PDA

View Full Version : Charlie Rosen on Carlisle, Pacers



Kegboy
09-30-2004, 05:22 PM
Jay pointed out to me that Charlie Rosen is doing a series of articles on each NBA coach leading up to the season.

For those who don't know, Charlie Rosen is a former CBA coach and is widely known as Phil Jackson's hatchet man. I thoroughly dislike the man, if for no other reason than he can't open his mouth without taking an unsubstantiated pot-shot at somebody. For instance, he started the Paul Silas article by blaming Paul's long tenure as an assistant on Pat Riley supposedly calling him lazy.

That said, I couldn't resist posting this. Take from it what you will.

Are Pacers, Carlisle a good fit? (http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3024826)


Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 10 days ago

This guy is a coach, not a schmoozer. It's not that he doesn't cooperate with the media, just that he can be abrupt and close-mouthed when responding to the normal "what-was-your-greatest-thrill" type interviews. Ask him a "real" basketball question, however, and he'll give an honest, intelligent response.

Sometimes, though, Carlisle can be too honest for his own good as when he publicly calls his players to task for their shoddy performances. And when his unshakeable honesty oftentimes leads to stubbornness.

Coaching stubborn defense is the hallmark of Carlisle's game plan. His teams will deny passes, collapse on ball penetration (while still being in position to run down shooters), attack post passes, fight through screen/rolls (or have big men show), and generally harass the ball. Quickness and cohesive rotations are the keys.

At the downhill end of the court, Carlisle favors lots of early offense, dives, curls, pin-downs, cross-picks, multi-facets of the Hawk series (where the bigs start high and then pick low), isos, and some flex action. Precision and good shooters are the requisites.

Similar to his relationship with the media, Carlisle is all-business when dealing with his players. He's their coach, not their buddy. Carlisle also exhibits a wonderful game-time demeanor on the bench involved, but still calm and rational.

Not that Carlisle's resume is spotless. Interesting enough, he blinked during the playoffs for two seasons running. In Game 2 against the Nets in the 2003 Eastern Conference finals, Carlisle sat Michael Curry and plugged Tayshaun Prince into Detroit's starting lineup, a move designed to boost the Piston's lethargic offense. In truth, Prince was spectacularly unprepared to be a go-to guy in his rookie season. Sure, he'd had his moments against Philadelphia in the previous series, but the Sixers' interior defense was weak whereas the Nets' D was all about quick hands and double-teamings.

By disregarding the fact that Curry was one of the Pistons' most accomplished defenders and most positive locker room presences, Carlisle undermined the team's primary strength its overall chemistry. Curry was then double-dissed in that game when he was denied any daylight whatsoever.

Carlisle repeated the same tactic during last year's conference finals against Detroit when he removed Jeff Foster from the lineup and likewise screwed him into the bench for the duration. The rationale was that while Foster was a dependable defender and an excellent rebounder (particularly in a crowd), he couldn't score with a pencil.

Did Carlisle panic? Perhaps Detroit general manager Joe Dumars forced Carlisle to force feed Prince? Or was Carlisle merely being flexible?

Nobody but Carlisle knows for sure.

The two moves by Carlisle essentially sent the following message to his players: What got them so deep into the playoffs was not good enough to take them to the next level.

In order to be effective in the modern-day NBA, Carlisle's stick-to-the-business-at-hand game face needs to be presented to a special group of players guys who want desperately to win, who are willing to sacrifice their own numbers, and who don't need to be nuzzled and spoon-fed by their coach. In other words, players who have attained a certain level of maturity.

In truth, Carlisle's squad in Detroit fit these requisites much more than his current team does. The likes of Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, and newcomer Stephen Jackson have never been accused of acting like grown-ups.

What else does the Pacers' roster have to offer? Consistently erratic performances by Austin Croshere and Jamaal Tinsley. The increasing decrepitude of Reggie Miller. The alarming playoff incompetence of Artest. And the still-elusive coming-of-age of Jonathan Bender.

Add it all up and there'll be plenty of offense, insufficient discipline (especially from the mistake-prone Jackson), and nary enough defense. By season's end, the time may be ripe for the Pacers to either back up the truck and ship out their resident knuckleheads, or for Rick Carlisle to connect with a team of adults that needs a coach.

Unclebuck
09-30-2004, 05:34 PM
I found that to be an interesting read.

Although if you just read that article and did not know that the Pacers won 61 games season, you might gues they had won maybe 35. Sounds like some of the discussions we have had in this forum this summer

SoupIsGood
09-30-2004, 05:42 PM
I usually never read Charlie Rosen articles, and wish I hadn't of read this.

How he can say we don't have enough defense after us being a top 3 team (imo) defensivly and that Detroit series confuses me.

On an off note check this out - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1892311

Anyone notice anything fishy about that page? Someone at ESPN is confusing NBA with NFL.

ChicagoJ
09-30-2004, 05:49 PM
Rosen is obviously living with a big bug up his @$$.

However, I agreed with his points about Stephen "Turnover" Jackson. If he plays as badly as he's capable of, I won't have time to complain about Ron's brain. :p

Because Rick approaches every game as if it were the playoffs, I'm not surprised that he'd have to send the message that "what got us this far may not be good enough to get us all the way." That, by its very definition, is an adjustment. Rosen seems to be arguing that Rick is too flexible. Not sure I've *ever* heard that one before. :rolleyes:

However, I remain unconvinced that our team's chemistry is very good - every time last season we had a stretch of 0.500 play (December, Miami + ECFs), it seemed that poor chemistry was one of the contributors. Winning can mask that, temporarily.

Hicks
09-30-2004, 07:00 PM
This guy is an idiot. "Plenty of offense but not enough defense"? Does he WATCH the Pacers? Ever?

Ultimate Frisbee
09-30-2004, 07:14 PM
Though some of his criticism may seem harsh at first read, I think Rosen's view shold be acknowledged.

He may well be full of *****, and I don't like the way that he presents his point, but his central thesis is solid (I'll disagree with it after presenting it).

He thinks that Carlisle is a great coach and his style breeds success, though to win at a higher level, Carlisle needs a different sort of player on his team... (none of us can really say that Artest, O'Neal, or Jackson acts mature on a regular basis). Carlisle needs players like Bird in order to succeed.... Talent is not really an issue. He thinks that if the Pacers fail to at least compete in the finals this year, they will have demonstrated that changes need to be made.

To some extent I agree with Rosen, but being an optomistic Pacer fan, I think that Carlisle's professional attitude has rubbed off on many of the Pacers. From what I gather, we avoided much of the bickering that was present when Thomas was coach. Artest didn't break down until the playoffs (perhaps it could be attributed to the change in attitude of the entire team/coach), Tinsley's level of play and overall discipline increased signficantl and O'Neal seemed much more content to play the Duncanesque role of the silent star. From what I've heard of Jackson, I don't see him being a problem... he'll certainly continue to make mistakes, but Carlisle will help him refine his play even further. What I do agree with is that this season will be telling... if we don't surpass the play of last year (maybe not total wins, but quality wins and playoff wins), then I think the Pacers must seriously consider getting rid of the "knuckleheads" (if they even exist).

sweabs
09-30-2004, 07:48 PM
From what I've heard of Jackson, I don't see him being a problem... he'll certainly continue to make mistakes, but Carlisle will help him refine his play even further.

Don't forget about Mike Brown.

Anthem
09-30-2004, 08:02 PM
Paging Kstat... Paging Kstat...

If only Carlisle had left Prince on the bench, Detroit would have done better. It killed chemistry and got them out of the playoffs because Carlisle dissed Curry by starting a rookie ahead of him.

Yeah, I stopped taking this article seriously right there.

Ultimate Frisbee
09-30-2004, 08:31 PM
(none of us can really say that O'Neal acts mature on a regular basis). .

BS - Don't know what team you've been watching, but it obviously wasn't the Pacers.



gimme a break, JO acts just as much like a kid as the rest of them...

Maybe you missed all of the times that O'Neal flexed for the camera after dunks instead of running back to get on defense...

Or threatening to not sign with the Pacers if they didn't keep IT...

Or whining that the Pacers should get a center that is an offensive threat just to help out his game...

Or the 16 techical fouls called on O'Neal (more than 3 times that of anyone else on the team, Harrington had 6, but he's gone now), also tied for 3rd most in the league last year...

The media is too focused on the usual suspects; Artest, etc. JO's game is good, and that helps, but he also is quite generous with the press, and hence they usually lay off of him.


Also, no thanks for editing what I typed...

Lord Helmet
09-30-2004, 09:02 PM
Charlie Rosen = idiot. No defense? :laugh: Yea Rick screwed the fiesty one when he didn't start him in the ECF agianst DET. :laugh: :rolleyes: Actually he was trying to make adjustments and for the 1st game it worked.Or did I just see another game? :unimpressed:

Anthem
09-30-2004, 09:34 PM
Give yourself a break. If you haven't seen the IMMENSE improvement in JO then you AREN"T watching the Pacers. To lump him with RA is sheer lunacy.

I'm not sure how to answer this statement... Ron Artest improved more last year than JO did.

Lumping JO's improvement with Ron is a compliment, not an insult.

ChicagoJ
09-30-2004, 11:07 PM
Anthem, I know you believe that.

JO hasn't done/said anything immature or detrimental to the team's performance in a couple of years.

Fine, he gets too many T's. He also gets hacked a lot and doesn't take anywhere near as many FTs as the other MVP candidates. I know this is a chicken-and-egg thing, and I wish JO would just shut up and play.

JO at his worst/ most immature behavior is much, much, much better for the Pacers than Ron's best, most mature day. Period.

howboutanicebrew_er
09-30-2004, 11:56 PM
I hadn't read any of Rosen's stuff before this, and if I had, I didn't read it very long. This is a horrible article, period. Carlisle coming out in the media pointing out who had an awful game (Artest) was a wonderful thing. Artest had his problems, and RC showed him who was boss and RA responded well, playing much better after that.

JO is a little immature, with the technicals one must think that. He his however a wonderful player, and his outbursts didn't really hurt the team. JO is now the leader of the team (unless Reggie feels like taking over), and some times a tech is necessary, RC did it a few times.

Some of them need to grow up yes, but then, if we won 61 last year and we're still growing........

Ultimate Frisbee
10-01-2004, 12:11 AM
(none of us can really say that O'Neal acts mature on a regular basis). .

BS - Don't know what team you've been watching, but it obviously wasn't the Pacers.




gimme a break, JO acts just as much like a kid as the rest of them...

Maybe you missed all of the times that O'Neal flexed for the camera after dunks instead of running back to get on defense...

Or threatening to not sign with the Pacers if they didn't keep IT...

Or whining that the Pacers should get a center that is an offensive threat just to help out his game...

Or the 16 techical fouls called on O'Neal (more than 3 times that of anyone else on the team, Harrington had 6, but he's gone now), also tied for 3rd most in the league last year...

The media is too focused on the usual suspects; Artest, etc. JO's game is good, and that helps, but he also is quite generous with the press, and hence they usually lay off of him.


Also, no thanks for editing what I typed...




Give yourself a break. If you haven't seen the IMMENSE improvement in JO then you AREN"T watching the Pacers. To lump him with RA is sheer lunacy.

Gee, what are you, a professional writer? ;):rolleyes:
I took out the other names and that left EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE. :laugh:


The whole point of what I first wrote was to give examples of how Carlisle's professionalism positively impacting the team. I'm not sure what type of improvement you're talking about, but if its improvement to JO's game, we're way off topic.

Leaving out words in a quote without noting it can be quite deceiving.. in this case, I never meant to single out JO, but only talk about the younger members of the team in general...

Anthem
10-01-2004, 01:29 AM
Anthem, I know you believe that.

JO hasn't done/said anything immature or detrimental to the team's performance in a couple of years.

Fine, he gets too many T's. He also gets hacked a lot and doesn't take anywhere near as many FTs as the other MVP candidates. I know this is a chicken-and-egg thing, and I wish JO would just shut up and play.

JO at his worst/ most immature behavior is much, much, much better for the Pacers than Ron's best, most mature day. Period.

Maybe I wasn't clear; I thought my underlying point was self-evident.

Jermaine improved less last year than Artest did. A big reason, though, is that he's a lot closer to where he needs to be than Artest is. I could care less about the technicals; Reggie got his share and turned out all right. Jermaine's still a work in progress, but he's closer to the finished product than Artest is. I don't think we're in disagreement on that.

The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether or not Artest is continuing to improve. And frankly, we're at a point where there's not much left to be said. We just have to wait and see.

When I turn out to be right, though, I hope you'll be gracious. :devil:

EDIT: And your last statement is flat out wrong, and we both know it. I'm taking it as hyperbole, which is how I think you meant it, but if you honestly believe it then I'd be glad to debate that point.

ChicagoJ
10-01-2004, 10:02 AM
No we agree that Artest can continue to improve. It seems to me that the primary difference is that we don't agree on where Ron currently stands on the maturity continuum. On a 1-10 scale, I'd put him closer to "3" and you've probably got him closer to "6-7".

My concern is that, if I'm right that he's at "3", getting him up to a level where we can depend on him when things don't go his way or when the pressure is on could still take a very long time, and the extra work that JO, Reggie, Rick, DW, etc. have to do to get one player on board may weaken the rest of the team too much.

I'd rather have the entire team focused on winning, instead of trying to get one talented but immature player to buy into the team concepts 100% of the time.

If I'm wrong, I'll be gracious. I've eaten humble pie before. :rolleyes: I'd rather be wrong in a way that makes the Pacers better, than to have my fears and predictions come true - I want to be wrong on this one even though I think I'm right.

Besides, I truly expect that Stephen Jackson will 'offend' me much more during the upcoming season than Ron will. :(

TheSauceMaster
10-01-2004, 10:44 AM
Besides, I truly expect that Stephen Jackson will 'offend' me much more during the upcoming season than Ron will. :(

Can it get any worse I mean have'nt you cried enough about Sjax enough already , TC hasn't even started and you be throwing gas bombs on him since the trade :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why don't you think that Sjax will improve or can improve on the Pacers ? Please don't use the past performace arguement :devil:

:p:p:p

ChicagoJ
10-01-2004, 11:26 AM
I can't tell if you're just giving me a hard time or if you want a serious answer. I know I voiced my displeasure with the trade, but I thought I had shut up about it for a while. Oh well, you're certainly not accusing me of flip-flopping... hey if he proves me wrong then I'll state my reasons and happily flip-flop.

If we ranked all the players we could trade Al for, Stephen Jackson would have been on my "don't touch this guy with a ten-foot pole" list. I don't like his game. I know this is perilously close to the "past performance argument", but what else do we have to work with? He's basically been the same player for a few seasons, albeit on completely different styles of teams.

I'm just not a big fan of "projecting" improvement on veteran players - guys that have been established or starters in the league for a couple of years or more. What you see is what you get. Until he consistently proves otherwise, he's turnover prone with a penchant for poor shot selection and tendancy to shoot a low % from the floor. Sure, he can fill it up if he's on a bad team with no other options, but he won't get that luxury here.

Time will reveal whether he can (1) transform his game, (2) drag the Pacers down to his level, or (3) fall out of the Pacers' rotation.

I think Rick will make sure that choice (3) happens before we reach choice (2). As a Pacers' fan, I'd like to see choice (1), but he's going to have to show me something before I'm going to pencil him in as a postive. I don't think its a 'given' that he's going to be successful here. And if he is, I think it will be a challenging adjustment for him and the team.

To close on a positive, I'll say this, he's said the "right things". There is hope for choice (1), but it may take more than one season to get there.

Fool
10-01-2004, 11:44 AM
Well, I'm not Kstat but the whole (Piston) world was crying for Carlisle to put Prince in any time durring the regular season and playoffs rather than Curry. Curry did play solid defense but it wasn't spectacular (he didn't shut anyone down) and any advantage he gave the Piston's defensively he more than gave away offensively.

The Piston's lost to NJ that year because Robinson was too tired from his heavy minutes in the reg. season to make more than 20% of his shots in the playoffs, Billups was hurt as bad as Tinsley in this year's ECF, and Pepe Sanchez didn't get any playing time (that last one is a joke and I'm don't even think he was still on the roster). Kidd ran all over us with Billups hurt and the Pistons had little they could do to respond.

I think all four games started with a break-away dunk by Kenyon (at least 3 of them did for sure). Man do I hate the Nets. (Well, I guess now I hate small parts of various teams and the Nets).

Anyway, Carlisle finally admitting that Curry was a hinderance kept Detroit from dying in the first round (Prince shut McGrady down like he did to Kobe and ...) Prince wasn't as effective in the Philadelphia series though in crucial instances he hit clutch shots (he posted up and made what looked like hideous shots fall more than a few times, man was that season tight the whole way).

I'll stop reminicing and just say that the mistake was not deciding that Curry wasn't enough before the playoffs (or even half way through the season) not changing what was absolutely a clear problem by the end of the season.

SoupIsGood
10-01-2004, 03:08 PM
(none of us can really say that O'Neal acts mature on a regular basis). .

BS - Don't know what team you've been watching, but it obviously wasn't the Pacers.




gimme a break, JO acts just as much like a kid as the rest of them...

Maybe you missed all of the times that O'Neal flexed for the camera after dunks instead of running back to get on defense...

Or threatening to not sign with the Pacers if they didn't keep IT...

Or whining that the Pacers should get a center that is an offensive threat just to help out his game...

Or the 16 techical fouls called on O'Neal (more than 3 times that of anyone else on the team, Harrington had 6, but he's gone now), also tied for 3rd most in the league last year...

The media is too focused on the usual suspects; Artest, etc. JO's game is good, and that helps, but he also is quite generous with the press, and hence they usually lay off of him.


Also, no thanks for editing what I typed...




Give yourself a break. If you haven't seen the IMMENSE improvement in JO then you AREN"T watching the Pacers. To lump him with RA is sheer lunacy.

Gee, what are you, a professional writer? ;):rolleyes:
I took out the other names and that left EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE. :laugh:


The whole point of what I first wrote was to give examples of how Carlisle's professionalism positively impacting the team. I'm not sure what type of improvement you're talking about, but if its improvement to JO's game, we're way off topic.

Leaving out words in a quote without noting it can be quite deceiving.. in this case, I never meant to single out JO, but only talk about the younger members of the team in general...




I'm talking about his emotional growth, just like you were.
Deceiving? What a load of bull. YOU made the statement. Take out other names and that's what you said.
Sorry, you can't change it now. ;)

:laugh::laugh:

So he can't change what he said now, but you can? It is decieving to do that, it implys to seperate things.

Ultimate Frisbee
10-01-2004, 03:55 PM
(none of us can really say that O'Neal acts mature on a regular basis). .

BS - Don't know what team you've been watching, but it obviously wasn't the Pacers.




gimme a break, JO acts just as much like a kid as the rest of them...

Maybe you missed all of the times that O'Neal flexed for the camera after dunks instead of running back to get on defense...

Or threatening to not sign with the Pacers if they didn't keep IT...

Or whining that the Pacers should get a center that is an offensive threat just to help out his game...

Or the 16 techical fouls called on O'Neal (more than 3 times that of anyone else on the team, Harrington had 6, but he's gone now), also tied for 3rd most in the league last year...

The media is too focused on the usual suspects; Artest, etc. JO's game is good, and that helps, but he also is quite generous with the press, and hence they usually lay off of him.


Also, no thanks for editing what I typed...




Give yourself a break. If you haven't seen the IMMENSE improvement in JO then you AREN"T watching the Pacers. To lump him with RA is sheer lunacy.

Gee, what are you, a professional writer? ;):rolleyes:
I took out the other names and that left EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE. :laugh:


The whole point of what I first wrote was to give examples of how Carlisle's professionalism positively impacting the team. I'm not sure what type of improvement you're talking about, but if its improvement to JO's game, we're way off topic.

Leaving out words in a quote without noting it can be quite deceiving.. in this case, I never meant to single out JO, but only talk about the younger members of the team in general...




I'm talking about his emotional growth, just like you were.
Deceiving? What a load of bull. YOU made the statement. Take out other names and that's what you said.
Sorry, you can't change it now. ;)

For clarification, here is what I said in its entirety... I don't really think that we disagree on that much... except that I don't exclude JO from the Pacers immaturity/selfish problems...




He thinks that Carlisle is a great coach and his style breeds success, though to win at a higher level, Carlisle needs a different sort of player on his team... (none of us can really say that Artest, O'Neal, or Jackson acts mature on a regular basis). Carlisle needs players like Bird in order to succeed.... Talent is not really an issue. He thinks that if the Pacers fail to at least compete in the finals this year, they will have demonstrated that changes need to be made.

To some extent I agree with Rosen, but being an optomistic Pacer fan, I think that Carlisle's professional attitude has rubbed off on many of the Pacers. From what I gather, we avoided much of the bickering that was present when Thomas was coach. Artest didn't break down until the playoffs (perhaps it could be attributed to the change in attitude of the entire team/coach), Tinsley's level of play and overall discipline increased signficantl and O'Neal seemed much more content to play the Duncanesque role of the silent star. From what I've heard of Jackson, I don't see him being a problem... he'll certainly continue to make mistakes, but Carlisle will help him refine his play even further. What I do agree with is that this season will be telling... if we don't surpass the play of last year (maybe not total wins, but quality wins and playoff wins), then I think the Pacers must seriously consider getting rid of the "knuckleheads" (if they even exist).

Shade
10-02-2004, 01:26 PM
Interesting that he takes Rick to task about Prince/Cro, but neglects to note how both moves were successful on the court. Sometimes being a good coach is knowing when to try something new when the old standby no longer is effective.

TheSauceMaster
10-04-2004, 02:57 AM
I can't tell if you're just giving me a hard time or if you want a serious answer. I know I voiced my displeasure with the trade, but I thought I had shut up about it for a while. Oh well, you're certainly not accusing me of flip-flopping... hey if he proves me wrong then I'll state my reasons and happily flip-flop.

If we ranked all the players we could trade Al for, Stephen Jackson would have been on my "don't touch this guy with a ten-foot pole" list. I don't like his game. I know this is perilously close to the "past performance argument", but what else do we have to work with? He's basically been the same player for a few seasons, albeit on completely different styles of teams.

I'm just not a big fan of "projecting" improvement on veteran players - guys that have been established or starters in the league for a couple of years or more. What you see is what you get. Until he consistently proves otherwise, he's turnover prone with a penchant for poor shot selection and tendancy to shoot a low % from the floor. Sure, he can fill it up if he's on a bad team with no other options, but he won't get that luxury here.

Time will reveal whether he can (1) transform his game, (2) drag the Pacers down to his level, or (3) fall out of the Pacers' rotation.

I think Rick will make sure that choice (3) happens before we reach choice (2). As a Pacers' fan, I'd like to see choice (1), but he's going to have to show me something before I'm going to pencil him in as a postive. I don't think its a 'given' that he's going to be successful here. And if he is, I think it will be a challenging adjustment for him and the team.

To close on a positive, I'll say this, he's said the "right things". There is hope for choice (1), but it may take more than one season to get there.

Alittle hard time , alittle sarcasim mixed with a few pinches of seriousness :devil:

I am not saying much yet , gonna let it ride out til atleast mid season if possiable , I dunno if he is going to be one of those players that creates a instant impact. Alot depends on how well he works in the Pacers Scheme of things and how many quality mins he get's to improve and learn this system.

I agree with you Jay alittle but not fully , I hope # 1 will happen and you know # 3 will happen if # 1 doesn't , then it would be easily deemed a poor traded , I guess I am in play it by ear mode right now.