PDA

View Full Version : O'Brien 'hands the keys' to Darren Collison



Hicks
01-14-2011, 01:11 PM
This was posted in another thread, but I think it deserves its own.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110114/SPORTS04/101140348/1062/SPORTS04/Pacers-Collison-gets-into-groove

Mike Wells
IndyStar.com

Pacers' Collison gets into a groove
O'Brien changes offense to take advantage of point guard's strength



Indiana Pacers point guard Darren Collison spent the first part of this season learning how to be the driving force in a playing style that was foreign to him.

His instructor, coach Jim O'Brien, constantly harped on Collison, trying to get his message across. And now?

"Coach has put the keys in my hands and let me go," Collison said. "And now I'm playing my game more."

O'Brien finally gave in and slightly tinkered with his style to suit Collison's game.

The Pacers, winners of two straight going into tonight's game against the Chicago Bulls at Conseco Fieldhouse, are running more pick-and-rolls for Collison.

In return, Collison is starting to play the type of basketball the Pacers expected when they acquired him in a trade last August.

The second-year point guard has totaled 38 points, 17 assists, six steals and three turnovers and has shot 58 percent in two games this week.

The numbers came against Philadelphia's Jrue Holiday, Collison's former UCLA teammate, and Dallas' Jason Kidd, one of the NBA's all-time best point guards.

"Not turning the ball over is a direct result of playing a small lineup," O'Brien said.

"I think when you play a big lineup (the defense collapses). All your passes are in traffic. I think he's shooting with great confidence. He knows he has the green light."

Collison made no secret that he was having difficulty with O'Brien's passing-game offense. It requires the point guard to pass the ball early in the possession.

Collison was accustomed to having the ball in his hands and running a pick-and-roll offense. That's the style he played in college and with New Orleans last season.

It allowed him several options. He can turn the corner and go in for a layup, pull up for a jump shot, pass to the screener rolling to the basket or pass to one of his teammates on the perimeter.

"Pick-and-rolls have always been my game," Collison said.

"I'm a one-on-one player only for so long. When we run pick-and-rolls, I get everybody involved, myself, too. The more pick-and-rolls we got, the better off we're going to be, I think."

The Pacers have been able to use more pick-and-rolls with Tyler Hansbrough moving into the starting lineup.

Unlike Josh McRoberts or Jeff Foster, Hansbrough can consistently hit 15-foot jump shots.

"That's something we've been working on," Hansbrough said. "It's something I've developed since I've been here. Darren is so good at coming off the pick. He takes on the 'big' and it's tough for them to recover back to me. This can be a dangerous part of our offense."

Collison finds himself with even better lanes to the basket when O'Brien goes to a smaller lineup with Danny Granger playing power forward. That gives the Pacers three shooters on the perimeter along with Roy Hibbert at center.

"In both Danny's case and Darren's case, when you have 3-point shooters around all of them, then I think their productivity is going to increase," O'Brien said.

"In the period of time we've been running the small lineup, we've gotten very, very fine productivity out of that lineup."


I'm happy about this, but it shouldn't have taken until mid-January. Anyone who paid attention to his rookie season knew this is what he needed since October.

I read in the other thread the suggestion that maybe it was the other players who weren't ready for this. Well, to that I say: Since we're talking about one of our top talents on the team, I say that's their problem, let them learn as we go, and don't punish one of your top guys by going away from what he's good at doing. If it were the other way around, I'd feel differently. Run what is best for your top talents to flourish.

pacer4ever
01-14-2011, 01:13 PM
i agree this should have started opeing night not mid-way throught the seasona. But i am happy it has changed

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2011, 01:15 PM
man , it really makes you wonder what might have been if Jim had stopped being so stubborn months ago

If we beat Chicago tonight and the PnR with DC is used like it has been then this is no aberration

So why again did it take 3 months?

Mackey_Rose
01-14-2011, 01:17 PM
Like I said in the other thread: Great. What the hell took so long?

BillS
01-14-2011, 01:21 PM
Is there anyone really willing to look at the players we had on the floor early on and see that Collison's strength was not their strength? I mean, suppose the year started with Hibbert getting fewer minutes even though he was playing well? If the only bigs getting playing time are the ones good at picks (which, as I see it, is pretty much limited to Tyler and Jeff)? I mean, really, if Foster is getting time as soon as he's healthy over Josh?

And, also, through November the point was more moot because it was only based on DC not getting his numbers, while the team as a whole was doing well. Since we were doing well in November, why would you change what was happening on the floor?

I can see an argument that perhaps adjusting sooner in December might have been helpful, but the adjustment that makes this possible is exactly the "small ball" adjustment that gives folks on here absolute fits.

Me being a moron, I'm willing to accept that this isn't some obvious solution with a team skilled at all these things at every position, it is partially getting the lineup adjusted to one that fits well with DC's style - some adjustments of which are NOT positive in terms of what PD folks want to see.

Sookie
01-14-2011, 01:22 PM
yea, probably a good idea to allow our second year starting poing guard to be semi-confident in the offense he's running.

I don't know why it took so long either. If you'll allow your second round backup rookie PG to run a ton of PnRs last season..even though he was completely comfortable in the other aspects of the offense..why wouldn't you allow your starting PG to run a ton of PnRs when he isn't that comfortable in other aspects of the offense?

Instead of forcing him to do what he's not good at, we should have been allowing him to do what he was good at, and slowly introducing other elements of the offense.

Also, I don't think the PnR is really that much of a result of small ball. I think it's a result of Tyler being good at the PnR now, and Collison using it. My guess..is that AJ and Tyler were eating people up with it in practice, and JOB decided to try it with Collison, in a game.

That actually makes sense..with all of a sudden Tyler going from 0 to 30 minutes, and Darren being allowed to play his way.

Dr. Awesome
01-14-2011, 01:23 PM
Funny.

O'Brien finally stops trying to play his game and we start winning.

Coinkidink? I think not!

PaceBalls
01-14-2011, 01:24 PM
Jim is doing the right things lately. There is, of course, the lack of PT for AJ and McRoberts, but at least we are seeing some positives happening with his coaching and rotations.

I will ***** and moan less than I usually would for the time being :devil:

Since86
01-14-2011, 01:26 PM
Is there anyone really willing to look at the players we had on the floor early on and see that Collison's strength was not their strength?

What? Did I miss a gigantic trade earlier in the season?

Peck
01-14-2011, 01:26 PM
Pyrite.

Our jump shots are falling, nothing more nothing less.

Once that ceases to be we will be right back at square one.

While the offense has changed some since the N.Y. game I still believe that it is really just this.

Unclebuck
01-14-2011, 01:27 PM
I'm happy about this, but it shouldn't have taken until mid-January. Anyone who paid attention to his rookie season knew this is what he needed since October.



I'm sure Jim knew it would have been best for Collison to start running this at the beginning if the season. What Jim likely was not sure about and neither was I was whether it was best for the team to run this type of offense. (for example was it better to run the offense through Roy at the high post, low post.....what aboput danny.......) And there could be two different answers to those two questions. So I don't think it was unreasonable to do what Jim did.

Hicks
01-14-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm sure Jim knew it would have been best for Collison to start running this at the beginning if the season. What Jim likely was not sure about and neither was I was whether it was best for the team to run this type of offense. And there could be two different answers to those two questions. So I don't think it was unreasonable to do what Jim did.

That's where I disagree with you and BillS. If you have an offense that works for some of the team, but not all of the team, defer to the offense that fits with your best talents. Darren is clearly one of our best talents.

Sookie
01-14-2011, 01:29 PM
Pyrite.

Our jump shots are falling, nothing more nothing less.

Once that ceases to be we will be right back at square one.

While the offense has changed some since the N.Y. game I still believe that it is really just this.

Collison's been running far more PnRs, and has had the ball in his hands quite a bit more. In fact, I was wondering if he was rebelling. :laugh:

That doesn't change the fact though, that we won the last two because our jump shots are falling and we played two poor teams (Dallas without Butler and Dirk are a poor team).

Unclebuck
01-14-2011, 01:30 PM
Is there anyone really willing to look at the players we had on the floor early on and see that Collison's strength was not their strength? I mean, suppose the year started with Hibbert getting fewer minutes even though he was playing well? If the only bigs getting playing time are the ones good at picks (which, as I see it, is pretty much limited to Tyler and Jeff)? I mean, really, if Foster is getting time as soon as he's healthy over Josh?

And, also, through November the point was more moot because it was only based on DC not getting his numbers, while the team as a whole was doing well. Since we were doing well in November, why would you change what was happening on the floor?

I can see an argument that perhaps adjusting sooner in December might have been helpful, but the adjustment that makes this possible is exactly the "small ball" adjustment that gives folks on here absolute fits.

Me being a moron, I'm willing to accept that this isn't some obvious solution with a team skilled at all these things at every position, it is partially getting the lineup adjusted to one that fits well with DC's style - some adjustments of which are NOT positive in terms of what PD folks want to see.

As always you said it a lot better than I did and I agree with you 100%.

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2011, 01:30 PM
Is there anyone really willing to look at the players we had on the floor early on and see that Collison's strength was not their strength? I mean, suppose the year started with Hibbert getting fewer minutes even though he was playing well? If the only bigs getting playing time are the ones good at picks (which, as I see it, is pretty much limited to Tyler and Jeff)? I mean, really, if Foster is getting time as soon as he's healthy over Josh?

And, also, through November the point was more moot because it was only based on DC not getting his numbers, while the team as a whole was doing well. Since we were doing well in November, why would you change what was happening on the floor?

I can see an argument that perhaps adjusting sooner in December might have been helpful, but the adjustment that makes this possible is exactly the "small ball" adjustment that gives folks on here absolute fits.

Me being a moron, I'm willing to accept that this isn't some obvious solution with a team skilled at all these things at every position, it is partially getting the lineup adjusted to one that fits well with DC's style - some adjustments of which are NOT positive in terms of what PD folks want to see.


Bill

Please tell me what is so difficult to understand regarding developing a game plan to play to your players strengths?

Is that not what an effective coach would do?

Jim refusal to adjust has cost us games

Dr. Awesome
01-14-2011, 01:30 PM
I'm sure Jim knew it would have been best for Collison to start running this at the beginning if the season. What Jim likely was not sure about and neither was I was whether it was best for the team to run this type of offense. And there could be two different answers to those two questions. So I don't think it was unreasonable to do what Jim did.

As oppose to the All-World offense we ran for the first few months of the season?

Sookie
01-14-2011, 01:37 PM
I think, the point guard needs to be able to run the offense effectively. Whether he's one of your most talanted players or not. And if he can't, you either need to adjust the offense so he can, or use a different point guard. It shouldn't have taken JOB three months to figure out he needed to do one or the other.

It's important that the player running the offense can adequatly run the offense.

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2011, 01:41 PM
I'm sure Jim knew it would have been best for Collison to start running this at the beginning if the season. What Jim likely was not sure about and neither was I was whether it was best for the team to run this type of offense. (for example was it better to run the offense through Roy at the high post, low post.....what aboput danny.......) And there could be two different answers to those two questions. So I don't think it was unreasonable to do what Jim did.

good and fair points

BillS
01-14-2011, 01:41 PM
Bill

Please tell me what is so difficult to understand regarding developing a game plan to play to your players strengths?

Is that not what an effective coach would do?

Jim refusal to adjust has cost us games

Because you can't adjust your game plan to cover only one player unless that player is a Lebron or Kobe.

A PnR requires more than one player, and the rest of the offense has to also be doing things to keep the defense from just countering the PnR and ignoring everything else.

People have said right here on this forum that Roy is not a great PnR partner. Josh does not set particularly good picks (sort of required). Having Jeff (who, while his jumper isn't very threatening, is the best pick setter we have) is important to the ability to run this.

In November we were winning, though not as much as people wanted (especially the fringe folks who were insisting we should have been over .700 during that month), so the offense clearly was working with some of the players (and, I think, was trying to use Roy's strengths when the ball could get to him).

In December that stopped working for a number of reasons. The lineup has been flipped - we have Tyler in (who also can set a pick AND can hit a mid-range jumper) with DC, for instance. We have the opportunity now to make the additional adjustment that we didn't have if we were trying to do something with Roy and Josh.

Maybe we find this combination earlier if JOB wasn't so set on playing some of the vets. I'll grant that, I have said in the past he adjusts way too slowly. But there are other players on this team who have strengths other than DC, some of whom should have just as much of an impact (Granger, for instance, though he has been more inconsistent than we expected).

Asking a second year player to work within a new and unfamiliar offense is not somehow a disaster when that player is not a bona fide superstar. I like DC, but he isn't CP3.

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2011, 01:46 PM
Because you can't adjust your game plan to cover only one player unless that player is a Lebron or Kobe.

A PnR requires more than one player, and the rest of the offense has to also be doing things to keep the defense from just countering the PnR and ignoring everything else.

People have said right here on this forum that Roy is not a great PnR partner. Josh does not set particularly good picks (sort of required). Having Jeff (who, while his jumper isn't very threatening, is the best pick setter we have) is important to the ability to run this.

In November we were winning, though not as much as people wanted (especially the fringe folks who were insisting we should have been over .700 during that month), so the offense clearly was working with some of the players (and, I think, was trying to use Roy's strengths when the ball could get to him).

In December that stopped working for a number of reasons. The lineup has been flipped - we have Tyler in (who also can set a pick AND can hit a mid-range jumper) with DC, for instance. We have the opportunity now to make the additional adjustment that we didn't have if we were trying to do something with Roy and Josh.

Maybe we find this combination earlier if JOB wasn't so set on playing some of the vets. I'll grant that, I have said in the past he adjusts way too slowly. But there are other players on this team who have strengths other than DC, some of whom should have just as much of an impact (Granger, for instance, though he has been more inconsistent than we expected).

Asking a second year player to work within a new and unfamiliar offense is not somehow a disaster when that player is not a bona fide superstar. I like DC, but he isn't CP3.


I think there is some truth to what your saying, it wasnt like we landed Chris Paul, DC was a second year , unproven player

BUT

After the first month and DC's play it became obvious to a lot of us here that the current system just did not work well with DC and others. DC after "allegedly" finally getting free reign is producing

IMHO, a less stubborn coach would have made that decision a ,long time ago

Unclebuck
01-14-2011, 01:49 PM
That's where I disagree with you and BillS. If you have an offense that works for some of the team, but not all of the team, defer to the offense that fits with your best talents. Darren is clearly one of our best talents.

But what about running the offense through Danny and Roy - that is what I'm saying. We can argue how much the motion offense runs through Roy or Danny - but it runs through them a lot more than a pick and roll offense does or will. (I'm not suggesting we design the offense with Josh in mind) But the question is do you scrap the offense you designed around Mike, Danny and Roy to cater towards a newly acquired second year point guard. That is not an easy question and not something that can be judged after 4 or 5 days of training camp.

If we had acquired nash, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose - OK I'll grant you that but with Collison I think it is right to adjust (which I think Jim did even before now)

Hindsight is 20/20 - I won't name names now, but how many of you thought hansbrough was better with the second unit - when as it turns out he is best with Collison running pick and rolls. I wasn't sure but I posted a week ago, after it was announced that Tyler was starting, that he is the type of player who will be good in PnR's - as it turns out he is and he has really improved. Teams will adjust, but that should open up the other players

BillS
01-14-2011, 01:50 PM
After the first month and DC's play it became obvious to a lot of us here that the current system just did not work well with DC and others. DC after "allegedly" finally getting free reign is producing

IMHO, a less stubborn coach would have made that decision a ,long time ago

I would counter by saying that UNLESS Roy's production drops as much as it has, taking him out of the offensive focus would have been a HUGE risk. I agree that JOB waited a little too long to give this adjustment some burn, but I would not agree that it is something that should have been done even as late as the first week in December.

Unclebuck
01-14-2011, 01:57 PM
I think there is some truth to what your saying, it wasnt like we landed Chris Paul, DC was a second year , unproven player

BUT

After the first month and DC's play it became obvious to a lot of us here that the current system just did not work well with DC and others. DC after "allegedly" finally getting free reign is producing

IMHO, a less stubborn coach would have made that decision a ,long time ago

I don't know maybe a less stubborn coach might have benched Collison because of his poor defense especially early in the season.

Mackey_Rose
01-14-2011, 01:58 PM
I don't know maybe a less stubborn coach might have benched Collison because of his poor defense especially early in the season.

One thing I do know, with the precedent that O'Brien set the last three years, he cannot possibly bench any player because of his defense.

HOOPFANATIC
01-14-2011, 02:00 PM
Now wouldn't it be awesome to have a more consistent outside shooting and active around the basket finisher like Josh and AJ in the second unit.

Also I agree that maybe playing Jeff more when Solo and Posey were getting way too many minutes was a bad idea, but it should never have been at the expense of developing Roy. In my mind Roy should never get below 30 minutes unless he's in foul trouble.

BillS
01-14-2011, 02:08 PM
But what about running the offense through Danny and Roy - that is what I'm saying. We can argue how much the motion offense runs through Roy or Danny - but it runs through them a lot more than a pick and roll offense does or will. (I'm not suggesting we design the offense with Josh in mind) But the question is do you scrap the offense you designed around Mike, Danny and Roy to cater towards a newly acquired second year point guard. That is not an easy question and not something that can be judged after 4 or 5 days of training camp.

This. While people seem to have somehow demoted Danny from his position as our best offensive option, Roy was certainly anointed the next in line. In my opinion, a coach SHOULD take his time before deciding to move away from an offense that was meant to work with those players - and Jim being MUCH more conservative with changes than I would be definitely took his time.

Took too long? Probably. At fault for not doing it from Day 1 or even day 30? Not in my mind.

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2011, 02:19 PM
I would counter by saying that UNLESS Roy's production drops as much as it has, taking him out of the offensive focus would have been a HUGE risk. I agree that JOB waited a little too long to give this adjustment some burn, but I would not agree that it is something that should have been done even as late as the first week in December.

Fair points Bill

IMHO though it should have been addressed the minute we fell below 500

If you have a team expected to be above that, then once you fall below 500 changes should be at least seriously discussed

PacersPride
01-14-2011, 02:30 PM
Jim is doing the right things lately. There is, of course, the lack of PT for AJ and McRoberts, but at least we are seeing some positives happening with his coaching and rotations.

I will ***** and moan less than I usually would for the time being :devil:

the sad thing is it takes a losing streak for obriens head to be removed from his backside. maybe the losing record in december was a blessing in disguise, otherwise obrien would have kept playing the vets and his stubborn insistence on having players adapt to his strategy instead of the other way around.

a good coach wouldve realized this back in training camp.. not halfway through the season.

if all star break arrives and ford is still on this roster, which im sure he will be.. i really hope price finally starts getting some PT.. along with mcbob at backup 4/5 over solo; if not i will only presume obriens head has reverted back to its customary position.

BillS
01-14-2011, 02:34 PM
Fair points Bill

IMHO though it should have been addressed the minute we fell below 500

If you have a team expected to be above that, then once you fall below 500 changes should be at least seriously discussed

Discussed, sure. In fact, because you don't just suddenly put a different group of players on the floor and they work together perfectly, I would bet money that this kind of adjustment has not just been discussed but actually been worked on IN PRACTICE for longer than some would probably give Jim credit for.

However, if you are expected to be at or slightly above .500 and you fall a little below it early in the season, it is too early to make drastic changes. The problem, in my opinion, is that JOB does not do well at making small tactical adjustments. I believe he is a strategic thinker who has to have an entirely new battle plan mapped out and tested before he makes a change - which is why it is so easy for him to fall back on certain actions with certain veterans and it is so hard for him to just put Tyler in as a big off the bench while DC is still on the floor and switch to a PnR attack with him for a few minutes to see how it works - and then leave it in place if it does.

Unclebuck
01-14-2011, 02:41 PM
Fair points Bill

IMHO though it should have been addressed the minute we fell below 500

If you have a team expected to be above that, then once you fall below 500 changes should be at least seriously discussed

I have been laughed at for suggesting that the two very long weeks without any games where there was plenty of practice time had anything to do with changing the lineup but maybe it had something to do with the change in focus of the offense too. Don't underestimate how 5 and 4 days of practice without a game or travel to interfere - how that gives a team plenty of time to make adjustments in there system that just cannot be made in 1 day between 4 games in 5 nights

PacersPride
01-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Because you can't adjust your game plan to cover only one player unless that player is a Lebron or Kobe.

A PnR requires more than one player, and the rest of the offense has to also be doing things to keep the defense from just countering the PnR and ignoring everything else.

People have said right here on this forum that Roy is not a great PnR partner. Josh does not set particularly good picks (sort of required). Having Jeff (who, while his jumper isn't very threatening, is the best pick setter we have) is important to the ability to run this.

In November we were winning, though not as much as people wanted (especially the fringe folks who were insisting we should have been over .700 during that month), so the offense clearly was working with some of the players (and, I think, was trying to use Roy's strengths when the ball could get to him).

In December that stopped working for a number of reasons. The lineup has been flipped - we have Tyler in (who also can set a pick AND can hit a mid-range jumper) with DC, for instance. We have the opportunity now to make the additional adjustment that we didn't have if we were trying to do something with Roy and Josh.

Maybe we find this combination earlier if JOB wasn't so set on playing some of the vets. I'll grant that, I have said in the past he adjusts way too slowly. But there are other players on this team who have strengths other than DC, some of whom should have just as much of an impact (Granger, for instance, though he has been more inconsistent than we expected).

Asking a second year player to work within a new and unfamiliar offense is not somehow a disaster when that player is not a bona fide superstar. I like DC, but he isn't CP3.

about the time posey starting playing more and more minutes is when the pacers record started getting worse. right around the OKC game is when the wheels fell off.. hansbrough shouldve been inserted then. we were getting killed by teams on the glass, which has alot to do with posey (traditionally a SF now asked to play PF because of his declining veteran abilities). these changes should have come much sooner, it likely cost us 3-5 wins if not more. you stated yourself, obrien is too slow to adjust which i wholeheartedly agree with.

maybe there are other reasons involved as to why only now hans, and george are getting minutes, but my guess is obrien is just too stubborn to see what should be very obvious. folks in Indiana know a thing or two about basketball.. why he continues to play ford over price is something i have yet to resolve as well. maybe were showcasing or w/e.. but its likely obrien is just continuing his stubborn ways. this team could easily be .500 right now.. it will not be long and obrien will go back to his traditional ways. im thankful i get to enjoy pacers basketball for a few games before that happens.

BillS
01-14-2011, 02:43 PM
the sad thing is it takes a losing streak for obriens head to be removed from his backside. maybe the losing record in december was a blessing in disguise, otherwise obrien would have kept playing the vets and his stubborn insistence on having players adapt to his strategy instead of the other way around.

Yeah, because if we were winning half our games that would definitely be the time to completely change our offense when we were at best going to be a .500 team anyway. :rolleyes:

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2011, 02:45 PM
The problem, in my opinion, is that JOB does not do well at making small tactical adjustments. I believe he is a strategic thinker who has to have an entirely new battle plan mapped out and tested before he makes a change - which is why it is so easy for him to fall back on certain actions with certain veterans and it is so hard for him to just put Tyler in as a big off the bench while DC is still on the floor and switch to a PnR attack with him for a few minutes to see how it works - and then leave it in place if it does.

very good point

Thats what cracks me up about Jim, when he finally pushed enough to make changes, the changes usually work out well.

He justs seems to have a very strong desire to prove his system is the most efficient

Jim can be decent with small tactical adjustments. I think back to the game with Cleveland where LeBron was fouled on an ally op with a second or two left, then Jim called for Granger to do the same thing and force to have the refs make the call

PacersPride
01-14-2011, 02:54 PM
Yeah, because if we were winning half our games that would definitely be the time to completely change our offense when we were at best going to be a .500 team anyway. :rolleyes:

true.. .500 at best is the expectation with this coach. if i recall correctly, it was defense that was winning the majority of our games during the month of november.. not the offense. the offense has been lacking for the majority of the year.. even with the stretch PF in posey playing significant minutes throwing up brick after brick.

if not for the improved defense during november, this team would be nowhere near .500; now that obrien is implementing a bit more of a traditional offense and rotation, were playing good basketball. go figure..

Peck
01-14-2011, 03:01 PM
I have been laughed at for suggesting that the two very long weeks without any games where there was plenty of practice time had anything to do with changing the lineup but maybe it had something to do with the change in focus of the offense too. Don't underestimate how 5 and 4 days of practice without a game or travel to interfere - how that gives a team plenty of time to make adjustments in there system that just cannot be made in 1 day between 4 games in 5 nights

There was a recent 5 day layoff that would have been a perfect time to really change the system up.

You will never EVER convince me that Jim O'Brien was watching Tyler close in practice every day and then one day just say well you haven't been good enough to get into several games lately but now I have seen the light and you will be starting from this day forward.

I believe that N.Y. game had a profound impact on the team. Either management, the players or hell maybe even O'Brien himself looked at the tape of that game and said something has to change.

LA_Confidential
01-14-2011, 03:02 PM
Bout Time!

Hicks
01-14-2011, 03:05 PM
It's not as if it's impossible to run the vast majority of our plays for Collison OR Danny OR Roy. Doing what's right for DC doesn't mean you can't do whatever you think is best for DG or Roy.

Trophy
01-14-2011, 03:08 PM
DC has done well and hope he continues to play the way he's comfortable.

It's helping the whole team offensively.

He's playing like a very good PG.

Unclebuck
01-14-2011, 03:21 PM
There was a recent 5 day layoff that would have been a perfect time to really change the system up.

You will never EVER convince me that Jim O'Brien was watching Tyler close in practice every day and then one day just say well you haven't been good enough to get into several games lately but now I have seen the light and you will be starting from this day forward.

I believe that N.Y. game had a profound impact on the team. Either management, the players or hell maybe even O'Brien himself looked at the tape of that game and said something has to change.

I thought I won that argument yesterday

Foul on Smits
01-18-2011, 04:16 AM
The keys have definetly been handed to Collison. That, or he's doing something different. His numbers have taken off since December 31st.

17.8ppg, 6.5 ast, 3.2 reb, 1.6 stl, 1.6 TO's, 6 to 1 TO ratio. That's about 5 more points, 2 more assist, 1 more steal and 2 less TO's . Hopefully JOB dont mess this up.

Look, i'm pretty sure the Pacers are destined to lose a lot of games this year, but i'm pretty damn excited cause guess what boys. We got ourselves a really good PG only in his second season.

Time to invest in a Collison jersey. :cool: