doesn't make any sense.
              He fired him because he had no idea that he could instantly turn his youth into what he was hoping and praying they could develop into.

              The team's goals were to develop the young players they already had. Jim wasn't doing it they way they wanted. So they got rid of him thinking they would be able to find a coach to perform the goals of the franchise.

              Then he gets a call, or makes a call whatever, that allows him to turn that "potential" into players that he's hoping his young group MIGHT turn into.

              That doesn't invalidate the idea of developing youth. It means that Ainge saw a short cut, and ran with it.

              You can't judge a decision based on hindsight. You have to judge the decision based on known facts/opinions at the time the decision was made.
              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                Ainge's quotes are meaningless. He dumped the youth philosophy for Allen and Garnett.
                Aside from Ainge's criticisms being valid and now becoming a pre-cursor to all of O'Brien's stints,

                1) You or I don't know what Ainge's long-term vision was/is. It could've been 'develop young players so they a) become a good nucleus or b) become valuable trade assets. Long-term vision, to me, means making the most out of a situation at the cost of something that may or may not be valuable short-term.

                2) Boston doesn't get Garnett from Minnesota without Al Jefferson's 16pts/11rbs. It's hard to make a solid argument that Al develops his low-post game under O'Brien.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                  Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                  Part of it to me doesn't make sense. You fire a guy for going against a youth movement, then down the road you blow it up because the youth movement wasn't good enough.

                  Sure, landing those guys was good on Ainge's part, the logic doesn't make any sense.
                  They had to enhance the value of the young pieces to make them worth something to other teams to acquire those contending vets. Or at least that's the argument.

                  If Hansbrough and Paul George don't play all year, they don't have the value needed to bring in a difference maker PF, for example.

                  I don't think that is what happened, at all, by the way. I think Ainge backed into Garnett because McHale was Minnesotas GM.

                  I do see the logic, though, make Jefferson really valuable in a trade, suck a season in the process and get the 5th overall pick, flip them for KG and Ray Allen.

                  If you could enhance Roys value to where Al Jefferson was and get a top 5 pick, then you'd have this scenario. You still have to actualize it by moving those pieces for someone like Amare Stoudamire. Then pick up Ginobli for the 5th pick. Somewhat exagerated, but the same idea.

                  Oh ya, and then pick up a top 7 Point Guard with the 21st pick.

                  It all just turns into some really bad trade scenarios where I feel like I have to add 200 2nd round picks to justify it.

                  The main idea though is develop your players value, that isn't really happening in a large way, except for Roy, and I think Roy deserves the bulk of the credit for that.

                  ------------

                  On a side note, 90% of the coaches out there wouldn't have done what Ainge wanted to have happen. No excuse for Obie, he pretty much has had a guarantee past the first few years on being the coach here, so it really would have helped him to not play Posey/TJ or moreso the Rasho's of the world.

                  When he's gone, the one thing that could have saved his job, playing/developing young guys, will actually be the #1 reason he should get fired. It'll be his own fault.

                  -----

                  Another edit, I think Bird has basically said that he wanted to follow what Ainge did. I know, at least, he's said you can only have so many young guys and you have to add vets at some point. So, really it does look like history repeating itself.

                  Ironic in a way, this trade deadline and summer is finally salary reprieve where you can really make a difference in the team and I'd guess Obie won't be here to see it.
                  Last edited by Speed; 12-29-2010, 02:53 PM.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                    Okay, so how does these articles/issues from the past relate to issues of today where JOB coaching the Pacers is concerned?

                    I have an idea where this is going, but I want to hear from the posters here first.

                    So, shoot...

                    Critics (myself included but standing by for the moment), you have the board.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      They had to enhance the value of the young pieces to make them worth something to other teams to acquire those contending vets. Or at least that's the argument.

                      If Hansbrough and Paul George don't play all year, they don't have the value needed to bring in a difference maker PF, for example.

                      I don't think that is what happened, at all, by the way. I think Ainge backed into Garnett because McHale was Minnesotas GM.

                      I do see the logic, though, make Jefferson really valuable in a trade, suck a season in the process and get the 5th overall pick, flip them for KG and Ray Allen.

                      If you could enhance Roys value to where Al Jefferson was and get a top 5 pick, then you'd have this scenario. You still have to actualize it by moving those pieces for someone like Amare Stoudamire. Then pick up Ginobli for the 5th pick. Somewhat exagerated, but the same idea.

                      Oh ya, and then pick up a top 7 Point Guard with the 21st pick.

                      It all just turns into some really bad trade scenarios where I feel like I have to add 200 2nd round picks to justify it.

                      The main idea though is develop your players value, that isn't really happening in a large way, except for Roy, and I think Roy deserves the bulk of the credit for that.

                      ------------

                      On a side note, 90% of the coaches out there wouldn't have done what Ainge wanted to have happen. No excuse for Obie, he pretty much has had a guarantee past the first few years on being the coach here, so it really would have helped him to not play Posey/TJ or moreso the Rasho's of the world.

                      When he's gone, the one thing that could have saved his job, playing/developing young guys, will actually be the #1 reason he should get fired. It'll be his own fault.

                      -----

                      Another edit, I think Bird has basically said that he wanted to follow what Ainge did. I know, at least, he's said you can only have so many young guys and you have to add vets at some point. So, really it does look like history repeating itself.

                      Ironic in a way, this trade deadline and summer is finally salary reprieve where you can really make a difference in the team and I'd guess Obie won't be here to see it.

                      I don't wholly buy into the "play to develop" this guy or that guy 100%.

                      Could Larry Brown have played Darko enough to justify his draft status? Was Scott Haskin a bust because Bob Hill wouldn't give him a chance? Was it JOB's fault that Willie Green and Marcus Banks were stiffs?

                      At some point either a guy can play, or a guy can't play. Over time every guy in the NBA is eventually exposed for what he is!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                        Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                        I don't wholly buy into the "play to develop" this guy or that guy 100%.

                        Could Larry Brown have played Darko enough to justify his draft status? Was Scott Haskin a bust because Bob Hill wouldn't give him a chance? Was it JOB's fault that Willie Green and Marcus Banks were stiffs?

                        At some point either a guy can play, or a guy can't play. Over time every guy in the NBA is eventually exposed for what he is!
                        The argument for the Pacers situation, for me, is that you win 36 games playing Rasho freaking Nestervic or you win 36 games playing Roy Hibbert. I truely believe that.

                        I mean I don't think JMac is what some do on here, but even with that said, doesn't many of the minutes that Troy Murphy played in his place these last two years, now, seem meaningless.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          The argument for the Pacers situation, for me, is that you win 36 games playing Rasho freaking Nestervic or you win 36 games playing Roy Hibbert. I truely believe that.

                          I mean I don't think JMac is what some do on here, but even with that said, doesn't many of the minutes that Troy Murphy played in his place these last two years, now, seem meaningless.

                          I totally agree with that. When the outcome is the same, play the younger guy.

                          That has been a HUGE problem I've had with Bird the GM. Why the hell have we signed guys like Watson,DJones, Steve Graham, Diener, Baston over trying to unearth prospects when we are supposedly "Rebuilding"

                          That is the crux of my opinion that he has no real talent evaluation skills.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                            Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                            I totally agree with that. When the outcome is the same, play the younger guy.

                            That has been a HUGE problem I've had with Bird the GM. Why the hell have we signed guys like Watson,DJones, Steve Graham, Diener, Baston over trying to unearth prospects when we are supposedly "Rebuilding"

                            That is the crux of my opinion that he has no real talent evaluation skills.

                            The argument is that this market couldn't sustain a fan base with severe losing. 1.) I don't think the W/L was that much different playing youngsters and not. 2.) I think if you could lose, but have hope for the future, this market would be more enthused.

                            The missing piece is having a John Wall or a Blake Griffen or Kevin Durant to hang that hope on. The Pacers haven't, honestly had that opportunity. Even that is by their own design, though.

                            How great would it be to root for an Oklahoma City type team, right now!!

                            This is evolving into me monologuing like it's May or June though, so I'll stop now.
                            Last edited by Speed; 12-29-2010, 03:42 PM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Post-O'Brien criticisms re: Celtics/76ers

                              In the season O'Brien stepped down in January, the players who were top-5 in minutes for Boston were:
                              - Paul Pierce
                              - Mark Blount
                              - Jiri Welsch
                              - Walter McCarty
                              - Mike JamesRicky Davis

                              The top-5 the following season:
                              - Paul Pierce
                              - Ricky Davis
                              - Gary Payton
                              - Raef LaFrentz
                              - Mark Blount

                              And if you actually check the top-5 by the end of the season, almost 2 years away from O'Brien, you have:
                              - Paul Pierce
                              - Ricky Davis
                              - Gary Payton
                              - Raef LaFrentz
                              - Antoine Walker

                              This was the starting 5 too (sometimes Jiri would start).

                              There was no youth movement whatsoever - that came later, more than 1 year later. The decision that lead to JOB quitting was the trade for Ricky Davis - who was like a 5 years veteran already. The only young player Ainge wanted him to play was Marcus Banks - him and a bust called Kedrick Brown that Ainge quickly traded for Ricky Davis, Chris Mihm and Michael Wallace - 3 veterans - were the only youngsters in the roster. So, a deal that brought more veterans to the team was the reason O'Brien left.

                              The "philosophical difference" was that Ainge wanted to blow up the core of the team that made the conference finals - and rightly so - and O'Brien didn't want to coach a lottery team at that point - and he assumed that the team would be in the lottery for years. He had a very good reputation with the job he was doing in Boston and he could quickly move to a better situation, so he quit.

                              The idea that he had youngsters to play but decided to rely on veterans instead is completely bogus. Even Marcus Banks played more under O'Brien than with any other coach in the league. There were no youngsters to play and Ainger never really made that a priority till much later.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                              Working...
                              X