PDA

View Full Version : How Do You Solve a Problem Like O’Brien?



OakMoses
01-25-2011, 09:54 PM
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/01/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-obrien/comment-page-1/#comment-6073

by Tim Donahue

The NBA is a players’ league, and the results that any team achieves are overwhelmingly driven by the quality of that team’s players. Coaches are necessary, even important, but in the NBA they have less impact on the variability of a team’s result than is popularly attributed. The reason for this is that there is less variability in the quality of coaches than is popularly thought.

I believe that there are a select few “great” coaches, and, surprisingly, even fewer “terrible” coaches. Most are qualified individuals with their own collection of strengths and foibles. Most will succeed with good talent, and fail with weak talent.

The most successful coaches have their biggest impact before the game starts. Their primary job is to teach the players what to do and prepare them for what the opponent will do. In general, I consider in-game moves, particularly play-calling out of time outs or in late-game situations, to be highly overrated. Those times more than any other are dictated by the quality and the execution of the players.

Because of this, I consider the greatest sin an NBA coach can commit is to over-coach. To think that he can “out-coach” the game, or win a game in the huddle, as opposed to the players winning it on the floor. Or, as I like to say, “To become Isiah Thomas.”

Right now, Jim O’Brien is over-coaching. He seems to be over-coaching, because he has no faith in his players — at least most of them. The lack of faith in a lot of his players (guys like TJ Ford, Brandon Rush and, now, Roy Hibbert) is well earned and well deserved. But that is beside the point.

A classic rule of management says that people will perform to expectations — whether that be up or down. So by assuming failure on the part of his players, he changes that assumption from being probably right to almost certainly right. Therefore, he’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that these guys will fail.

So, while the root of the problem is, was, and will continue to be the issues related to the inadequacy of the players, O’Brien has become a contributor to the problem by confirming those flaws, predicting failure and, therefore, ensuring failure.

Perversely, the thing that seems to have happened here is not so much — as one commenter to 8p9s said — that the coach has “lost” the players, but that the players “lost” the coach.

So, the Pacer management is faced with a problem I’ve seen before in my professional life: How do you remove an under-performing manager without letting the under-performing workforce off the hook?

I’m of two minds on firing O’Brien mid-season.

Firs of all, I don’t like it because it gives credence to the overwhelming fan voice that says O’Brien is the problem. To me, that’s a gross oversimplification of the situation, and much of the vitriol is based on style, rather than actual substance. Put more simply: it’s always easy to blame the coach, particularly one you don’t like.

On the other hand, there doesn’t currently seem to be any signs that the team will turn around under O’Brien. It is possible that even a temporary (and false) bounce would be enough to get to the playoffs. That’s something I think these players (Danny Granger, Rush, Hibbert, Darren Collison, A.J. Price, Tyler Hansbrough, even Paul George) and this franchise desperately needs, and should weigh heavily in any considerations.

It has been reported that the Pacers’ brass are not pleased with O’Brien’s performance right now, but they will keep him until the end of the season — primarily because they don’t view any of his assistants as viable alternatives. Arguably, this restriction on removing O’Brien right now seems entirely artificial.

Let’s not pretend that former Pacers assistant coach Lester Conner was some head-coach-in-waiting and current Pacers assistant coach Frank Vogel isn’t. It seems to me that Vogel could continue the system well enough, while arguably being more likely to “not know what’s going to fail.” If I thought O’Brien was actually doing serious damage, Frank Vogel being only replacement wouldn’t stop me from pulling the trigger. (Mike Wells is reporting that the team “wouldn’t move any of the assistants up,” however.)

Still, what happens if Bird walks into Conseco today, tells O’Brien they’re letting him go, promotes Vogel, and then says to the players, “OK … no more excuses”? Does the team turn it around? Who knows? But there probably would not be a major windfall of victories immediately. This isn’t an incredibly talented team whose coach is holding them down. This is a flawed, immature team whose coach isn’t making things any better or easier.

Ultimately, I think O’Brien is committing what I consider to be the worst coaching sin. However, I don’t think he’s the core problem, and I don’t think firing him is the core solution. It’s self-serving, but my suspicion is that Bird’s opinion isn’t that far different from mine.

So can Bird stage an intervention?

What happens if Bird does two things?

Goes to the players and lays it all on them. Says, “Grow up. The reason you’re losing is because you aren’t playing well. O’Brien will be here for the rest of the year, so man up, and do your job.”
Then goes to O’Brien, and says, “Look, I’m not going to tell you who to play, but I am going to tell you to make a decision. By tomorrow morning, I want you to come back in here with a rotation that you will go with for the rest of the season, along with contingencies for injuries. It will be entirely up to you. I don’t care who it is, but you will lock down a 9- or 10-man rotation, and you will communicate this to your players with your commitment to stick with it for the rest of the year. I will back you completely. If a necessary change becomes apparent, then we will discuss it, but we are done with the constant changes. I know what you think the problems are, and I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t care any more. We need to pick a course and stick with it.”
Is that the happy — or even unhappy — medium that gets this team back on the same page?

Just as it would take a total team effort for these Pacers to have gone 15-5 over the last 20 games, it has taken a total team effort for them to go 5-15. Everybody had to come to the party on this one, including Larry Bird, who has been with the Pacers in some function when every player on this roster was acquired.

Ideally, problems are handled as they arise at lower levels of any organization. The best teams have strong leaders in the locker room to head off trouble early. Should that be insufficient, then it’s the coach’s responsibility to get things back on track. If it moves past that, then you have a team in crisis.

Right now, the Pacers are a team in crisis, and Larry Bird is the guy who must step up and resolve it. He needs to make sure the players understand their ultimate accountability for their own (and the team’s) performance. He must address any problems he has with O’Brien’s performance without scapegoating him. He must put a fractured team back together.

And if he can’t or won’t do that, then I don’t know what this franchise can do to change the path they’re on. And I don’t know how they come back from where that path leads.

MagicRat
01-25-2011, 10:25 PM
When I watch him I'm confused
Out of focus and bemused
And I never know exactly where I am
Unpredictable as weather
He's as flighty as a feather
He's a darling! He's a demon! He's a lamb!

He'd outpester any pest
Drive a hornet from its nest
He could throw a whirling dervish out of whirl
He is gentle! He is wild!
He's a riddle! He's a child!
He's a headache! He's an angel!
He's a coach!

D-BONE
01-25-2011, 10:33 PM
I like his description of the situation. Effectively, it's a very imperfect, inexperienced, and marginally talented group of players. Still, JOB is very much compounding the problem. This can certainly be argued to both hurt any playoff chances and any player development that might occur.

d_c
01-25-2011, 10:41 PM
JOB is by far the Pacers' easiest problem to solve: You either fire him now or simply don't re-sign him after his contract runs out at the end of the year. It's easy.

The Pacers have far bigger and more complex problems to solve than Jim O'Brien. He's the easy part.

Hicks
01-25-2011, 10:53 PM
I think the right circumstances can have a coach making a big positive difference (see Larry Brown in 1994), but I also agree that most of the time it comes down to the players.

However, I believe it's easier for a coach to mess things up than it is to make things better. I think Jim's making it worse.

It's said that Jim 'isn't the problem', but rather the players are the problem. I say to that: It depends on what you mean by the problem.

If you mean 'we're not winning 50+ games and we're not a playoff contender', I agree with you it's the players more than it is the coach.

If, however, you mean 'we're not going to win 41 games,' I completely disagree. I think we have enough talent, right now, to win 41 games. But we won't. And that's on Jim O'Brien.

oxxo
01-25-2011, 11:05 PM
I think the right circumstances can have a coach making a big positive difference (see Larry Brown in 1994), but I also agree that most of the time it comes down to the players.

However, I believe it's easier for a coach to mess things up than it is to make things better. I think Jim's making it worse.

It's said that Jim 'isn't the problem', but rather the players are the problem. I say to that: It depends on what you mean by the problem.

If you mean 'we're not winning 50+ games and we're not a playoff contender', I agree with you it's the players more than it is the coach.

If, however, you mean 'we're not going to win 41 games,' I completely disagree. I think we have enough talent, right now, to win 41 games. But we won't. And that's on Jim O'Brien.

Completely agree. If anything, we just don't KNOW what we have because of JOB's insane rotations, starts, and DNPs. All I want is a chance to see what we have. That's it. If our players suck, so be it. They suck. As it is, we don't know because JOB yanks minutes around so much.

I don't agree with the OP article at all. JOB is not a scapegoat here. His inconsistent minutes and bad in-game strategy (Posey on <insert name> etc.) are directly related to poor performance. If anything, like I've said over and over, the way he treats his players is why they are underperforming.

Psyren
01-25-2011, 11:33 PM
You can't solve a problem like JOB. He's just taht bad.

You have to let him run his course of screwing you over. Much like an illness. You can take medication to try to ease it away, but you more or less have to let it run it's course.

MagicRat
01-26-2011, 12:39 AM
The fieldhouse is alive with the sound of booing......

CircleCity3318
01-26-2011, 01:49 AM
It's not that hard Larry, send that man packing today and not a day later!!!

special ed
01-26-2011, 04:37 AM
Good read and I especially liked the idea of sticking with the 9 or 10 man rotation no matter.
It would take away the major complaint about this coach, at the very least.

wintermute
01-26-2011, 06:16 AM
Over coaching is a great description of what Obie is doing. I don't think he is an idiot, as some people like to claim. In fact, I think he probably has a great basketball mind. And as an unorthodox NBA thinker, I think he is up there with Don Nelson. The problem to me is that he doesn't seem to adapt to reality very well. Some of his schemes look very nice on paper but for whatever reason the players have not been able to execute them consistently.

Take his defense for example. Now when Obie joined the team, he had to factor in two poor defenders (Dunleavy and Murphy) so I could understand why he chose to go with a complicated team defense designed to hide individual deficiencies. Murphy is gone now though and Dunleavy should be a 6th man at best, and the rest of the team can at least defend their position, so couldn't we go back to a more straight up defense? As a "true believer" though I think Obie has fallen in love with his defensive scheme and wouldn't rationally consider alternatives.

And then there's the apparent favoritism to certain players. I'm pretty sure that Obie favors players like Dunleavy and Posey simply because they stick to his (rigid?) system, which I think is his main criteria for apportioning minutes. There's a certain hubris in that - in effect Obie is saying that the one true way to win is by following his system, the actual results be damned.


JOB is by far the Pacers' easiest problem to solve: You either fire him now or simply don't re-sign him after his contract runs out at the end of the year. It's easy.

The Pacers have far bigger and more complex problems to solve than Jim O'Brien. He's the easy part.

Well... yes. As far as next season is concerned, that's true.

I'm pretty sure the dilemma count55 is talking about is a midseason change. The truth is it won't take much to get into the East playoffs. So which route gives you the best chance? Do you take the devil you know (Obie) who historically has managed to convince his players to make a late season push? Or do you go for the temporary bounce that a new coach can give you, as the Bobcats are benefiting from right now?

Before the season I was thinking that we should just ride the Obie era out. At this point though with the Eastern playoffs in reach, I think I'd go for the second option. Unfortunately financial constraints on the Pacers seem to make this unlikely. To me that's a bit short sighted, as the financial benefit from making the playoffs should outweigh the cost of an interim coach. The excuse of having no capable assistant is spurious - Charlotte and Paul Silas have showed that even a veteran NBA coach is willing to take a short interim contract.

beast23
01-26-2011, 09:11 AM
The fieldhouse is alive with the sound of booing......Dang, you're on a roll. You are right in line with that "Sound of Music" thread theme.

And your poem, Meredith Brooks would be proud! Of course, I think that referring to JOB as the song title might have been more appropriate.

Unclebuck
01-26-2011, 09:16 AM
Take his defense for example. Now when Obie joined the team, he had to factor in two poor defenders (Dunleavy and Murphy) so I could understand why he chose to go with a complicated team defense designed to hide individual deficiencies. Murphy is gone now though and Dunleavy should be a 6th man at best, and the rest of the team can at least defend their position, so couldn't we go back to a more straight up defense? As a "true believer" though I think Obie has fallen in love with his defensive scheme and wouldn't rationally consider alternatives.



The defensive system is substantially different from JOB's first year here. it is noticeably different if you were to watch two minutes from Jim's first season and compare it to now you would see. it is much more 'straight up defense. So not only has he considered changes he has followed through on the changes and it has benefitted the defense.

he changed it two years ago as a result of not have big guys capable of trapping, helping, rotating in order to play the defense he did with the Celtics and Sixers.

here is a thread from 15 months ago where we discussed this
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=48805

McKeyFan
01-26-2011, 09:51 AM
Welcome aboard, Count.

Although the ship left a year and half ago.

sportfireman
01-26-2011, 09:51 AM
Simple, FIRE HIM!!!

HOOPFANATIC
01-26-2011, 10:32 AM
I agree with UB about the defense but he abandoned thinking about it early. The moment he started pulling McRoberts for Posey in early December. For starters Josh has got to be a better defensive option because of his size, but add in his youth and leaping ability and I see no reason for replacing him defensively. Now offensively Josh doesn't shoot the three. I also see no reason defensively B Rush doesn't start or finish the game. Offensively I do but not defensively.

McKeyFan
01-26-2011, 10:34 AM
The fieldhouse is alive with the sound of booing......

Cuckoo! . . . . Cuckoo!


<a href="http://s449.photobucket.com/albums/qq215/DeanArnold/?action=view&amp;current=immersive.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq215/DeanArnold/immersive.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

vnzla81
01-26-2011, 10:39 AM
The best way to solve the problem is to eliminate the problem, I don't think is that hard.

DaveP63
01-26-2011, 10:54 AM
A very interesting take on a difficult situation. I reference to the in and out of the lineup deal I am reminded of a quote from Murphy's Law of Armed Combat: "Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing". Perhaps, the players should just play and if/when they get the hook, they get the hook, as frustrating as that is for we the fans.

McKeyFan
01-26-2011, 11:08 AM
Murphy's Law of Armed Combat: "Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing".
Forget it. Too easy.

MagicRat
01-26-2011, 11:28 AM
Cuckoo! . . . . Cuckoo!

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye

Goodbye!

MagicRat
01-26-2011, 11:33 AM
Simple, FIRE HIM!!!

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell him
Many a thing he ought to understand
But how do you make him play
The players that you say
How do you keep a fan in the stands?

Oh, how do you solve a problem like O'Brien?
How do you put a pinkslip in his hand?

Roaming Gnome
01-26-2011, 11:36 AM
Very simple solution!
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VtTXofs7Ghw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

cdash
01-26-2011, 12:17 PM
Does anyone think that part of the reason Obie hired McCarty and Potapenko to be on his staff was to ensure he would finish out the season? When he had two assistant coaching spots open, do you think he intentionally picked inexperienced guys so that it would make it harder on the Pacers to fire him midseason? Wouldn't it have made more sense, if you really are wanting to make a serious playoff run, to hire someone with a lot of experience?

pacergod2
01-26-2011, 12:21 PM
Does anyone think that part of the reason Obie hired McCarty and Potapenko to be on his staff was to ensure he would finish out the season? When he had two assistant coaching spots open, do you think he intentionally picked inexperienced guys so that it would make it harder on the Pacers to fire him midseason? Wouldn't it have made more sense, if you really are wanting to make a serious playoff run, to hire someone with a lot of experience?

I said it when we hired them, I think JOB knows he won't be here after this season and is doing "his old boys" a favor by getting them NBA coaching experience.

Also, those hirings were not Bird or Simon's decisions, IMO. They are not comfortable with any of them to poromote to more than an assistant. That decision should be the coach's. It is awful convenient, though.

Mackey_Rose
01-26-2011, 12:21 PM
That article is over-analyzing the problem of O'Brien over-coaching. The solution is not nearly as complicated as he makes it seem.

It's easy. You fire him immediately, promote from within, and then figure things out after the necessary first steps have been taken.

Mackey_Rose
01-26-2011, 12:23 PM
I said it when we hired them, I think JOB knows he won't be here after this season and is doing "his old boys" a favor by getting them NBA coaching experience.

I agree with cdash. I think he was more worried about saving his own job than to help position those guys for their potential future jobs.

vnzla81
01-26-2011, 12:24 PM
Does anyone think that part of the reason Obie hired McCarty and Potapenko to be on his staff was to ensure he would finish out the season? When he had two assistant coaching spots open, do you think he intentionally picked inexperienced guys so that it would make it harder on the Pacers to fire him midseason? Wouldn't it have made more sense, if you really are wanting to make a serious playoff run, to hire someone with a lot of experience?

Now we are talking, keep posting ;)

BillS
01-26-2011, 12:53 PM
You guys really go over the top when the conversation turns from "JOB is not competent because..." to "JOB is deliberately sabotaging the team/players because..."

Peck
01-26-2011, 01:14 PM
Does anyone think that part of the reason Obie hired McCarty and Potapenko to be on his staff was to ensure he would finish out the season? When he had two assistant coaching spots open, do you think he intentionally picked inexperienced guys so that it would make it harder on the Pacers to fire him midseason? Wouldn't it have made more sense, if you really are wanting to make a serious playoff run, to hire someone with a lot of experience?

Maybe in the back of his mind.

But no overall I think simply put Jim is a stylistic coach and wanted people in here who would just repeat his teachings and who already had a fundamental grasp on what he was trying to do.

Some would say that is his right and others would question the viability to not having a sounding board (at least in private) who would question your ideas.

I have a feeling Jim does not like having his ideas questioned, even in a private setting away from other coaches and players.

It all goes back to what T-Bird told us from day one, he is a true believer and like all true believers there is only one way to enlightenment.

Justin Tyme
01-26-2011, 01:18 PM
Does anyone think that part of the reason Obie hired McCarty and Potapenko to be on his staff was to ensure he would finish out the season? When he had two assistant coaching spots open, do you think he intentionally picked inexperienced guys so that it would make it harder on the Pacers to fire him midseason? Wouldn't it have made more sense, if you really are wanting to make a serious playoff run, to hire someone with a lot of experience?


I've said it b4, "Jimmy created his own job security for the year by who he hired as his assistants." What really upsets me is Bird allowed it to happen! It tells me either Bird wasn't on top of what was going on (smart enough to see what was happening), or Bird never intended firing Jimmy no matter how poorly the season went.

Sookie
01-26-2011, 01:25 PM
perhaps, but I think JOB really wanted "yes-men"

Justin Tyme
01-26-2011, 01:41 PM
Right now, the Pacers are a team in crisis, and Larry Bird is the guy who must step up and resolve it. He needs to make sure the players understand their ultimate accountability for their own (and the team’s) performance. He must address any problems he has with O’Brien’s performance without scapegoating him. He must put a fractured team back together.


Sorry, I don't see Bird having the management skills to do this. I've not seen anything in Bird's tenure in the FO that remotely suggests he has the capability to do it. I see the 2nd half of the season playing out just like the 1st half has. Jimmy is in control, and Bird is his enabler. Bird desperately hopes something will change to get him off the hotseat of having to make a managerial decision he's not comfortable or skilled enough to make. Staus quo for the rest of the season with hope of making the playoffs to get the pressure off of him. Do nothing and hope for a change instead of managing his employees.

MyFavMartin
01-26-2011, 01:42 PM
Feel like the players know he's gone after this season and they're not very motivated... Complex system, overly critical coach whose not helping the players develop... he's a lame duck. And I'm sure some are wondering about Bird put his confidence in JOB and as to what the business-side of bball has in store for them personally.

Since86
01-26-2011, 01:46 PM
You guys really go over the top when the conversation turns from "JOB is not competent because..." to "JOB is deliberately sabotaging the team/players because..."

I don't understand the firing of Lester O'Conner then. For so long we all thought that he simply walked away from the team, and then come to find out he was actually fired....

I don't think Jim had the intent of saving his job, but I think he saw Lester as a threat considering the attitude towards him when he filled in, and considering that he changed the way the team played for that game rather than just running Jim's system.

He wanted "yes men" so he went out and got inexperienced "yes men."

BillS
01-26-2011, 03:16 PM
I don't understand the firing of Lester O'Conner then. For so long we all thought that he simply walked away from the team, and then come to find out he was actually fired....

I don't think Jim had the intent of saving his job, but I think he saw Lester as a threat considering the attitude towards him when he filled in, and considering that he changed the way the team played for that game rather than just running Jim's system.

He wanted "yes men" so he went out and got inexperienced "yes men."

I can't disagree with that as such, because I'm not in the guy's head. But wanting guys around you who agree with you is not some kind of devious move to keep his job, as others have said above.

My problem is not with ideas like this, that something JOB does for understandable reasons negatively affects the team's ability to do something. My problem is when people say he purposely hired less valuable assistants so that he would keep his job, as in:


When he had two assistant coaching spots open, do you think he intentionally picked inexperienced guys so that it would make it harder on the Pacers to fire him midseason?

cdash
01-26-2011, 03:24 PM
I can't disagree with that as such, because I'm not in the guy's head. But wanting guys around you who agree with you is not some kind of devious move to keep his job, as others have said above.

My problem is not with ideas like this, that something JOB does for understandable reasons negatively affects the team's ability to do something. My problem is when people say he purposely hired less valuable assistants so that he would keep his job, as in:

Man, I can't win around here. The JOB defenders are on my case in this thread, and the haters are on my case in the other thread.

I just threw that out there as food for thought. I'm not saying that is what he did, but doesn't it stand to reason that if you want to win games and make a serious run at the playoffs that you should hire experienced coaches who have been there before and know how to motivate NBA players? It just seemed like a questionable move to hire two completely inexperienced guys to help coach a young team that doesn't know how to win.

Trophy
01-26-2011, 03:27 PM
Everyone just needs to bear it for the rest of the season.

I feel like once we get a new coach, our rebuilding will have been pretty much complete.

Jim's just not the right fit for what this team has become.

BillS
01-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Man, I can't win around here. The JOB defenders are on my case in this thread, and the haters are on my case in the other thread.

Don't mean to pick on you, but the quote was the only thing that stated the proposition.

But if you entertain that notion (and express it knowing that people will jump on it like conspiracy theorists on a cartridge casing from the Grassy Knoll), it sets up a thought that there's a purposeful deviousness in the action. That insinuation is one I don't like.

Hiring "yes-men" who know particular aspects of the game even without experience could very well be something even a good coach does to take the next step. It unifies the message and teaches specific things that players have gaps in their knowledge about. It all depends on what your purpose for using your assistant coaches is, and everyone uses them differently.

McKeyFan
01-26-2011, 03:34 PM
Man, I can't win around here. The JOB defenders are on my case in this thread, and the haters are on my case in the other thread.



Your Faustian deal to advocate for the devil has left you desolate.


;)

cdash
01-26-2011, 03:34 PM
Don't mean to pick on you, but the quote was the only thing that stated the proposition.

But if you entertain that notion (and express it knowing that people will jump on it like conspiracy theorists on a cartridge casing from the Grassy Knoll), it sets up a thought that there's a purposeful deviousness in the action. That insinuation is one I don't like.

Hiring "yes-men" who know particular aspects of the game even without experience could very well be something even a good coach does to take the next step. It unifies the message and teaches specific things that players have gaps in their knowledge about. It all depends on what your purpose for using your assistant coaches is, and everyone uses them differently.

That's fine, I understand that. I just offered up a possible alternative reason for hiring inexperienced guys. There are many different reasons why he could have made the move. I threw out the possibility that maybe, just maybe, in the back of his mind he knew that if heat were levied upon him during the season, that these guys wouldn't be seen as suitable replacements to him mid-season. It's entirely possible that thought lingered in the back of his mind when making these decisions, it's only human to look out for yourself. I don't think it was the only reason he made those hires, but I think altogether dismissing it as a factor is naive.

cdash
01-26-2011, 03:35 PM
Your Faustian deal to advocate for the devil has left you desolate.


;)

It appears to be the case.

MagicRat
01-26-2011, 05:14 PM
Man, I can't win around here. The JOB defenders are on my case in this thread, and the haters are on my case in the other thread.

I always find it best (at least in this thread) to let the Von Trapps do my talking......

You dear attractive dewy-eyed idealist,
Today you have to learn to be a realist.
You may be bent on doing deed of daring due,
But up against a shark, what can a herring do?
Be wise, compromise.
Compromise, and be wise!
Let them think you're on their side, be noncommittal.
I will not bow my head to the men I despise!
You won't have to bow your head to stoop a little.
Why not learn to put your faith and your reliance,
On an obvious and simple fact of science?

A crazy planet full of crazy people,
Is somersaulting all around the sky.
And everytime it turns another somersault,
Another day goes by.
And there's no way to stop it,
No, there's no way to stop it.
No, you can't stop it even if you tried.
So, I'm not going to worry,
No, I'm not going to worry,
Everytime I see another day go by.

PaceBalls
01-26-2011, 05:23 PM
I like to let the theme to Rawhide do my talking for me in threads like these.

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'

Keep movin', movin', movin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them doggies movin' Rawhide!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just rope and throw and grab 'em,
Soon we'll be living high and wide.
Boy my heart's calculatin'
My true love will be waitin', be waiting at the end of my ride.

Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em out,
Move 'em on, head 'em out Rawhide!
Set 'em out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, ride 'em in Rawhide!

yeehaw

PacerGuy
01-26-2011, 05:41 PM
I always find it best (at least in this thread) to let the Von Trapps do my talking.......

I always thought the Von Tropps (Family Singers) sang:

"Doe, a dear, a female dear,
Ray, a drop of golden sun.
Me a name I call myself,
Far, a long-long way to run.
Sow, a needdle pulling thread,
La, a note to follo so.
Tea, a drink w/ jam & bread,
which will bring us back to doe!"

Wait. Wasn't there another song "How Do We Solve a Problem Like Maria?"
Lets just change Maria to JO'B & start singing?
Area 55, you have your challenge! :)