PDA

View Full Version : Nice article by Kravitz



Pacerfan
01-13-2011, 03:36 AM
Pacers' youth movement is the right way to finish year
-Bob Kravitz
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110113/SPORTS15/101130388/Pacers-youth-movement-right-way-finish-year?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

Maybe Jim O'Brien had a moment of clarity, a sudden thunderbolt of enlightenment.

Maybe team president Larry Bird, who generally maintains a hands-off approach with his coaches, got in his coach's ear.

But the Indiana Pacers' perpetually embattled coach seems to have gotten the message and, at this point, I don't care how or from whom he got it:

He's playing the young guys.

Finally.

And it's paying off, first with a road victory Tuesday night in Philadelphia and then again Wednesday night in a 102-89 victory over the Dirk Nowitzki-less Dallas Mavericks.

We've been screaming about this for, um, how long?

"Those young guys, they'll still screw up plays once in a while or get lost on the defensive rotation, but they bring so much energy and intangibles,'' said Danny Granger. "They've really given us a lift.''

Paul George made two huge 3-pointers to start the fourth quarter, finishing with 16 points, four rebounds and two steals in 18 minutes.

Tyler Hansbrough started for the third straight game, and while his numbers weren't overwhelming (six points, three rebounds), he was a defensive presence and brought significant energy.

Brandon Rush, finally waking up in this, his third year, played a well-rounded game, scoring a team-leading 20 points while playing terrific defense.

Darren Collison, still just a second-year player and a guy starting regularly for the first time, had his second straight productive game, in large part because he has become a lethal pick-and-pop guy with Hansbrough setting picks 16 feet from the basket.

Even Roy Hibbert, who has gone from MIP (Most Improved Player) to OMG in recent weeks, seems to be coming out of his funk.

"I'm getting some good bounces -- finally,'' Hibbert said. "There are times I thought I'd never make another basket. It's been tough. But that's two decent games in a row.''

At this point, I don't care if the Pacers make the playoffs, although it might be impossible to miss it in the Eastern Conference. It's time, past time, to sink or swim with these young players.

Nothing against the Pacers' veterans, who have played hard and played reasonably well, but if you're not going to be a .500 team with Jeff Foster, James Posey and Mike Dunleavy getting significant time, what's the point of burying the young players?

Look at Wednesday's starting lineup, and tell me you don't see a glimmer of hope:

Hibbert (third year). Rush (third year). Hansbrough (second year, although he lost most of his rookie year). Collison (second year, first year starting). And Danny Granger, a regular geezer in his sixth year.

What you like most, though, is these young players care, they care deeply, unlike some of the clowns who have worn Pacers uniforms in recent years.

There's George, who instead of pouting about his lack of playing time, has made a habit of rolling into the fieldhouse at 10:30 at night and shooting with a friend until midnight and beyond.

There's Hansbrough, who went through the worst year of his basketball life one season ago, sidelined by vertigo.

"It was awful, being on the team but not feeling like I was part of the team,'' he said. "All I could do, really, was watch. So now to be playing feels great.''

There's Hibbert, who almost cares too much, who has talked openly about visiting with a sports psychologist to help him with his mental game.

"Ever since that story came out (in The Star), guys on other teams have been like, 'You going off the deep end?' " said Hibbert, who has been inundated with offers from local psychologists. "I didn't mean for it to become a big story or anything, but I know a guy really helped (former Lawrence North star and current Memphis guard) Mike Conley Jr. before this year. And listening to Ron (Artest) talk about how much he was helped. The bottom line is, I can't get down on myself. I've just got to have fun playing this game.''

As for Rush, yes, some of us thought he was a lost cause, felt the Pacers would be better off without him. Three positive drug tests suggested to me that he didn't care enough about himself or his teammates to walk the straight and narrow.

ut he has made the most of his second chance, and for that, he deserves great credit. Now, there's focus and desire and even aggression to go along with that incredible athletic talent.

"You see it with a lot of players, they get to their third year and it's like they 'get it,' " Granger said. "Brandon definitely looks like one of those guys.''

It's understandably tough for O'Brien, who is in the final year of his contract, to stick with young players through thick and a lot of thin. He's being paid to win, to get the Pacers back to the playoffs for the first time in forever, and his future is on the line.

This, though, is the right approach. Let the kids play. Let them develop. And live with the results.











Jim really has been better with his line-ups the last few games, forced or not. Now if he could get Josh back in the line-up, keep Posey out, and play A.J. instead of T.J he would finally be doing what's needed to be done for years. But I guess baby steps are better than nothing. Gotta love our players for the most part.

ZepZach
01-13-2011, 03:49 AM
"What you like most, though, is these young players care, they care deeply, unlike some of the clowns who have worn Pacers uniforms in recent years."

This x100000. Seriously, when is the last time we had players on the floor (Collison, George, Granger, Hansbrough, Hibbert, Foster, Rush is getting better) that wanted to win for US. I've read it in interviews. They want the Pacers fans to be proud. That is a nice sea change to have.

special ed
01-13-2011, 04:00 AM
"If you're not going to be a .500 team with Foster, Posey and Dunleavy, what's the point of burying the young players?" Kravitz with a moment of clarity!
"If he could get Josh back in the lineup, keep Posey out and play A.J. instead of T.J....."
Right on again. Hasn't this been said here for a few weeks now?

Merz
01-13-2011, 04:01 AM
" Hasn't this been said here for a few weeks now?

More like a few years now.

CableKC
01-13-2011, 04:38 AM
Short of the regular "Geez.....did Kravitz just have someone summarize what the majority of those on PD has been saying for the last couple of months and simply give it to the editor?" response.....this is one of the better articles that Kravitz has written. I can't say I disagree one bit.

The Pacers motto for the rest of the season should simply be "sink or swim with the young Players".

bellisimo
01-13-2011, 05:21 AM
this is one time when i do not mind if Kravitz got the story by "measuring the pulse of PD" as it gives us a voice to reach a larger audience with what we've been screaming for...

hoops_guy
01-13-2011, 06:43 AM
[B]
There's George, who instead of pouting about his lack of playing time, has made a habit of rolling into the fieldhouse at 10:30 at night and shooting with a friend until midnight and beyond.



This right here is a perfect example of hope. Hope is something that has been lacking for the past couple of years.

HOOPFANATIC
01-13-2011, 07:14 AM
I still can't stand Basketball hating Kravitz. " The clowns", I assume ,he's talking about are the ones who were keeping the team playing competitively, and for the most part are now playing vital roles on better teams. I mean come on does he have to throw out Brandons drug thing every time he mentions him. Maybe it would be better if we didn't have a clown of a local media sports guy who poisons the air.

D-BONE
01-13-2011, 07:35 AM
TO: JOB
FROM: D-BONE
RE: Recent Approach

THANK YOU! PLEASE DON'T WAVER!

DaveP63
01-13-2011, 08:42 AM
This right here is a perfect example of hope. Hope is something that has been lacking for the past couple of years.

And it shows on the court, that's the best part.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 09:24 AM
I'm constantly amazed how so often I see things completely different.

I think Kravitz is full of it.

Lets look at what is really going on here. Is Jim playing the young guys or is he going small? Many of you think like Kravitz that Jim is playing the young guys. I don't see it.

Is AJ Price playing at all? No

Josh has gone from averaging over 20 minutes and starting every game to either not playing or in two cases not even being on the active roster.

Lance hasn't seen anytime.

Is Foster playing more than ever? Yes.

Is Dunleavy playing as much or more than ever? Yes. Ford is still playing.

So where is the change. Tyler is starting but he replaced a younger player so the net change there is basically none. George is getting some time -that is the only real change as far as going from vets to young players. But George hasn't averaged 15 minutes per game lately. Posey is getting fewer minutes.

This one paragraph in particular got under my skin

Nothing against the Pacers' veterans, who have played hard and played reasonably well, but if you're not going to be a .500 team with Jeff Foster, James Posey and Mike Dunleavy getting significant time, what's the point of burying the young players?

As I mentioned Foster is playing more than ever, Mike as much as ever and Posey is still getting some minutes. Plus one of the biggest reasons why the Pacers have played better in 3 or the past 4 games is precisely because of Jeff and Mike. So I say Kravy is full of it.

So I think the statement "He's playing the young guys" is simply false.

I think what happened is Jim decided Josh just wasn't getting it done. I think Tyler has been playing well in practice. I think George has been showing improvement, and Jim wants to spread the floor more, wants to go small - and one way to do that is play George some. Also with the offense struggling, one way to help the offense is to go small. Play Danny, Mike and Rush more together. (that has been the biggest change IMO)

back to the point of going young. I will predict if you map out the minutes of young vs. old. Old I guess is Mike, Jeff, Posey and Ford - young is everyone else except Granger I would bet you the young are getting marginally more minutes now than they were 7 or 8 games ago. maybe an average of 2 or 3 minutes more per game. But no real change - I don't see a big youth movement.

Bball
01-13-2011, 09:43 AM
UB,
I think the point is he's playing Tyler and George and sticking with Collison down the stretch... and that's a significant change....

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 09:48 AM
UB,
I think the point is he's playing Tyler and George and sticking with Collison down the stretch... and that's a significant change....

As I mentioned Tyler replaced Josh - 1 young guy for 1 youing guy. Now I think that is a great decision and a nice upgrade there. But that move has nothing to do with "going younger"

George - Ok. But I see him playing more not as a means to "play the young guys" but a means to go smaller and get more offense on the floor.

Collison has been finishing a lot of games before the past 4. I can go back and check - but starting around mid December he started finishing, and startted averaging 32 - 34 minutes per game.

Bball
01-13-2011, 09:55 AM
As I mentioned Tyler replaced Josh - 1 young guy for 1 youing guy. Now I think that is a great decision and a nice upgrade there. But that move has nothing to do with "going younger"

George - Ok. But I see him playing more not as a means to "play the young guys" but a means to go smaller and get more offense on the floor.

Collison has been finishing a lot of games before the past 4. I can go back and check - but starting around mid December he started finishing, and startted averaging 32 - 34 minutes per game.

How much has Posey been playing?

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 10:09 AM
Lets look at Collison and the false notion that Jim is just now using Collison to finish games. No, that hapopened 30 days ago.

I went back and looked at the last 13 games. Going back to December 15th in the game against the lakers. Looking at Collison - he has averaged 31 minutes per game. But there has been no increase during that time. The numbers are listed below.

But over the last 13 games, Collison has finished every game but 1 - the only game he did not finish was the Grizzlies game. (full discolsure: in the blowout to the Hawks last Saturday, Price replaced Collison with 2 minutes to go)

here are the average minutes per game reverse order - I don't see any change, I don't see a general increase in the minutes that Collison is getting since Mid December.
31
36
28
30
31
30
32
33
28
35
30
28
33

vnzla81
01-13-2011, 10:13 AM
So is UB trying to tell us that JOB is still the same old clown? I believe he is still the same clown, he is just playing the game different now.

Trophy
01-13-2011, 10:22 AM
We can make the playoffs with the young guys.

When Tyler and Paul were benched, we struggled the whole month.

When they played consistent rotation minutes, we were winning more.

Also Danny, Roy, and DC are starting to get their offense and defense going again.

December was a bad month and hopefully we don't see that play again.

Sparhawk
01-13-2011, 10:33 AM
Short of the regular "Geez.....did Kravitz just have someone summarize what the majority of those on PD has been saying for the last couple of months and simply give it to the editor?" response.....this is one of the better articles that Kravitz has written. I can't say I disagree one bit.

The Pacers motto for the rest of the season should simply be "sink or swim with the young Players".

I'll make that my new sig.

Trader Joe
01-13-2011, 10:45 AM
There's George, who instead of pouting about his lack of playing time, has made a habit of rolling into the fieldhouse at 10:30 at night and shooting with a friend until midnight and beyond.



And his heart towards Paul George grew three sizes that day...

Trader Joe
01-13-2011, 10:48 AM
Posey getting DNPs in favor of George, Granger, and Hansbrough getting his usual 30 minutes a game split between them is going younger, how is that hard to understand?

1984
01-13-2011, 10:55 AM
This is no youth movement. It is Jim O'Brien's most recent shuffle of an ambiguous deck. It just so happens that young players happened to be dealt this particular hand. There is no ryhme or reason - just spaghetti being thrown at a wall.

Sorry Dahntay, apparently you're the joker who was pulled out before the deck was shuffled.

vnzla81
01-13-2011, 10:59 AM
This is no youth movement. It is Jim O'Brien's most recent shuffle of an ambiguous deck. It just so happens that young players happened to be dealt this particular hand. There is no ryhme or reason - just spaghetti being thrown at a wall.

Sorry Dahntay, apparently you're the joker who was pulled out before the deck was shuffled.

I don't think is spaghetti, that smells more like $***

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 11:01 AM
OK, here are Roy's minuytes for the past 14 games. IN reverse order. If anything he is playing fewer minutes lately than he was earlier - at least not consistantly
16
23
19
36
16
31
15
24
31
25
33
33
36
30

1984
01-13-2011, 11:08 AM
OK, here are Roy's minuytes for the past 14 games. IN reverse order. If anything he is playing fewer minutes lately than he was earlier - at least not consistantly
16
23
19
36
16
31
15
24
31
25
33
33
36
30

Exactly, look how inconsistent his minutes are. Spaghetti I tell you! Spaghetti!

colts19
01-13-2011, 11:08 AM
I tend to agree with Unclebuck on this one. I don't really see a change to the younger players and if I did I wouldn't trust it because Obe can change at any second.

We won the last 2 games because Granger played well and Hibbert wasn't horrible as he has been the last 2 weeks. I do see collison as playing a game more suited to his skills and I think Tyler's ability to hit the mid range jumper has helped with that.

I don't care if Lance ever plays but I would like to see Josh get some more time on the court with Solo and Posey in suits most of the time. I would like to see AJ start getting most of TJ's time.

The facts are that your best player has to play at a high level or your not going to win. Looking at you Danny.

1984
01-13-2011, 11:09 AM
Agreed. As Danny, Roy, and Darren go - so do the Pacers.

owl
01-13-2011, 11:48 AM
As I mentioned Tyler replaced Josh - 1 young guy for 1 youing guy. Now I think that is a great decision and a nice upgrade there. But that move has nothing to do with "going younger"

George - Ok. But I see him playing more not as a means to "play the young guys" but a means to go smaller and get more offense on the floor.

Collison has been finishing a lot of games before the past 4. I can go back and check - but starting around mid December he started finishing, and startted averaging 32 - 34 minutes per game.

It does not matter what excuse he is giving, he is playing more young guys for more minutes in critical times.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 11:55 AM
He is playing them because he was told too

I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

Bird talked with him

Peck
01-13-2011, 11:58 AM
I not only agree with Uncle Buck but I'll one up him.

I don't mean to be Commander Buzzkill here but to me the one big change between the last two games and all of the games before it is that our outside shot is dropping. Not just three's, I'm sure the % is probably close to the same.

But shots from 15 - 20 ' are going in. Tyler alone has made several mid range jumpers (which IMO spreads the floor far more than James Posey's occasional 3 point shot).

We are still living and dying by the jump shot.

I am not pleased with the rotation to be honest with you, small ball is a gimmick that can work for some time but soon (probably tomorrow night) your going to hit a young athletic team that can guard this and it will once again come down to if you can hit your jump shots or not. We hit, we have a chance we don't no hope in h#ll.

McRoberts being taken out of the active roster is just unbelievable.

Sure it's been nice seeing some Paul George and Tyler never EVER should have been getting the lack of time he got in December. But I don't think that this is for one second better or even close to as good as we were back in November when he was splitting the 4 spot between Josh & Tyler.

The reason Roy is getting inconsistant min. is two fold. 1. He's just sucked so he doesn't deserve the min. 2. He is not that good when he has to be the only big on the floor, he is much better off with a power forward who can help bang and patrol the paint.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 12:06 PM
The reason Roy is getting inconsistant min. is two fold. 1. He's just sucked so he doesn't deserve the min. 2. He is not that good when he has to be the only big on the floor, he is much better off with a power forward who can help bang and patrol the paint.

I've often said that Roy is a lot like Rik Smits and I think your are correct he does need another big guy next to him just like Rik did. Once Dale got there I think that helped Rik as much as anything. Where we likely disagree I would rather Tyler or Jeff play alongside Roy than Josh. And we also obviously disagree in that I like going small from time to time (going small to me means moving Danny to the power forward) because I like having Danny, Mike and Brandon on the floor at the same time - in certain situations of course

Peck
01-13-2011, 12:08 PM
He is playing them because he was told too

I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

Bird talked with him

I won't say that Bird said to him "Jim you will play X player so many min. a game".

But I will say that it is quite possible that after the N.Y. game (the game he should have been fired over, well one of many but really that would have been both the perfect time and reason) that in their daily phone call strategy to talk about the club that Bird may have said something along the lines of "Jimmy we want to start looking at what some of our other players can do, we need to be making some decisions and we need to see them in some game time to do it".

Like I said we could not have been the only people who watched that game in stunned disbelief that James Posey played every single min. of the 4th quarter while both Josh & Tyler set on the bench.

For me that is the turning point of the season right there. That was almost as bad as you can get from him coaching wise. I mean talk about absolute either hubris, stubborness or folishness (take your pick) to play that line up against a young athletic team for that extended length of time and then at the end when Jeff fouled out to replace him with Solomon Jones instead of Roy or Josh was just dumbfounding.

No, I don't believe that anyone is telling Jim who to and not to play but I don't think that it's impossible that someone did tell him a different overall team stratagy.

Peck
01-13-2011, 12:18 PM
I've often said that Roy is a lot like Rik Smits and I think your are correct he does need another big guy next to him just like Rik did. Once Dale got there I think that helped Rik as much as anything. Where we likely disagree I would rather Tyler or Jeff play alongside Roy than Josh. And we also obviously disagree in that I like going small from time to time (going small to me means moving Danny to the power forward) because I like having Danny, Mike and Brandon on the floor at the same time - in certain situations of course

No believe it or not we don't disagree.

I don't really care if it's Josh or Tyler. As you know I'm like you in I do not watch College ball and honestly don't care what goes on there so I have no preconcieved notion as to who should get what.

I like Josh much more than Troy Murpy so that covers last year. This year I like both and think both should play and honestly I like it when they play together on the floor as I think they compliment each other quite well.

Also while I am never going to obviously say "let's go small" I believe in using your options. Just like I was never offended that Josh was working on a three point shot (if he can hit it great it's just another weapon in his arsenal) I am not offended if a coach decides that this is a good option. I think that in the future the combination of Granger, Rush & George will be deadly.

But my problem with Jim is that he tends to get into this mode of thinking and all other options be damned. That's like the nonsense of having a big on the inactive list when you have zero intention of ever playing Lance or A.J. one min. of time.

BTW, let me state that I really like the player that Jeff has become since he has gotten older and less athletic.

1984
01-13-2011, 12:29 PM
Historically speaking, O'Brien does not favor "youth movements." O'Brien has always played the players whom he feels give his team the most competitive lineup. Allegedly, Danny Ainge wanted to have a youth movement in Boston. However, O'Brien rejected the plan because he wanted to "win now."

There is no substance to any of the comments made regarding Bird's alleged, "chat" with O'Brien - they are speculative.

imbtyler
01-13-2011, 12:31 PM
He is playing them because he was told too

I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

Bird talked with him

I think a lot of what Jim's been doing lately has been Bird-fueled. I think that Bird has taken realization of what the fans want (young players playing, better behavior from Jim, Jim gone, etc.) and he's giving orders for Jim to follow. This way, the Pacers FO doesn't have to worry about having a new head coaching contract AND Jim's contract on their hands, despite it being only for the rest of the season.

Bird can't afford to just get rid of O'Brien yet, and as long as he's following Bird's criteria, they don't have to waste money (which they're already doing), and/or bring in a bunch of press after we fire our coach. Last time I checked, the Pacers weren't in a great place to just throw money around.

Hicks
01-13-2011, 12:38 PM
I'm constantly amazed how so often I see things completely different.

I think Kravitz is full of it.

Lets look at what is really going on here. Is Jim playing the young guys or is he going small? Many of you think like Kravitz that Jim is playing the young guys. I don't see it.

Is AJ Price playing at all? No

Josh has gone from averaging over 20 minutes and starting every game to either not playing or in two cases not even being on the active roster.

Lance hasn't seen anytime.

Is Foster playing more than ever? Yes.

Is Dunleavy playing as much or more than ever? Yes. Ford is still playing.

So where is the change. Tyler is starting but he replaced a younger player so the net change there is basically none. George is getting some time -that is the only real change as far as going from vets to young players. But George hasn't averaged 15 minutes per game lately. Posey is getting fewer minutes.

This one paragraph in particular got under my skin


As I mentioned Foster is playing more than ever, Mike as much as ever and Posey is still getting some minutes. Plus one of the biggest reasons why the Pacers have played better in 3 or the past 4 games is precisely because of Jeff and Mike. So I say Kravy is full of it.

So I think the statement "He's playing the young guys" is simply false.

I think what happened is Jim decided Josh just wasn't getting it done. I think Tyler has been playing well in practice. I think George has been showing improvement, and Jim wants to spread the floor more, wants to go small - and one way to do that is play George some. Also with the offense struggling, one way to help the offense is to go small. Play Danny, Mike and Rush more together. (that has been the biggest change IMO)

back to the point of going young. I will predict if you map out the minutes of young vs. old. Old I guess is Mike, Jeff, Posey and Ford - young is everyone else except Granger I would bet you the young are getting marginally more minutes now than they were 7 or 8 games ago. maybe an average of 2 or 3 minutes more per game. But no real change - I don't see a big youth movement.

Right. I was feeling the same way when I read this earlier. Don't praise Jim for something he's hardly even doing. I wouldn't care at all if it was a forum member saying it, but this goes in front of a lot of ignorant eyeballs, and I don't like the idea that those folks will now think "Hey, O'Brien's finally doing the right thing," when, in fact, he's still not.

Although, as much as I want to believe it could, I doubt any quantity of public negativity towards the coach will make him leave any faster, so I suppose I still shouldn't care.

But Kravitz isn't paying attention. Again.

HC
01-13-2011, 12:45 PM
I still can't stand Basketball hating Kravitz. " The clowns", I assume ,he's talking about are the ones who were keeping the team playing competitively, and for the most part are now playing vital roles on better teams. I mean come on does he have to throw out Brandons drug thing every time he mentions him. Maybe it would be better if we didn't have a clown of a local media sports guy who poisons the air.

I like Brandon, but to be honest he asked for it. With the recent history around here you don't just waltz in and fail 3 drug screens before you have even established yourself.

Sookie
01-13-2011, 12:48 PM
I agree with UB, Peck and Hicks

Yes, he's playing George, and that's nice to see. And he's playing Tyler..but at the expense of Josh.

My personal theory is that JOB won't allow the young guys to cover a position.
He's playing Tyler now, so Josh doesn't play. He's playing Collison, so AJ doesn't play. There is a vet at every position.

Hicks
01-13-2011, 12:52 PM
Collison starts, AJ backs him up, TJ active in case of injury.

Rush/Danny start, George backs them up, Dunleavy plays as needed.

Tyler/Roy starts, Josh backs them up, Foster plays as needed.

Write a column patting Jim on the back when this is the norm.

owl
01-13-2011, 12:56 PM
I think that in the future the combination of Granger, Rush & George will be deadly.

BTW, let me state that I really like the player that Jeff has become since he has gotten older and less athletic.


Danny,Rush and George will be quite the trio especially if matched with a true PF.
I believe that is more Tyler than Josh. But Josh could be center with that bunch on
occasion. Jeff is still a very valuable player to have on your team with his hustle and
toughness. I will give Kravits some credit for pointing out we have players who are
commited to their craft.

pacer4ever
01-13-2011, 12:59 PM
Damm Paul get's some work in from 10 pm to mid night that is tight. I wish i could just go hoop at the fieldhouse whenever that would be the life.

pacergod2
01-13-2011, 01:05 PM
I think Bird may have said to Jim something more along the lines of we need to get our last two first round picks some playing time going into next year.

I also think that our offense was much different last night than it was a week or so ago. Last night, it seemed like the high post offense took a back seat to the pick and roll and the low post entry pass. We initiated our offense several times through the high post, but the big difference for me was that it was Hansborough and Foster doing it with Hibbert down low. I think the adjustments that may have been made were to keep the big fella down low more than before. I think his confidence was shaken because he is not capable of being the only big, especially when he is up top.

I think more of the adjustments that are being made on a personnel basis have to do with the sets being run while they are in the game. I think we are seeing mroe adjustments to game plan than we are to personnel. I like seeing George and Hansborough get minutes. I love that Ford has been relegated to 10-15 minutes per game. Posey is getting DNPs, but I think Posey will play a big role if we make the playoffs in his 10 minutes off the bench. We don't need more than that from him. He bangs down a couple of threes at the end of the second and beginning of the fourth and thats all we need from him. Foster is great to have out there. His hustle plays are contagious. He tips the ball out when he can't grab it. He fights through screens and between other guys for rebounds. I love the veteran presence on our team, it was just that there was a disproportionate emphasis on the things they do well in the game plan. I think the game plan has become much less reliant on the high post and it has caused us to be more difficult to guard. We make teams adjust to us if we go to the low post. If we go to the high post, the other PF has to guard us to 15+ feet or else we will hit that shot. We have utilized the pick and roll from the high post set more, which allows the read and react to be more effective. We have also allowed Darren to be more versatile by using the pick and roll more, which has enticed more ball movement. Foster and Hansorough have been great the last couple of games. I would like to see McRoberts at least active. Same with Price.

The long and short seems to me that the versatility we are using in our offense has more to do with our success than anything. Yes we are hitting our jump shots, which makes a huge difference, but those jump shots were much more open and came from many different sets (at least last night for sure).

Pacergeek
01-13-2011, 01:09 PM
you can't say that JOB is playing young guys if Lance and AJ aren't playing.

PacerHound
01-13-2011, 01:10 PM
With Jim no young player is ever safe as long as there is a vet in the building. If someone would have told us a month ago McRoberts would never get off the bench (he's even in street clothes now) who would have believed it?

Don't think Tyler's got anything sewn up here either. He really had it going in the 3<SUP>rd</SUP> quarter last night and even though he needed a rest who would have thought he would never get back in the game? He had 17 game minutes. I am not complaining but just saying don't think things are now settled into a safe consistent pattern.

If Tyler has just one bad game he is probably back on the pine (my opinion). What gets me is that Granger or Dunleavy or Posey, anyone as long as he is a vet, can stink the gym up and yet it doesn't matter. His playing time will not be in jeopardy. Seems like a double standard to me. With the young guys every shot, every pass, every defensive stand is a matter of life or death and of whether or not the world will stand. :)

pacers74
01-13-2011, 01:22 PM
I agree with most here. As long as Foster is getting 23 minutes, Ford is gettin 18, posey is getting 11, and S.Jones is getting 8 minutes while McRoberts, AJ Price and Lance get 0 minutes than it is not a youth movement.

I am glad we won and played well, but don't try to make it out to be something it wasn't. Kravitz should have just written about how well PG came in and played if he was trying to find something about the pacers to write about.

johndozark
01-13-2011, 01:25 PM
I say "Amen" to Hicks:

"Collison starts, AJ backs him up, TJ active in case of injury.

Rush/Danny start, George backs them up, Dunleavy plays as needed.

Tyler/Roy starts, Josh backs them up, Foster plays as needed.

Write a column patting Jim on the back when this is the norm."

That's good enough for me. My only difference is that I would not leave Ford active in all games, only select ones. With a ten-man rotation otherwise as Hicks suggests, D. Jones. S. Jones, Stephenson, Ford, and Posey could share the eleventh and twelfth spots on the active list, being activated according to injury and strategic needs within the ten-man rotation. I think that there are situations calling for D. Jones, that S. Jones has shown potential in some games, and we need to observe Stephenson when it makes sense. We know exactly what we have in Ford at PG and Posey at SF, and they should be active only when their particular skills are not being handled by two better people ahead of them.

Justin Tyme
01-13-2011, 02:00 PM
this is one of the better articles that Kravitz has written. I can't say I disagree one bit.


I have to totally agree.

I don't know why Jimmy is playing the young'ns, AND I don't really care. I just don't want him reverting back to his old ways. I can live w/o McBob and AJ not playing at the present time if this team can keep playing at this level.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 02:16 PM
I won't say that Bird said to him "Jim you will play X player so many min. a game".

But I will say that it is quite possible that after the N.Y. game (the game he should have been fired over, well one of many but really that would have been both the perfect time and reason) that in their daily phone call strategy to talk about the club that Bird may have said something along the lines of "Jimmy we want to start looking at what some of our other players can do, we need to be making some decisions and we need to see them in some game time to do it".

Like I said we could not have been the only people who watched that game in stunned disbelief that James Posey played every single min. of the 4th quarter while both Josh & Tyler set on the bench.

For me that is the turning point of the season right there. That was almost as bad as you can get from him coaching wise. I mean talk about absolute either hubris, stubborness or folishness (take your pick) to play that line up against a young athletic team for that extended length of time and then at the end when Jeff fouled out to replace him with Solomon Jones instead of Roy or Josh was just dumbfounding.

No, I don't believe that anyone is telling Jim who to and not to play but I don't think that it's impossible that someone did tell him a different overall team strategy.

Good point Peck, and I probably shouldn't have used "told". I do not believe for one minute that Jim woke up one day and said "I think Tyler and George deserve playing time." so maybe "told" was a poor choice of words

I do think Bird brought this up with Jim, and they came to a mutual agreement to go this route

Justin Tyme
01-13-2011, 02:18 PM
I'm constantly amazed how so often I see things completely different.

I think Kravitz is full of it.

Lets look at what is really going on here. Is Jim playing the young guys or is he going small? Many of you think like Kravitz that Jim is playing the young guys. I don't see it.

Is AJ Price playing at all? No

Josh has gone from averaging over 20 minutes and starting every game to either not playing or in two cases not even being on the active roster.

Lance hasn't seen anytime.

Is Foster playing more than ever? Yes.

Is Dunleavy playing as much or more than ever? Yes. Ford is still playing.

So where is the change. Tyler is starting but he replaced a younger player so the net change there is basically none. George is getting some time -that is the only real change as far as going from vets to young players. But George hasn't averaged 15 minutes per game lately. Posey is getting fewer minutes.

This one paragraph in particular got under my skin


As I mentioned Foster is playing more than ever, Mike as much as ever and Posey is still getting some minutes. Plus one of the biggest reasons why the Pacers have played better in 3 or the past 4 games is precisely because of Jeff and Mike. So I say Kravy is full of it.

So I think the statement "He's playing the young guys" is simply false.

I think what happened is Jim decided Josh just wasn't getting it done. I think Tyler has been playing well in practice. I think George has been showing improvement, and Jim wants to spread the floor more, wants to go small - and one way to do that is play George some. Also with the offense struggling, one way to help the offense is to go small. Play Danny, Mike and Rush more together. (that has been the biggest change IMO)

back to the point of going young. I will predict if you map out the minutes of young vs. old. Old I guess is Mike, Jeff, Posey and Ford - young is everyone else except Granger I would bet you the young are getting marginally more minutes now than they were 7 or 8 games ago. maybe an average of 2 or 3 minutes more per game. But no real change - I don't see a big youth movement.


I definately see your point. One I hadn't considered. Seeing Hans start, George play, and what looked like Collison playing more minutes or more at game end, and less of Posey maybe blurred my vision of Jimmy being Jimmy.... playing SMALLBALL. Glad you pointed it out, I never even considered it. LOL, by being duped by how I thought Jimmy had changed while you saw what it really was. I really had hoped Jimmy at last had seen the light. FOOLISH FOOLISH ME!

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 02:22 PM
I think Bird may have said to Jim something more along the lines of we need to get our last two first round picks some playing time going into next year.

I also think that our offense was much different last night than it was a week or so ago. Last night, it seemed like the high post offense took a back seat to the pick and roll and the low post entry pass. We initiated our offense several times through the high post, but the big difference for me was that it was Hansborough and Foster doing it with Hibbert down low. I think the adjustments that may have been made were to keep the big fella down low more than before. I think his confidence was shaken because he is not capable of being the only big, especially when he is up top.

I think more of the adjustments that are being made on a personnel basis have to do with the sets being run while they are in the game. I think we are seeing mroe adjustments to game plan than we are to personnel. I like seeing George and Hansborough get minutes. I love that Ford has been relegated to 10-15 minutes per game. Posey is getting DNPs, but I think Posey will play a big role if we make the playoffs in his 10 minutes off the bench. We don't need more than that from him. He bangs down a couple of threes at the end of the second and beginning of the fourth and thats all we need from him. Foster is great to have out there. His hustle plays are contagious. He tips the ball out when he can't grab it. He fights through screens and between other guys for rebounds. I love the veteran presence on our team, it was just that there was a disproportionate emphasis on the things they do well in the game plan. I think the game plan has become much less reliant on the high post and it has caused us to be more difficult to guard. We make teams adjust to us if we go to the low post. If we go to the high post, the other PF has to guard us to 15+ feet or else we will hit that shot. We have utilized the pick and roll from the high post set more, which allows the read and react to be more effective. We have also allowed Darren to be more versatile by using the pick and roll more, which has enticed more ball movement. Foster and Hansorough have been great the last couple of games. I would like to see McRoberts at least active. Same with Price.

The long and short seems to me that the versatility we are using in our offense has more to do with our success than anything. Yes we are hitting our jump shots, which makes a huge difference, but those jump shots were much more open and came from many different sets (at least last night for sure).


very well said, you make some great points, especially about Posey

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 02:34 PM
I think a lot of what Jim's been doing lately has been Bird-fueled. I think that Bird has taken realization of what the fans want (young players playing, better behavior from Jim, Jim gone, etc.) and he's giving orders for Jim to follow. This way, the Pacers FO doesn't have to worry about having a new head coaching contract AND Jim's contract on their hands, despite it being only for the rest of the season.

Bird can't afford to just get rid of O'Brien yet, and as long as he's following Bird's criteria, they don't have to waste money (which they're already doing), and/or bring in a bunch of press after we fire our coach. Last time I checked, the Pacers weren't in a great place to just throw money around.

yeah but if they fire Jim and replace him with say Frank Vogel, then there is no extra cost there right?

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 02:35 PM
Collison starts, AJ backs him up, TJ active in case of injury.

Rush/Danny start, George backs them up, Dunleavy plays as needed.

Tyler/Roy starts, Josh backs them up, Foster plays as needed.

Write a column patting Jim on the back when this is the norm.

Only two slight adjustments.

I think Mike needs to be a regular rotation player - 30 minutes a game.

I would also have Jeff backup Tyler and Roy and play Josh as needed.

I think this thread and my comments should prove that I don't always defend Jim and yet in fact it has very little to do with Jim O'brien, I just like to make sure criticism or praise is for the right reason - reasons that are true. And if you are someone who wants the youngsters played at almost all costs, then you shouldn't be praising Jim right now for playing the youngsters because only slight adjustments have been made in that direction.

if you are someone who wants George to get some regular minutes and Tyler to get some signficant regular minutes - then OK be happy.

CableKC
01-13-2011, 02:56 PM
He is playing them because he was told too

I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

Bird talked with him
Yeah...this is what I think to....and why I think that JO'B played Hansbrough some minutes last season as well.

CableKC
01-13-2011, 03:00 PM
But shots from 15 - 20 ' are going in. Tyler alone has made several mid range jumpers (which IMO spreads the floor far more than James Posey's occasional 3 point shot).

We are still living and dying by the jump shot.
This +1000 is what I've been saying before. In order to spread the floor...it's nice to do it all the way to the 3pt line...but you don't necessarily have to go that far....you can still spread out the defense ( admittedly not as much as going out to the 3pt line ) by taking a 15 foot jumpshot.

I'm glad that Hansbrough is finally hitting at least some of those mid-range. I think that if McBob started practicing his mid-range jumpshot...he can probably get out of JO'Bs doghouse.

BobbyMac
01-13-2011, 03:00 PM
I'm very happy that Paul and Tyler have done the work needed to work their way into the rotation.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:06 PM
He is playing them because he was told too

I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

Bird talked with him

I don't believe that Bird told him too play anyone.

At most I believe Bird had told Jim his thoughts and opinions on who should play and who shouldn't. I'm sure Jim has given Bird's thoughts full consideration. But who knows Bird might want Posey to play more, maybe he wants ford to start. Why does everyone assume that Bird knows all and Jim is the dumb one.

OK, if Bird tells Jim what to do, then obviously Bird told Jim to play Posey earlier and all the substitutions mmeet Bird's approval. Why do we assume Bird only tells Jim what to do when Jim does what you like, and only when Jim does what you like. Does not stand up to logic

BillS
01-13-2011, 03:08 PM
So when folks were jumping all over O'Brien for saying that at some point Tyler would be starting, and for starting him in spite of the fact it was setting him up to fail, was that because Bird told him to?

Just checking.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 03:13 PM
Only two slight adjustments.

I think Mike needs to be a regular rotation player - 30 minutes a game.

I would also have Jeff backup Tyler and Roy and play Josh as needed.

I think this thread and my comments should prove that I don't always defend Jim and yet in fact it has very little to do with Jim O'brien, I just like to make sure criticism or praise is for the right reason - reasons that are true. And if you are someone who wants the youngsters played at almost all costs, then you shouldn't be praising Jim right now for playing the youngsters because only slight adjustments have been made in that direction.

if you are someone who wants George to get some regular minutes and Tyler to get some signficant regular minutes - then OK be happy.

Noted , its not all one sided as some believe

I just dont understand why just because Tyler starts , you bench Mc Bob the entire game

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:14 PM
So when folks were jumping all over O'Brien for saying that at some point Tyler would be starting, and for starting him in spite of the fact it was setting him up to fail, was that because Bird told him to?

Just checking.

Good point, Jim has always really liked Tyler - last season he played him as many minutes as the doctors allowed.

why didn't Tyler play much the first thurd of the season? Purely a guess on my part - this season Jim wanted to bring Tyler along slowly - he had a serious medical condition, was unable to practice at all for a long time. So bring him along slowly, make him prove in practice that he is ready and picking the defense and offense up. Some of you are probably laughing, but my scenerio makes a lot more sense then Bird told him too - OK why did Bird wait until January to tell him to play Tyler.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 03:16 PM
I'm very happy that Paul and Tyler have done the work needed to work their way into the rotation.

Classic,

I assume that is being sarcastic?

Since86
01-13-2011, 03:17 PM
So when folks were jumping all over O'Brien for saying that at some point Tyler would be starting, and for starting him in spite of the fact it was setting him up to fail, was that because Bird told him to?

Just checking.

I'll chime in on that one.

Regardless of his first two games, I don't think he's the answer at the PF position. I think he'll come down to earth, when teams start making adjustments for him. He's a good energy guy that will come off the bench, who gives you some quick points and rebounds. He's the guy that you put in when you need a spark, not the guy that can keep that level of play for extended amounts of time.

I just don't see the collective tools for him to stay so effective. Sorry if it reads as me "hating" on him, I'm just calling it like I see it. I really don't think it's a slam. I thought he'd be that kind of player from Day 1, and I've not saw anything to change my mind on it.

I will say this though, every team needs one of those guys. He will win you ballgames in his 10mins of great play. I don't mean any of it as a put down, I think he's an extremely important position to have on a team.

I still think Josh is the better option between the two to start, not because I like Josh, but because of the reasons I've laid out towards Tyler. And I still say they would be extremely effective having both of them on the floor at the same time. That's a lot of energy with two completely different skill sets to take care of, for a defense.


But more importantly to your comment Bill. Most people were upset not about Tyler starting, but about Jim messing with the lineup YET AGAIN for a player who was routinely getting DNP-CD. Let's not forget that many of us were calling for Tyler to play, before Jim announced he would be starting. Sorry that we wanted the lineup to show a little bit of stability.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 03:18 PM
I don't believe that Bird told him too play anyone.

At most I believe Bird had told Jim his thoughts and opinions on who should play and who shouldn't. I'm sure Jim has given Bird's thoughts full consideration. But who knows Bird might want Posey to play more, maybe he wants ford to start. Why does everyone assume that Bird knows all and Jim is the dumb one.

OK, if Bird tells Jim what to do, then obviously Bird told Jim to play Posey earlier and all the substitutions mmeet Bird's approval. Why do we assume Bird only tells Jim what to do when Jim does what you like, and only when Jim does what you like. Does not stand up to logic

If you check a post out i did a little earlier I said that "told" was a poor choice of words.

Of course it is pure speculation but I dont believe for one minute that Jim woke up one day and decided to start Tyler and play George

I do believe however, that Bird discussed his feelings with Jim and they came to a mutual agreement

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:24 PM
IfOf course it is pure speculation but I dont believe for one minute that Jim woke up one day and decided to start Tyler and play George



If Jim all of a sudden were to play lance 20 minutes every gasme - OK, then I would say that doesn't feel right. But Jim is a big fan of Tyler (see last year) and Jim thinks George is going to be really good in time. So my point is you are acting like Tyler and george are pulled from the D league or something. I fully expected both Tyler and George to play singificant minutes (Tyler more than George) later this year. Not surprised at all.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:27 PM
I'll chime in on that one.

Regardless of his first two games, I don't think he's the answer at the PF position. I think he'll come down to earth, when teams start making adjustments for him. He's a good energy guy that will come off the bench, who gives you some quick points and rebounds. He's the guy that you put in when you need a spark, not the guy that can keep that level of play for extended amounts of time.

I just don't see the collective tools for him to stay so effective. Sorry if it reads as me "hating" on him, I'm just calling it like I see it. I really don't think it's a slam. I thought he'd be that kind of player from Day 1, and I've not saw anything to change my mind on it.

I will say this though, every team needs one of those guys. He will win you ballgames in his 10mins of great play. I don't mean any of it as a put down, I think he's an extremely important position to have on a team.

I still think Josh is the better option between the two to start, not because I like Josh, but because of the reasons I've laid out towards Tyler. And I still say they would be extremely effective having both of them on the floor at the same time. That's a lot of energy with two completely different skill sets to take care of, for a defense.


But more importantly to your comment Bill. Most people were upset not about Tyler starting, but about Jim messing with the lineup YET AGAIN for a player who was routinely getting DNP-CD. Let's not forget that many of us were calling for Tyler to play, before Jim announced he would be starting. Sorry that we wanted the lineup to show a little bit of stability.

I've been sort of holding back my comments on Josh, because of my past history. But I'll just say Tyler brings so much more to the game than Josh ever could. Josh was given almost 30 games to start in the NBA and IMO I think he failed.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 03:28 PM
If Jim all of a sudden were to play lance 20 minutes every gasme - OK, then I would say that doesn't feel right. But Jim is a big fan of Tyler (see last year) and Jim thinks George is going to be really good in time. So my point is you are acting like Tyler and george are pulled from the D league or something. I fully expected both Tyler and George to play singificant minutes (Tyler more than George) later this year. Not surprised at all.

OK, I could see that but

are you at least intrigued by the timing of it? (right after Posey sucked and we blew the NY game for our 4th loss in a row I believe

Hicks
01-13-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm very happy that Paul and Tyler have done the work needed to work their way into the rotation.

Explain?

Hicks
01-13-2011, 03:30 PM
So when folks were jumping all over O'Brien for saying that at some point Tyler would be starting, and for starting him in spite of the fact it was setting him up to fail, was that because Bird told him to?

Just checking.

The same person said all of those things?

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 03:32 PM
I've been sort of holding back my comments on Josh, because of my past history. But I'll just say Tyler brings so much more to the game than Josh ever could. Josh was given almost 30 games to start in the NBA and IMO I think he failed.

I agree to some degree but I will say I think Josh was so worried about the way Jim wants him to play that he regressed

I mean in training camp Jim said (paraphrasing here) " Josh needs to only work on rebounding and defense, we dont expect him to hoist up 3's like Troy Murphy"

Then we hear of McBob shooting 200 plus 3 pointers a day

So I dont think ANY of us know what Jim is doing, and his reasoning

Not me, not you, not Bill S, or Flox NO One

We all speculate because we dont have access

so I have no problem saying you could be 100% correct and I could be way off base, or it could be the other way around

No one knows factually, we all make assumptions

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:33 PM
OK, I could see that but

are you at least intrigued by the timing of it? (right after Posey sucked and we blew the NY game for our 4th loss in a row I believe

Honestly, I think the timing has to do with the increased and significant practice time the pacers had where they had no games for 6 day stretch and a 5 day stretch. That and yes the team was struggling big time and changes were needed, and replacing Josh with Tyler made the most sense. In fact that was really the only change in the starting lineup that could be made. Mike and brandon were already switching bad and forth. Collison is still new and was starting to play a little better. Granger obviously wasn't going anywhere. Hibbert maybe but we have no one else at center. So the most obvious was Tyler for Josh.

Hicks
01-13-2011, 03:33 PM
Josh was given almost 30 games to start in the NBA and IMO I think he failed.

Explain?

Speed
01-13-2011, 03:35 PM
I hope Tyler and JMac both get to guard Griffin on Monday. Not that anyone can stop him the way they are playing but those two can bang and fly, respectively. At least make him earn stuff.

Since86
01-13-2011, 03:37 PM
I've been sort of holding back my comments on Josh, because of my past history. But I'll just say Tyler brings so much more to the game than Josh ever could. Josh was given almost 30 games to start in the NBA and IMO I think he failed.


Josh has most certainly not played the stretch 4 position very well.

But the Josh we've been seeing, isn't the the same player as he was. Jim asked him to do things that he shouldn't be doing. That's not Josh's fault, that's bad coaching.

Tyler plays inside the 3pt line. Josh needs to as well.

And as far as him starting 30 games. Who cares when he was given less than 15mins on many of those starts? He averaged 20mins a game. You know who also averaged 20mins a game during those 30? James Posey. Your backup is getting just as much time as your "starter," all while your starter is being asked to play outside of his skill set.

Obviously the results aren't going to be favorable.

But I'll let Mackey come in and show his per 36 numbers, which are damn good considering the situation he was in.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:37 PM
I agree to some degree but I will say I think Josh was so worried about the way Jim wants him to play that he regressed

I mean in training camp Jim said (paraphrasing here) " Josh needs to only work on rebounding and defense, we dont expect him to hoist up 3's like Troy Murphy"

Then we hear of McBob shooting 200 plus 3 pointers a day

So I dont think ANY of us know what Jim is doing, and his reasoning




Your order is backward. Josh was practicing the threes this summer. Jim's comments about not judging Josh based upon his three point shooting came during training camp. In fact I have a vague memory of some comments about Josh backing off the threes later in the summer - after summer league.

I do not think for one minutes that Jim wanted Josh to start shooting as many threes as he did in the later games. In fact I think that is one reason why Josh was benched because Jim didn't want him shooting so many threes. (I know no one will agree with me,)

Since86
01-13-2011, 03:40 PM
(I know no one will agree with me,)

Jim included.

Peck
01-13-2011, 03:42 PM
Honestly, I think the timing has to do with the increased and significant practice time the pacers had where they had no games for 6 day stretch and a 5 day stretch. That and yes the team was struggling big time and changes were needed, and replacing Josh with Tyler made the most sense. In fact that was really the only change in the starting lineup that could be made. Mike and brandon were already switching bad and forth. Collison is still new and was starting to play a little better. Granger obviously wasn't going anywhere. Hibbert maybe but we have no one else at center. So the most obvious was Tyler for Josh.

So his practices were so good on Monday & Tuesday (remember he was named the starter then not after 5 days) that he went from zero playing time to starter with extended min.

Josh by virtue was so bad that he went from starter to being inactive?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......

I have two parcels of land in Montana that I would like to talk to you about purchasing for a huge profit on your part.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:42 PM
Explain?

I don't really feel like getting off on a Josh tangent. But I thought he played a few decent games, but I still don't think he is very good.

A lot of you think I should like Josh because I like Jeff, afterall aren't they similar players? Jeff is much better rebounder, one-on-one defender, Jeff has extremely quick hands and feet, he has an uncanny nose for the ball and feel for the game. Josh can run and jump, good passer and I see nothing else at all. I don't feel Josh brings energy to the game like Jeff and Tyler do and if Josh doesn't bring that than what does he bring?

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:45 PM
So his practices were so good on Monday & Tuesday (remember he was named the starter then not after 5 days) that he went from zero playing time to starter with extended min.

Josh by virtue was so bad that he went from starter to being inactive?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......

I have two parcels of land in Montana that I would like to talk to you about purchasing for a huge profit on your part.

Come on. it has nothing to do with 1 or 2 good practices. It is a general improvement in practice over a period of time. (I meentioned the two weeks period of very few games because that merely allowed extra time for Tyler to work with the first unit). Like he is picking up the offense better, learning to run pick and rolls better, picking up team defense better - slowly but surely - and combine that with the team losing and Josh not playing well and so Tyler is moved into Josh's place. it wasn't like he was replacing a healthy kevin garnett. Josh didn't have far to fall.

Day-V
01-13-2011, 03:47 PM
I often hear people on this forum make the suggestion that Kravitz takes the "pulse" of PD and writes about it. However, after spending a semester talking Pacers with him, I can safely assume that he's never even heard of PacersDigest, or if he has, has never visited. The guy couldn't even navigate YouTube properly at times. I think the issues we've been addressing have been the issues addressed by the majority of the fanbase, as well.

Peck
01-13-2011, 03:48 PM
Come on. it has nothing to do with 1 or 2 good practices. It is a general improvement in practice over a period of time. (I meentioned the two weeks period of very few games because that merely allowed extra time for Tyler to work with the first unit). Like he is picking up the offense better, learning to run pick and rolls better, picking up team defense better - slowly but surely - and combine that with the team losing and Josh not playing well and so Tyler is moved into Josh's place. it wasn't like he was replacing a healthy kevin garnett

So then we are in agreement. O'Brien should have been fired immediately after the N.Y. game, you know the one where Tyler with all of his improvements from extended practices could not get off of the bench.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 03:55 PM
So then we are in agreement. O'Brien should have been fired immediately after the N.Y. game, you know the one where Tyler with all of his improvements from extended practices could not get off of the bench.

There were 4 full days of practice between the Knicks game and the Spurs game. But I'm not sure you are getting my entire point. I am not saying that all of a sudden out of the clear blue on the day after the Knicks game Tyler had a great practice and there you have it he starts for the next 10 years. I am saying that Tyler likely gradually improved since October and the two weeks where there was a lot of off days and full practices gave the coaching staff a lot of time to try some things, look at film, evaluate who should play, have meetings amongst themselves and you add that to the fact the team was playing bad and Josh was struggling - yes it seems logical that Josh was moved and replaced by Ty

As I mentioned what other lineup change could be made? None. can anyone name a change. I mean if if we did a poll three weeks ago and asked which lineup change is most likely.

Solo or Jeff replacing Roy
Tyler repalcing Josh
George replacing Granger
Mike and Brandon doesn't count as they have been interchangible.
Ford or AJ replacing Darren

I bet 75% would pick Tyler replacing Josh - and yet now many of you are acting as though it took an act of God to get it done. it was a LOGICAL MOVE.

BillS
01-13-2011, 04:00 PM
So when folks were jumping all over O'Brien for saying that at some point Tyler would be starting, and for starting him in spite of the fact it was setting him up to fail, was that because Bird told him to?

Just checking.


The same person said all of those things?

No, but that wasn't the point.

The point was that there was an action that people were upset at JOB for saying he might do, and that at least one other person was saying was a bad idea. Now that it looks like it is working out (though I actually agree with since86 that this probably won't last, I'll address that below) it was something Bird must have told JOB to do.

I just find it a little funny that BAD = JOB, GOOD = Bird.

Peck
01-13-2011, 04:02 PM
There were 4 full days of practice between the Knicks game and the Spurs game. But I'm not sure you are getting my entire point. I am not saying that all of a sudden out of the clear blue on the day after the Knicks game Tyler had a great practice and there you have it he starts for the next 10 years. I am saying that Tyler likely gradually improved since october 1st, and the two weeks where there was a lot of off days and full practices gave the coaching staff a lot of time to try some things, look at film, eveluate who should play, have meetings and you add that to the fact the team was playing bad and Josh was struggling - yes it seems logical that Josh was moved into the starting lineup.

As I mentioned what other lineup change could be made? None

Barring you unbelievable hatred of Josh McRoberts I partially agree with you. It was a lineup change worth making, however it should simply have been Tyler starts Josh backs him up. Just like it should have been Josh starts & Tyler backed him up.

In one aspect though this is mightily unfair to Josh. He may have not been killing the world but he wasn't playing bad and he is being punished for Roy & Danny sucking.

BillS
01-13-2011, 04:10 PM
I'll chime in on that one.

Regardless of his first two games, I don't think he's the answer at the PF position. I think he'll come down to earth, when teams start making adjustments for him. He's a good energy guy that will come off the bench, who gives you some quick points and rebounds. He's the guy that you put in when you need a spark, not the guy that can keep that level of play for extended amounts of time.

I agree with this, though I feel the same about Josh at a certain level. I think that is one reason you see a "rookie wall" and a "sophomore slump", because opponents have info and time to adjust to you. Your top players tend to have enough surprises to get through that period. Your next layer separates from the third layer by being able to catch on and then develop some extra tools.

I think this is what Josh did working on his long range shooting over the summer, for instance, which gives him that much more than he used to have.


But more importantly to your comment Bill. Most people were upset not about Tyler starting, but about Jim messing with the lineup YET AGAIN for a player who was routinely getting DNP-CD. Let's not forget that many of us were calling for Tyler to play, before Jim announced he would be starting. Sorry that we wanted the lineup to show a little bit of stability.

I understand, and agree that going from DNP-CD to starting boggles me as well, along with Josh's minutes vanishing. On the other hand, if the lineup shakeup involved removing the bulk of minutes from Posey, Solo, Dunleavy, and Foster, would many people be complaining about it being Yet Another Lineup Change?

CableKC
01-13-2011, 04:13 PM
I've often said that Roy is a lot like Rik Smits and I think your are correct he does need another big guy next to him just like Rik did. Once Dale got there I think that helped Rik as much as anything. Where we likely disagree I would rather Tyler or Jeff play alongside Roy than Josh. And we also obviously disagree in that I like going small from time to time (going small to me means moving Danny to the power forward) because I like having Danny, Mike and Brandon on the floor at the same time - in certain situations of course
I understand the need to go with Small Ball in certain situations and do think that it's beneficial in certain circumstances. IMHO, I think what Peck and many others are saying is that JO'B relies too heavily on going small ball where it is the "default" position to fall back on regardless of the situation...instead of the option to choose based on the specific situations where it would be better suited. But again, this is just a matter of debate and opinion.

So, let's expand this line of thought....what is the best 5 man lineup that we should be using to close out games against a "Small Ball" lineups?

and

What is the best 5 man lineup that we should be using to close out games against a "Non-Small Ball" lineups?

Ignoring "who you would like to play" ( as in including PG or Lance in the discussions just because they are the "youngins" that you want to see ) but taking into consideration "what is the best lineup that should be used" ( not always the same thing ), IMHO:

My guess is that for a "Small Ball" lineup, the best lineup to use should be:

DC/BRush/Dunleavy/Granger and either Hibbert or Foster ( depending on whose the better matchup ) at the Center spot.

and for the "Non-Small Ball" more "traditional" lineup, IMHO...the best lineup should be:

DC/BRush/Granger and some combination of Hansbrough, McBob, Foster or Hibbert ( depending on whose the better matchups ) at the PF/C positions.


The important thing to note here is that I don't think that Posey, Solo or TJ is in either lineups ( only cuz there is very little that they offer that none of the other Players can ). But that's JMHO.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 04:20 PM
My guess is that for a "Small Ball" lineup, the best lineup to use should be:

DC/BRush/Dunleavy/Granger and either Hibbert or Foster ( depending on whose the better matchup ) at the Center spot.


I agree 100%




and for the "Non-Small Ball" more "traditional" lineup, IMHO...the best lineup should be:

DC/BRush/Granger and some combination of Hansbrough, McBob, Foster or Hibbert ( depending on whose the better matchups ) at the PF/C positions.



I mostly agree, although I think there are games in fact probably more than 50% of the time when Mike should finish instead of Rush. And I don't think I would include Josh in that finishing group




The important thing to note here is that I don't think that Posey, Solo or TJ is in either lineups ( only cuz there is very little that they offer that none of the other Players can ). But that's JMHO.

With Collison's improved defense since mid December, I agree with you on Ford. Certainly on Solo. But if the pacers trail by 11 points with 1:50 left in the 4th quarter I could see where Posey might be a decent option (althiough in that circumatance i would probably go small and have granger play the 4.

Although I think Posey's best attributes are not shooting. His team defense is excellent, his experience, his toughness his leadership - sometimes he is needed on the floor. but often times you don't know when those times are going to come up, so I have no problem just not playing Posey

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 04:22 PM
Your order is backward. Josh was practicing the threes this summer. Jim's comments about not judging Josh based upon his three point shooting came during training camp. In fact I have a vague memory of some comments about Josh backing off the threes later in the summer - after summer league.

I do not think for one minutes that Jim wanted Josh to start shooting as many threes as he did in the later games. In fact I think that is one reason why Josh was benched because Jim didn't want him shooting so many threes. (I know no one will agree with me,)

my bad so timing was a little off but

doesnt change the fact that Jim said McBob didnt have to worry about scoring , only rebounding and defense

Then it comes out (probably before summer but quote made available to us in training camp) that Josh was shooting 200 3's a day

Jim also said they needed more "scoring from the PF position" hence Tyler was named starter

See the contradiction my friend? Jim says before camp Josh doesn't need to worry about scoring (direct quote) yet he removes Josh because he needs "more scoring out of the PF spot"

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 04:24 PM
Barring you unbelievable hatred of Josh McRoberts I partially agree with you.

I don't hate anyone. I would play Josh instead of Solo in almost all circumstances.

Big man rotations: I would start Roy and Tyler and use Jeff to back up both and I would play Jeff as many minutes as he can play as long as he can continue to play. That might be 15 mins per game. And even then I expect Jeff to miss some games. So in those cases I would be more than willing to play Josh

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Come on. it has nothing to do with 1 or 2 good practices. It is a general improvement in practice over a period of time. (I meentioned the two weeks period of very few games because that merely allowed extra time for Tyler to work with the first unit). Like he is picking up the offense better, learning to run pick and rolls better, picking up team defense better - slowly but surely - and combine that with the team losing and Josh not playing well and so Tyler is moved into Josh's place. it wasn't like he was replacing a healthy kevin garnett. Josh didn't have far to fall.

No trying to be argumentative here Buck but remember before last year Jim said players must prove in practice they earn playing time

Then Tyler gets playing time all of sudden after missing all of training camp, and it was his rookie year, so how did Tyler "earn" playing time?

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Jim also said they needed more "scoring from the PF position" hence Tyler was named starter

See the contradiction my friend? Jim says before camp Josh doesn't need to worry about scoring (direct quote) yet he removes Josh because he needs "more scoring out of the PF spot"

OK, I'm not sure I am going to be able to explain my thoughts very well on this. Yes Jim said they need more scoring from the PF position. But also he knows that Josh is not capable of providing it, so when Jim determined that the team was going to keep losing if they didn't get more scoring from the PF psoition - he didn't go to Josh and tell him to start shooting more threes in the games, Jim rightly so decided that Josh simply cannot provide the scoring that is needed. so he changed the lineup.

What changed from the time Jim installed Josh into the lineup until last week. The team around Josh proved they could not score enough. It wasn't like Josh changed, Jim though the team around Josh could score enough to make up for Josh lack of scoring. so Josh was not evaluated based upon shooting because Jim knew Josh could not provide that.

I don't ask anyone to ever agree with me, but I do ask that you understand my point. And as I said I'm not sure I made it very well here

Since86
01-13-2011, 04:31 PM
I understand, and agree that going from DNP-CD to starting boggles me as well, along with Josh's minutes vanishing. On the other hand, if the lineup shakeup involved removing the bulk of minutes from Posey, Solo, Dunleavy, and Foster, would many people be complaining about it being Yet Another Lineup Change?

Depends on how long the Yet Another Lineup Change gets. If those players sit down for a few games, only to be re-inserted 10 games later, with whoever replacing them being shown the bench, then I'd rather Jim keep the first lineup in tact.

CableKC
01-13-2011, 04:32 PM
With Collison's improved defense since mid December, I agree with you on Ford. Certainly on Solo. But if the pacers trail by 11 points with 1:50 left in the 4th quarter I could see where Posey might be a decent option (althiough in that circumatance i would probably go small and have granger play the 4.
Unless Posey is absolutely on fire from behind the line, I'd live with a BRush/Dunleavy/Granger lineup and Dunleavy's Defense then having Posey in there purely for defensive purposes and the ability to hit a 3pt shot.

Posey does very little for me unless it's one of those VERY UNIQUE and RARE occurrances where he would make WAY more sense then having Dunleavy on the floor.

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 04:34 PM
No trying to be argumentative here Buck but remember before last year Jim said players must prove in practice they earn playing time

Then Tyler gets playing time all of sudden after missing all of training camp, and it was his rookie year, so how did Tyler "earn" playing time?

Jim said that several years ago (not to suggest he didn't say it last season)

so are you saying that Bird told Jim to play Tyler last season (and that was why even though he didn't play in training camp) and yet this season when Tyler did play in training camp Bird waited until January to tell Jim to play Tyler - that makes no sense. if he told Jim to play Tyler to start off the season last year then why not this year too, and why wait until January - why would Bird wait

CableKC
01-13-2011, 04:35 PM
And I don't think I would include Josh in that finishing group
I think that it should be based on the situation and matchups. I don't think that McBob is so far gone on the offensive and defensive end that his other skills do not lend anything to the lineup. For example...if we needed some shotblocking and there was a PF that McBob could defend...I would really prefer to have a Granger/McBob/Hibbert on the floor.

But again...it's based off of the situation.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 04:45 PM
What changed from the time Jim installed Josh into the lineup until last week. The team around Josh proved they could not score enough. It wasn't like Josh changed, Jim though the team around Josh could score enough to make up for Josh lack of scoring. so Josh was not evaluated based upon shooting because Jim knew Josh could not provide that.

I don't ask anyone to ever agree with me, but I do ask that you understand my point. And as I said I'm not sure I made it very well here

That I can see, although I think you would agree Jim seems to change his mind about things at least monthly

not sure yet if that is good or bad

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 04:48 PM
Jim said that several years ago (not to suggest he didn't say it last season)

so are you saying that Bird told Jim to play Tyler last season (and that was why even though he didn't play in training camp) and yet this season when Tyler did play in training camp Bird waited until January to tell Jim to play Tyler - that makes no sense. if he told Jim to play Tyler to start off the season last year then why not this year too, and why wait until January - why would Bird wait

no, not at all

My point was Jim contradicts himself consistently.

If you say "players earn time on practice" then you have a player , in his rookie year, who was injured all of training camp and hasnt practiced suddenly get playing time once he returns from IR

The thing is I agree with you that Jim likes Tyler, but this is the same Jim who once said how we need to getter better athletes , some defensive specialists

so Bird goes out and gets both Jones's

Now obie doesn't like that D Jones because he is not a 3pt specialist so he makes him inactive

apparently he was good enough to be a starter on the WCF Nuggets and a "Kobe stopper", yet on an underachieving , (at the time no defense) under 500 team had no use for him?

That is what bothers me so much about Jim

Its not his in game adjustments as it is he seems to constantly reinvent the wheel, and the wheels always fall off

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 04:50 PM
My point was Jim contradicts himself consistently.



well I agree with that. And he tinkers too much and yet many on this board say he is stubborn

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 04:57 PM
well I agree with that. And he tinkers too much and yet many on this board say he is stubborn

and the ironic thing is if Jim would loosen up a bit, try and stick to a rotation, and play the best player possible regardless of how many years they have been playing, I would be not nearly as mad

I mean we are a MUCH better defensive team than last year, its like night and day, and I can not put that to the sole aspect of Murphy being traded

Jim deserves credit for that

I guess thats why he makes me so angry because he does actually have some good abilities in coaching

Day-V
01-13-2011, 05:01 PM
I mean we are a MUCH better defensive team than last year, its like night and day, and I can not put that to the sole aspect of Murphy being traded

I can.

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 05:02 PM
I can.

all?

even if it was 50% that leaves the coaching staff 50%

Unclebuck
01-13-2011, 05:05 PM
I guess thats why he makes me so angry because he does actually have some good abilities in coaching

Wait, what? Can I quote you on that. In fact is anyone allowed to say such a thing.

On the defense improvement question: I credit or blame coaching almost entirely for team defense. However coaches get a lot less credit or blame for individual player defense

90'sNBARocked
01-13-2011, 05:18 PM
Wait, what? Can I quote you on that. In fact is anyone allowed to say such a thing.

On the defense improvement question: I credit or blame coaching almost entirely for team defense. However coaches get a lot less credit or blame for individual player defense

absolutely

I get PO'd at Jim more for his lack of a consistent line up and his mental mind games he plays with his players

from a strictly coaching perspective the man CAN coach, he is in the NBA not by accident but by paying his dues

I have liked some of his moves but his personality or lack thereof is what angers me the most, not his coaching

And more importantly it is just time for a change, as you said. he has had four years, and we just need a new voice

but I do agree the man can coach

Peck
01-13-2011, 05:23 PM
well I agree with that. And he tinkers too much and yet many on this board say he is stubborn

The stubborness comes from Jim's default setting.

Hey look I'll give him credit, he gave it a valiant go this year. I was pretty happy with the way things started off. He had a center and a power forward in the game for the most part (I do not consider Posey a power forward).

But how many of us new that once things didn't go well that his answer would be this? I've said it before & I'll say it again, he can coach almost any type of way you want to play. He can coach half court slog ball or fast breaks with motion offense.

However at the end of the day he has one style that he prefers more than any other and by default he will switch to it.

Now by itself that is not really a big fault, we all have our security blankets in life. But the problem is when he does it to such an extent that he limits his other options that he becomes stubborn.

Example, you and I both know that there is/was no way in hell that Lance was getting off of that bench the other night. So why did he have to have Lance active and Solomon inactive?

Sookie
01-13-2011, 05:32 PM
all?

even if it was 50% that leaves the coaching staff 50%

75% Troy leaving
20% Hibbert's improvement
5% Danny's improvement (or it was..he's slowed down there some too)

But, I never blamed JOB for defense in the first place. Other than the fact that he'd play Troy instead of Josh..or the ridiculous small ball.

Your defense isn't going to be good with Roy and Troy in the middle. No matter what sort of system the coach thinks up.

I'll go on record as saying that I don't think JOB is that bad of a coach off the court. As in, his offensive system isn't bad, it's a little complicated, but it's paul ball mixed with philly style motion offense. It's probably better run in the college game (perhaps even with women) because I think team chemistry and bball IQ is necessary to run it.

His defensive system isn't bad.

It's always been the in game stuff (well..and his comments to the press.) I've repeated that his issues are player adjustments, player rotations, and in game play calls. (The TJ iso..the Darren Iso..The Danny iso....I think I saw an AJ iso in preseason..that all needs to stop..jesus call a pick or something)

That along with a few hangups (VET MUST PLAY)

My problem is, I consider the latter stuff to be far more important. I think..unless they are just plain awful, most offenses and defenses can work with the right players (and I do think we have some players that this motion offense works with. Unfortunatly, now we don't play two of them..)

Which is why I can honestly say, I don't know that I've seen a worse coach than O'brien. Because the player adjustments, substitution patterns, and in game calls are SO bad.

as for the recent changes..I think..Larry Bird suggested to JOB that he wanted his first round picks to get some time. And with JOB playing small ball, meaning Dun/Danny/Posey are all playing minutes at the 4, he probably figured he'd activate either Lance or AJ just in case he needed them to play a few minutes at SG.

flox
01-13-2011, 06:07 PM
The stubborness comes from Jim's default setting.

Hey look I'll give him credit, he gave it a valiant go this year. I was pretty happy with the way things started off. He had a center and a power forward in the game for the most part (I do not consider Posey a power forward).

But how many of us new that once things didn't go well that his answer would be this? I've said it before & I'll say it again, he can coach almost any type of way you want to play. He can coach half court slog ball or fast breaks with motion offense.

However at the end of the day he has one style that he prefers more than any other and by default he will switch to it.

Now by itself that is not really a big fault, we all have our security blankets in life. But the problem is when he does it to such an extent that he limits his other options that he becomes stubborn.

Example, you and I both know that there is/was no way in hell that Lance was getting off of that bench the other night. So why did he have to have Lance active and Solomon inactive?


In case it was a blowout either way, he could get some burn.

Once again, Kravitz shows why I don't like Indy Star coverage.

MyFavMartin
01-13-2011, 06:39 PM
Maybe while Jim's at it with the youth movement, he can move TJ to the bench and give AJ his minutes.

Sookie
01-13-2011, 09:52 PM
Cant Area 55 even get .5%

I'll give you Danny's 5% since his defense went missing :laugh:

Anthem
01-13-2011, 10:53 PM
I'm constantly amazed how so often I see things completely different.

I think Kravitz is full of it.
I think you and Peck are both on drugs.

You can't say it's the same rotation when Posey gets a DNP-CD.

Day-V
01-13-2011, 11:04 PM
I think you and Peck are both on drugs.

You can't say it's the same rotation when Posey gets a DNP-CD.

I wonder if they should change it to DNP-LBD.

joeyd
01-14-2011, 12:29 AM
The reason Roy is getting inconsistant min. is two fold. 1. He's just sucked so he doesn't deserve the min. 2. He is not that good when he has to be the only big on the floor, he is much better off with a power forward who can help bang and patrol the paint.

Actually I'd also like to introduce a third reason. Roy is either still committing stupid fouls, or he's still getting called for the ticky-tack fouls. I supposed the former may fall under your first reason, Peck. Either way, having to get pulled early is going to limit your minutes. I wonder what UB's "minutes breakdown" for Roy would look like if we took out the games with him in foul trouble. For the sake of discussion, maybe any games where Roy picked up 2 fouls in the first quarter. I seem to recall there being 2 or 3 games like this already, and he may have actually picked up the fouls in the first 7 minutes or so.

Peck
01-14-2011, 12:32 AM
Actually I'd also like to introduce a third reason. Roy is either still committing stupid fouls, or he's still getting called for the ticky-tack fouls. I supposed the former may fall under your first reason, Peck. Either way, having to get pulled early is going to limit your minutes. I wonder what UB's "minutes breakdown" for Roy would look like if we took out the games with him in foul trouble. For the sake of discussion, maybe any games where Roy picked up 2 fouls in the first quarter. I seem to recall there being 2 or 3 games like this already, and he may have actually picked up the fouls in the first 7 minutes or so.

You know that would be interesting to look up.

Also I would be interested in seeing what Roy's fouls were with Josh on the floor vs. when he is not on the floor?

I still believe that Roy picks up fouls covering for beat players and while Tyler is a decent man to man defender he is not a protector of the rim. Josh often times would be the man to rotate over and try and get the driver.

Sookie
01-14-2011, 12:36 AM
I think Josh used to pick up fouls for Hibbert. Remember Josh was getting into foul trouble quite often.

xIndyFan
01-14-2011, 12:38 AM
I think Josh used to pick up fouls for Hibbert. Remember Josh was getting into foul trouble quite often.

i know this sounds stupid, but this is a good reason to start josh. :laugh:

joeyd
01-14-2011, 01:12 AM
i know this sounds stupid, but this is a good reason to start josh. :laugh:

You know, you may be on to something. I think that the foul issue may be what is hindering Roy's game. He seems really cautious backing players down close to the basket on offense, for fear that he will pick up an offensive foul. On defense, I'm not saying that he shys away from trying to play good hard defense, but he needs to realize that he is not going to get the calls or no-calls that a veteran is going to get, and he also needs to just let guys (that have clearly beaten him to the basket) just get their layup, especially early in the game.

Anthem
01-14-2011, 01:43 AM
Roy hasn't been the same since Howard hit him in the head.

D-BONE
01-14-2011, 09:22 AM
I'm constantly amazed how so often I see things completely different.

I think Kravitz is full of it.

Lets look at what is really going on here. Is Jim playing the young guys or is he going small? Many of you think like Kravitz that Jim is playing the young guys. I don't see it.

Is AJ Price playing at all? No

Josh has gone from averaging over 20 minutes and starting every game to either not playing or in two cases not even being on the active roster.

Lance hasn't seen anytime.

Is Foster playing more than ever? Yes.

Is Dunleavy playing as much or more than ever? Yes. Ford is still playing.

So where is the change. Tyler is starting but he replaced a younger player so the net change there is basically none. George is getting some time -that is the only real change as far as going from vets to young players. But George hasn't averaged 15 minutes per game lately. Posey is getting fewer minutes.

This one paragraph in particular got under my skin


As I mentioned Foster is playing more than ever, Mike as much as ever and Posey is still getting some minutes. Plus one of the biggest reasons why the Pacers have played better in 3 or the past 4 games is precisely because of Jeff and Mike. So I say Kravy is full of it.

So I think the statement "He's playing the young guys" is simply false.

I think what happened is Jim decided Josh just wasn't getting it done. I think Tyler has been playing well in practice. I think George has been showing improvement, and Jim wants to spread the floor more, wants to go small - and one way to do that is play George some. Also with the offense struggling, one way to help the offense is to go small. Play Danny, Mike and Rush more together. (that has been the biggest change IMO)

back to the point of going young. I will predict if you map out the minutes of young vs. old. Old I guess is Mike, Jeff, Posey and Ford - young is everyone else except Granger I would bet you the young are getting marginally more minutes now than they were 7 or 8 games ago. maybe an average of 2 or 3 minutes more per game. But no real change - I don't see a big youth movement.

Fair enough, but whether it's the youth or the small line up or both, I find it exciting and enjoyable. Let's just keep winning.

I suspect Lance and Josh may not be ready to contribute as much now/yet. Perhaps they never will be. Posey's minutes are down at least.

You have no choice but to play Foster when healthy, IMO. He's closest thing to a 2nd legit 5 on the roster.

AJ's the only "youngin" I want to see more of. Overall, TJs play of late would seem to have warranted it so I don't know what the hold up is. TJ actually played fairly well by his recent standards against Dallas I thought.

D-BONE
01-14-2011, 09:37 AM
I don't really feel like getting off on a Josh tangent. But I thought he played a few decent games, but I still don't think he is very good.

A lot of you think I should like Josh because I like Jeff, afterall aren't they similar players? Jeff is much better rebounder, one-on-one defender, Jeff has extremely quick hands and feet, he has an uncanny nose for the ball and feel for the game. Josh can run and jump, good passer and I see nothing else at all. I don't feel Josh brings energy to the game like Jeff and Tyler do and if Josh doesn't bring that than what does he bring?

Well, Jeff is also a bona fide interior player. He knows how to D up and board down low. Josh has athleticism, but Jeff -although maybe not the quintessential "power" big - brings more "power" to the PF/C.

I'm not against McBob seeing some time as backup 4/5, but for me only in the absence of Jeff. If he's banged up, minutes consideration in back to back, or foul trouble. Otherwise it should be limited to no minutes for the time being.

Plus, if the small line up is working, I concur with your statement about having three of Dun, DG, George, Rush on the floor simultaneously. Wing is our most talented position. Of course, we need to be willing to adjust if we play a big front line and it's not working, but you want to get your best players on the floor to the extent that you can.

O'Bird
01-14-2011, 08:50 PM
Maybe Jim O'Brien had a moment of clarity, a sudden thunderbolt of enlightenment.

:bs:

Their paper should send Mr. Kravitz (and his editor) back to the first semester of journalism school. It shouldn't be very hard to request a response from the subject of an article, and if you're implying that the man's an idiot it is contrary to journalistic ethics not to, and if the subject refuses to answer, Mr. Kravitz is obliged to tell us. We can only assume that he didn't bother, and prefers promoting his notional narrative to actually calling Jim O'Brien and asking what he thinks.


Maybe team president Larry Bird, who generally maintains a hands-off approach with his coaches, got in his coach's ear.

:bs:

He could also talk to the Pacers' front office. What, exactly, is the barrier? Pick up the phone and get a quote.


But the Indiana Pacers' perpetually embattled coach seems to have gotten the message and, at this point, I don't care how or from whom he got it: He's playing the young guys.

Finally.

:bs:

Is Kravitz not paying attention? His interpretation of the facts is one thing, but he's got his facts almost completely wrong - in most cases, 180 degrees wrong. The players he says are finally getting the minutes they should be getting are: Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, Darren Collison, and "even Roy Hibbert".

Roy Hibbert got rotation minutes in his rookie year, and starter's minutes in his second year. He has LOST minutes recently (including in the two recent victories that Kravitz thinks are a turning point), and those minutes (including crunchtime minutes) have mainly gone to Jeff Foster. So the idea that Roy is "Finally" getting minutes is absurd; he's gotten them for two and a half years, and furthermore he's just been demoted.

Darren Collison has played starter's minutes since arriving.

Brandon Rush played the most minutes on the team last season (and averaged the third most); he's actually down slightly per game, but let's be straight about it: O'Brien has had him on a fast track since he arrived.

Tyler was force-fed rotation minutes last year before the injury ended his season. It's true that he's playing more right now than he was at the beginning of the season, but the guy he sent back to the bench, Josh McRoberts, is even younger than he is.

The only player who's playing more at the expense of an older player is Paul George, who's taking mainly James Posey's minutes, but he's gotten those minutes because of what he's doing now, on the court, not because he'll be good some day.

Mike Dunleavy is playing MORE, and I think for obvious reasons, but this doesn't fit with Dr. Kravitz' diagnosis, which is once again 180 degrees off.



And it's paying off, first with a road victory Tuesday night in Philadelphia and then again Wednesday night in a 102-89 victory over the Dirk Nowitzki-less Dallas Mavericks.

Those were good wins, with the offense starting to click the way it should (or to use Dr. Kravitz' word, "Finally"), and the defense, at least in the Dallas game, at the excellent level it's been at all year.

But come on, two January games against depleted competition... let's not get carried away.


We've been screaming about this for, um, how long?

:bs:

Save your larynx, tough guy. That "um, how long?" is dripping with condescension... It's truly obnoxious for a clueless sportswriter to talk about a seasoned NBA lifer as though he were a backward child that the adults have at long last cajoled into not picking his nose anymore.

There's a name for this: it's called Dunning Krueger Syndrome.


At this point, I don't care if the Pacers make the playoffs, although it might be impossible to miss it in the Eastern Conference. It's time, past time, to sink or swim with these young players.

No, I will never understand it being okay with sports fans to miss the playoffs. That's what you play for. But maybe Kravitz isn't a sports fan.


Nothing against the Pacers' veterans, who have played hard and played reasonably well, but if you're not going to be a .500 team with Jeff Foster, James Posey and Mike Dunleavy getting significant time, what's the point of burying the young players?

:bs:

As I say, clueless. In the two games that Mr. Kravitz is heralding, Mike Dunleavy got 73 minutes (probably would've been more if not on a back-to-back), and Jeff Foster got 48 minutes. Their minutes are in fact at a season high right now.

Once again, 180 degrees off.


"You see it with a lot of players, they get to their third year and it's like they 'get it,' " Granger said. "Brandon definitely looks like one of those guys.''

I hope that a lot of us can see Brandon's progress (though the productivity gains are modest, his repertoire is clearly a lot bigger and his body is definitely at another level) - but why does Dr. Kravitz put this quote in his article? Because the point of what Granger is saying, contrary to Kravitz' thesis, is that Rush is playing minutes that he has earned, not because one day some day he'll be a player; in any case, Brandon Rush is not "finally" getting minutes, as pointed out above.


It's understandably tough for O'Brien, who is in the final year of his contract, to stick with young players through thick and a lot of thin. He's being paid to win, to get the Pacers back to the playoffs for the first time in forever, and his future is on the line.

It has been tough for O'Brien - welcome to re-building. But an NBA coach's future is always on the line; it's what you signed up for. The job he's done has been superb - for a start, a young team that plays defense like a veteran team is a fine achievement. You may have noticed once again that an opponent praised the Pacers' head coach post-game; this time it was Jason Kidd.

Kravitz proposes a false choice; of course promising young players need to play, including on the court - but that is so valuable for them precisely because they can learn from more experienced players.


This, though, is the right approach. Let the kids play. Let them develop. And live with the results.

This is a common refrain on Pacers Digest, too. Court time is the most valuable developmental tool for young players, but what makes it most valuable is not running around willy-nilly with other rookies, but being mentored on-court by leaders who know what to do; there's just no substitute for experience. And if court time were the only developmental tool, then this might be worthy of discussion; but it is not by a long shot. That's a huge positive, in fact - coaches use court time as a reward for excelling off the court, so it's a huge motivator for a Paul George or a Josh McRoberts.

I'd like to see journalists get un-interested in gossip and more interested in what it is they're actually covering. Before getting there, though, Bob Kravitz is going to have to first get grounded in reality.

Enough. I need a shower.

:

O'Bird
01-14-2011, 09:16 PM
...I concur with your statement about having three of Dun, DG, George, Rush on the floor simultaneously. Wing is our most talented position.

So far the 4 in a small lineup has been either Granger or Posey. In other words, a lineup with Dunleavy, Paul George, and Brandon Rush together is I think not going to happen.


Of course, we need to be willing to adjust if we play a big front line and it's not working, but you want to get your best players on the floor to the extent that you can.

I agree. By the way, one thing that you might not expect is how good the small lineups have been defensively.

: