PDA

View Full Version : Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?



vnzla81
08-18-2012, 04:59 PM
OK so I'm bringing up this question because I have seen a lot of people telling me that the "non tanking seasons" (under JOB) kept the Pacers in Indiana, do you think JOB saved the Pacers stay in Indiana with his last season winning runs instead of winning 10 games a year?






Note that I know some people are going to say Larry Bird but as we know Larry was hands off regarding who to play leaving the decision in JOB's hands.

Eleazar
08-18-2012, 05:45 PM
The Pacers were never going to leave, and JOB certainly had absolutely nothing to do with them staying here. If anything those teams would have been better without him.

beast23
08-18-2012, 05:57 PM
If you think ther was ever a chance of that happening you are very misguided.

Hoop
08-18-2012, 06:01 PM
JOB just about ran off what fans were left after the brawl, off court trouble, shootings etc..

I know long time ticket holders that JOB ran off that had stayed loyal after all the trouble, I was almost one of them. I was at the end of the rope, hadn't been to a game in 2 months and was just about to call it quits, when they finely fired his worthless @ss.

I give him NO credit for anything except delaying the development of the team a few years. The "undesirable" players were shipped out, any coach brought in would have changed the culture.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 06:19 PM
The Pacers were never going to leave, and JOB certainly had absolutely nothing to do with them staying here. If anything those teams would have been better without him.

I agree that they were never going to leave, the question that I'm asking is to the people that keep telling me that "tanking" would have moved the Pacers to another city, the "non tanking" was done by JOB, so if "non tanking" kept the Pacers in Indiana does that mean that JOB is the Indiana Pacers savior? should Pacers fans give some credit to JOB for helping keep the Pacers here?

adamscb
08-18-2012, 06:19 PM
No. In the last 38 games of 2011, Vogel did more for the franchise than O'Brien did in three years.

cdash
08-18-2012, 06:23 PM
He had absolutely, positively nothing to do with the Pacers staying in Indy. They were never going anywhere.

Roaming Gnome
08-18-2012, 07:31 PM
Tanking or not, the casuals and most just weren't interested in the product on the floor. I don't think there would have been much of a difference attendance wise if the team won 20 games or the 30-something we were winning under O'Brien. So, ultimately... No, Obie didn't help the team stick around. They'd still be here!

As for tanking in general... We all know about the success stories of Cleveland tanking and the Clippers with Blake Griffin, but no one ever brings up how many extremely high lottery picks that the Clippers (before Griffin), Washington, Milwaukee or Minnesota has had with minimal success in the regular season or play-offs.

Doddage
08-18-2012, 07:51 PM
This is a ridiculous thread.

OlBlu
08-18-2012, 08:58 PM
No, I don't think the Pacers were moving but he did help by rebuilding without ever having to sink to 15 or less wins......:cool: ...

Hoop
08-18-2012, 09:54 PM
I agree that they were never going to leave, the question that I'm asking is to the people that keep telling me that "tanking" would have moved the Pacers to another city, the "non tanking" was done by JOB, so if "non tanking" kept the Pacers in Indiana does that mean that JOB is the Indiana Pacers savior? should Pacers fans give some credit to JOB for helping keep the Pacers here?
I don't buy the idea that tanking would have made any difference with the fan base. They sucked, sucking a little more would not have mattered, IMO.

I think you under estimate the large group of fans that wanted the young guys to play regardless. Some thought that would be tanking. Some thought we would win more games, growing pains and all, I was in that group.

Some thought just having JOB in charge was tanking. :D

Personally I'm not opposed to tanking depending on the situation. We should have tanked at the end of the season JOB's 2nd and 3rd season. The season Vogel took over we did the right thing going for that 8th spot.

Eddie Gill
08-18-2012, 10:48 PM
No. No. No.

Unclebuck
08-18-2012, 10:59 PM
No.

And if "a lot of people" told you that u r talking to the wrong people

But no coach will ever tank. But maybe I have a different definition of what tanking means.

This is a weird question

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 11:03 PM
No.

And if "a lot of people" told you that u r talking to the wrong people

But no coach will ever tank. But maybe I have a different definition of what tanking means.

This is a weird question

That's a reason why you fire the coach before he hurts you.

Sandman21
08-19-2012, 12:43 AM
Sure, he helped the Pacers stay in Indy.....


By being fired when he was. Just from little bits and pieces I've heard, I've think his ouster was partially forced by fans en masse saying they were not going to renew their season tickets unless he was fired.

kester99
08-19-2012, 01:22 AM
He certainly helped them stay in Indy during the playoffs.

Heisenberg
08-19-2012, 01:23 AM
Well, by the end he'd united a fanbase. So there is that.

ilive4sports
08-19-2012, 01:31 AM
Ummm tanking isn't a coaching decision. It comes from upstairs. As a coach, your job is to win games. So I don't see how JOB is keeping the Pacers in town or not. Sure Larry may not have said, hey play this guy more or less. But he didn't say, hey we are gonna tank. JOB just did his job.

Aside from the fact that I don't think the Pacers were ever going to move, I just don't see how JOB, just by coaching, kept the team in Indiana.

Heisenberg
08-19-2012, 01:36 AM
I want to try and define an acceptable form of tanking. It's sound and logical for a franchise to face reality and say "hey, we stink, time to jettison every asset and rebuild." I can support and probably encourage that stance. But I can absolutely not support not playing your best players, putting them in situations to fail (out of position, roles they absolutely cannot fill, that stuff).

I'm fine with a front office putting a bad team on the floor in the hopes of drafting a superstar. I'm disgusted by a mediocre team just not playing to win.

spazzxb
08-19-2012, 01:37 AM
I don't buy the idea that tanking would have made any difference with the fan base. They sucked, sucking a little more would not have mattered, IMO.

I think you under estimate the large group of fans that wanted the young guys to play regardless. Some thought that would be tanking. Some thought we would win more games, growing pains and all, I was in that group.

Some thought just having JOB in charge was tanking. :D

Personally I'm not opposed to tanking depending on the situation. We should have tanked at the end of the season JOB's 2nd and 3rd season. The season Vogel took over we did the right thing going for that 8th spot.


The problem is "young guys" primarily consisted of Josh mcroberts with a side of AJ Price. Roy kept himself off the floor with foul trouble and Asthma as a rookie. PG only played for him for half a season. Most the fans don't even like Tyler anymore so there really wasn't young talent ,at least not that was relevant to this organizations future, on the roster.

vnzla81
08-19-2012, 10:30 AM
The response seems to always be, "well, you didn't risk messing up the whole season so you are clearly satisfied with being competitive and being the 'under dog'. Wouldn't it be better to spend 5 years winning 10 games a year and finally win the lottery and get the superstar so the Las Vegas Pacers will be champions? After all, that's the ONLY WAY to win!"

Here is an example post to those that don't know what I'm talking about.

Ace E.Anderson
08-19-2012, 10:40 AM
Where's the he-- no option?! I understand the concept of the question but I think other cosches could have led us to 9th place finishes also. The last two years of the JOB era was downright atrocious to watch/enjoy as a fan.

I don't think JOB is as bad of a coach as he seemed to be here, but he should never work with a team that's trying to rebuild with younger talent.

BillS
08-19-2012, 01:12 PM
Here is an example post to those that don't know what I'm talking about.

:banghead:

The point wasn't that not tanking "saved" the franchise. The point was that the most common recent "success story" being OKC is tainted by the fact that they moved once they hit their goal.

Think about this - had Chicago not won the lottery from the 10th position to get DRose, how many more years would they have had to suck before getting a high pick? Pacers were in nearly as good a position to win the lottery and didn't have the luck to do it. It isn't like within 4 years we were guaranteed to get a pick who would have been a franchise-changer. An injured EJ is still an injured EJ - otherwise, where is the Clippers' ring since they got him?

I'm with Heisenberg. You play the best players you have, you don't bench them so you can essentially lose on purpose. Reboot the team, trade your assets and rebuild from scratch, fine - but I think trading away the only players who had any remaining popularity might well have been the last straw for many fans who were sticking around.

People also forget that during JOB's first year he really was credited with getting the team to play a more exciting up-tempo style than the grind-it-out half-court offense Rick was running. It was really not until nothing particularly improved the second year that his stock started dropping with most fans - and, yes, I am aware that there were people here who hated him from day one, but it was in no way universal.

OlBlu
08-19-2012, 01:15 PM
Where's the he-- no option?! I understand the concept of the question but I think other cosches could have led us to 9th place finishes also. The last two years of the JOB era was downright atrocious to watch/enjoy as a fan.

I don't think JOB is as bad of a coach as he seemed to be here, but he should never work with a team that's trying to rebuild with younger talent.

He showed that was exactly what he was best at. He showed them discipline and they had to do it his way or walk. He did a great job of rebuilding this team on the run.....:cool: ...

vnzla81
08-19-2012, 01:33 PM
:banghead:

The point wasn't that not tanking "saved" the franchise. The point was that the most common recent "success story" being OKC is tainted by the fact that they moved once they hit their goal.

Think about this - had Chicago not won the lottery from the 10th position to get DRose, how many more years would they have had to suck before getting a high pick? Pacers were in nearly as good a position to win the lottery and didn't have the luck to do it. It isn't like within 4 years we were guaranteed to get a pick who would have been a franchise-changer. An injured EJ is still an injured EJ - otherwise, where is the Clippers' ring since they got him?

I'm with Heisenberg. You play the best players you have, you don't bench them so you can essentially lose on purpose. Reboot the team, trade your assets and rebuild from scratch, fine - but I think trading away the only players who had any remaining popularity might well have been the last straw for many fans who were sticking around.

People also forget that during JOB's first year he really was credited with getting the team to play a more exciting up-tempo style than the grind-it-out half-court offense Rick was running. It was really not until nothing particularly improved the second year that his stock started dropping with most fans - and, yes, I am aware that there were people here who hated him from day one, but it was in no way universal.

So according to you what saved the franchise from moving to Las Vegas? and nope nobody is asking to tank to "win the lottery".

Brad8888
08-19-2012, 01:45 PM
One more year of O'Brien, in my view, could have led to a disbanding of the franchise, with a re-emergence of another franchise in another city to replace it, and the Fieldhouse sitting vacant for a while.

Don't forget that the Pacers still pay a hefty chunk of their TV revenue to the former ownership of the St. Louis Spirits from the ABA merger agreement, and that could have been partially broken if the Pacers ceased to exist. The huge penalties to the CIB in the event of leaving or simply stopping probably were instrumental in saving the franchise during that time.

OlBlu
08-19-2012, 01:57 PM
One more year of O'Brien, in my view, could have led to a disbanding of the franchise, with a re-emergence of another franchise in another city to replace it, and the Fieldhouse sitting vacant for a while.

Don't forget that the Pacers still pay a hefty chunk of their TV revenue to the former ownership of the St. Louis Spirits from the ABA merger agreement, and that could have been partially broken if the Pacers ceased to exist. The huge penalties to the CIB in the event of leaving or simply stopping probably were instrumental in saving the franchise during that time.


I don't think O'Brien was ever coming back for another year. He completed the rebuild and his job with the team was done and done well. I do think that the fans calling for his head too soon led to the hiring of an inexperienced coach who is costing the Pacers games every year, especially in the playoffs. If JOB had finished the year, the man sitting next to Vogel might have been the coach and the Pacers would be even better prepared to win.....:cool: ...

Brad8888
08-19-2012, 03:03 PM
I don't think O'Brien was ever coming back for another year. He completed the rebuild and his job with the team was done and done well. I do think that the fans calling for his head too soon led to the hiring of an inexperienced coach who is costing the Pacers games every year, especially in the playoffs. If JOB had finished the year, the man sitting next to Vogel might have been the coach and the Pacers would be even better prepared to win.....:cool: ...

Crediting JOB for the rebuild is like crediting Mrs. O'Leary's cow for the city that Chicago has become.

spazzxb
08-19-2012, 04:43 PM
Crediting JOB for the rebuild is like crediting Mrs. O'Leary's cow for the city that Chicago has become.

I wouldn't credit him for the rebuild, however he did a good job helping change the culture and instilling discipline. Jim Obrien also can be credited with bringing the Pacers Frank Vogel. Credit for the rebuild mostly goes to the Legend.

Sollozzo
08-19-2012, 05:11 PM
I wouldn't credit him for the rebuild, however he did a good job helping change the culture and instilling discipline. Jim Obrien also can be credited with bringing the Pacers Frank Vogel. Credit for the rebuild mostly goes to the Legend.

How hard can it really be to "instill discipline"? It is possible to have a coach who can both coach well while being a tough disciplinarian. It's not a one or the other thing. O'Brien should have been gone long before January 2011.

And how did he change the culture? The culture was changed for him. Players like JO and Tinsley were shipped away. The culture he then developed was one in which the players despised playing for him. That's not a positive culture.

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 09:13 AM
JOB was brought in to make the most of a salary strapped team. I have said that if the team was a perinnal loser that Indy would not have a team. That was an incomplete thought.

If the Pacers hit the lottery every year and got the results of Minny, LAC, or even Portland, and we are not even contenders....I can not say with certainty that we would still have a team. I really do not think it is as much as what the current roster does in the W/L column. It has more to do with corporate sponsors, NBA governmental politics, and a viable market to move in that is leaps and bounds above Indy.

So no JOB did not save this team. Nor did Bird. Nor did Vogel. Simons alone can't be credited. Yes folks, be thankful that we have the Simons. But if a sweet deal comes along, we are not as secure as you may think.


Let me ask this question:
What is a greater possibility; the team moving or a championship?

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 09:15 AM
I don't think O'Brien was ever coming back for another year. He completed the rebuild and his job with the team was done and done well. I do think that the fans calling for his head too soon led to the hiring of an inexperienced coach who is costing the Pacers games every year, especially in the playoffs. If JOB had finished the year, the man sitting next to Vogel might have been the coach and the Pacers would be even better prepared to win.....:cool: ...


WOW!!!! Are you just trying to :stirthepo?


And layoff the reason behind the poll. Would you rather talk about Brandon Rush?

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 10:32 AM
Major Cold;1494600]JOB was brought in to make the most of a salary strapped team. I have said that if the team was a perinnal loser that Indy would not have a team. That was an incomplete thought.

The problem is that the team was a perennial loser, 30+ wins but still a loser.


If the Pacers hit the lottery every year and got the results of Minny, LAC, or even Portland, and we are not even contenders....I can not say with certainty that we would still have a team. I really do not think it is as much as what the current roster does in the W/L column. It has more to do with corporate sponsors, NBA governmental politics, and a viable market to move in that is leaps and bounds above Indy.

The Pacers are not contenders either, they are also on the bottom attendance wise, I'm sorry but I don't think that sponsor, the NBA, the City of Indianapolis and the Simons changed their minds because instead of winning 10 games they were winning 30, I just don't see it.



So no JOB did not save this team. Nor did Bird. Nor did Vogel. Simons alone can't be credited. Yes folks, be thankful that we have the Simons. But if a sweet deal comes along, we are not as secure as you may think.

So they expend a bunch of money in new screens and in upgrades for the Fieldhouse and you believe they can still leave? I don't see that happening.



Let me ask this question:
What is a greater possibility; the team moving or a championship?

Neither are a possibility at this moment.

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 10:58 AM
The problem is that the team was a perennial loser, 30+ wins but still a loser.

Its not technicality Tuesday is it? I think you know what I mean. Basement dwellers, lottery fodder. Under 25 wins.


The Pacers are not contenders either, they are also on the bottom attendance wise, I'm sorry but I don't think that sponsor, the NBA, the City of Indianapolis and the Simons changed their minds because instead of winning 10 games they were winning 30, I just don't see it.
That is my point. Winning 30 vs 10 games would not matter if corporate sponsors, NBA decisions, the Simons sell/vacate INDY were ideal. If they are going to move, the will move regardless of a subpar season. Heck the Kings would have moved the moment Webber busted out if it weren't for the NBA, corporate sponsors, and a much more lucrative market opened up.

Lets say the Nets never moved to Brooklyn. And Brooklyn were as wanting as Seattle in getting a team. I would think more owners (NOH, ATL, IND, CHA, MIL) would be more interested. Especially since the last CBA did nothing for them.....nothing.




So they expend a bunch of money in new screens and in upgrades for the Fieldhouse and you believe they can still leave? I don't see that happening.

I don't. And I don't think they are a lock to be as secure as you think in 20 years. My point is if a more lucrative market opens up with NBA subsidies, along with the younger Simons taking over the estate, then a 25 year old building with lips stick won't alone keep the Pacers.

This is all a huge what if. But I don't see the threat any time soon. And if we are sub-par in March, I would not cry if we tanked.

[/QUOTE]Neither are a possibility at this moment.[/QUOTE]

What is the greater possibility though?

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 11:17 AM
[=Major Cold;1494614]Its not technicality Tuesday is it? I think you know what I mean. Basement dwellers, lottery fodder. Under 25 wins.


Yes I know what you mean, basement dwellers or not the Pacers were still losers, winning more or less didn't make any difference, my point is that I think that tanking at that time could have helped the team improve in the future, just look at all the Pacers picks from the "non tanking" years, how many of those picks are actually helping them right now? two? Roy and Paul George that's it.


That is my point. Winning 30 vs 10 games would not matter if corporate sponsors, NBA decisions, the Simons sell/vacate INDY were ideal. If they are going to move, the will move regardless of a subpar season. Heck the Kings would have moved the moment Webber busted out if it weren't for the NBA, corporate sponsors, and a much more lucrative market opened up.

So if winning 30 or 10 games don't matter why you and others are(were) worried that "tanking" would have taken the team to another place?


Lets say the Nets never moved to Brooklyn. And Brooklyn were as wanting as Seattle in getting a team. I would think more owners (NOH, ATL, IND, CHA, MIL) would be more interested. Especially since the last CBA did nothing for them.....nothing.

The new CBA is doing something for those teams, "stay mediocre and you make money not matter what as long as you don't go over the tax line".




I don't. And I don't think they are a lock to be as secure as you think in 20 years. My point is if a more lucrative market opens up with NBA subsidies, along with the younger Simons taking over the estate, then a 25 year old building with lips stick won't alone keep the Pacers.

Tanking in 2006/07,08,etc is not going to change the outcome of the Pacers in 20 years I don't think.


This is all a huge what if. But I don't see the threat any time soon. And if we are sub-par in March, I would not cry if we tanked.

The opportunity to tank has passed at this moment the best thing to do is stay the course and maybe win some second round games.


What is the greater possibility though?

Winning a championship in 10 years maybe if they rebuild the right way? either way I don't think either happens in a long long time.

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 11:29 AM
Yes I know what you mean, basement dwellers or not the Pacers were still losers, winning more or less didn't make any difference, my point is that I think that tanking at that time could have helped the team improve in the future, just look at all the Pacers picks from the "non tanking" years, how many of those picks are actually helping them right now? two? Roy and Paul George that's it.

Then again it could have been worse than it is now.


So if winning 30 or 10 games don't matter why you and others are(were) worried that "tanking" would have taken the team to another place?

I was wrong in thinking that. I thought the immediate result would be losing the team. But I still think that we are not a lock to have a team in 20 years.




The new CBA is doing something for those teams, "stay mediocre and you make money not matter what as long as you don't go over the tax line".

But what would any sane owner want. A small market team guaranteed to have some cash? Or a big market team guaranteed to have a lot of cash and a shot at a superstar?



Tanking in 2006/07,08,etc is not going to change the outcome of the Pacers in 20 years I don't think.

Either do I. Tanking and being the Clippers of the 90s, today will in fact make us a lose this team.


The opportunity to tank has passed at this moment the best thing to do is stay the course and maybe win some second round games.

You never know what happens with this team in the next 5 years. Granger could walk, Hill plateaus, Tyler taking over starting PF after West goes to chase a ring, PG is a sub-allstar player, Green is not that good, and Hibbert is skiddish for the remainder of the contract. That spells a 2006, 2007, 2008 win team. Hibbert can get a sinus infection and we could shut it down.

ChicagoJ
08-20-2012, 11:46 AM
Some thought we would win more games, growing pains and all, I was in that group.

I was too. Which is why I didn't watch much of those seasons. Watching Troy Murphy, TJ Ford, Nesterovic, Murray, Dunleavy, Head ... firing up a bazillion three pointers... barf.

Back at those prediction threads, where I was consistently forecasting the lowest number of wins... I think I hated those teams even more than the Artest-era. At least Artest kept a good team from reaching its potential. Those teams had no potential unless all of the minutes were going to Jack, Rush, Granger, TBD and Hibbert. Or as I used to say then, a "core" of TBD, TBD, TBD, TBD and Hibbert sounds more interesting...


Some thought just having JOB in charge was tanking. :D

The second sentence just makes me laugh. Unfortunately.

BillS
08-20-2012, 12:19 PM
The new CBA is doing something for those teams, "stay mediocre and you make money not matter what as long as you don't go over the tax line".

I don't think the new CBA means what you think it means.

PacersHomer
08-20-2012, 12:25 PM
The Pacers were never going to leave


The Pacers were never going to leave


The Pacers were never going to leave
.

The Pacers were never going to leave

Bball
08-20-2012, 12:40 PM
O'Brien did more to PUSH the team outta Indy than keep it here.

Since86
08-20-2012, 01:04 PM
I still can't figure out how Jim gets credit for "rebuilding." You rebuild one of two ways. You either go after young players and develop them, or you trade/sign for vets that are going to be apart of your core. You "rebuild" the foundation of your franchise.

The Pacers selected option number one, young players. If Jim was apart of the "rebuilding" process, then he wouldn't have restricted young players so much. He wouldn't bench them in favor of vets like James Posey. Had he benched them for vets, that were apart of the built core, then yes, he would have been going along with the rebuilding concept. But he did the opposite of a team that's trying to rebuild with youth. You rebuild a team with youth, not only by aquiring more youth/better youth, but also by developing them. A big part, not all but big part, of development is playing actual NBA games.


Jim was the coach during the rebuilding process. That doesn't mean that he was apart of the rebuilding process.

J7F
08-20-2012, 01:13 PM
I don't think the new CBA means what you think it means.
In the last month and a half a book could be filled with VNZLAs "facts" about the Pacers and the NBA...

BillS
08-20-2012, 01:17 PM
The Pacers selected option number one, young players. If Jim was apart of the "rebuilding" process, then he wouldn't have restricted young players so much. He wouldn't bench them in favor of vets like James Posey. Had he benched them for vets, that were apart of the built core, then yes, he would have been going along with the rebuilding concept. But he did the opposite of a team that's trying to rebuild with youth. You rebuild a team with youth, not only by acquiring more youth/better youth, but also by developing them. A big part, not all but big part, of development is playing actual NBA games.

The coach's job is to play the guys he thinks are best in the best way he can play them. He may not be competent in terms of making that decision, but once he has got his depth chart his job is NOT to bench the best guys in favor of giving significant minutes to the young guys (arguments about how much time is significant and how much time can be given without taking away from the guys the coach thinks earned their playing time aside, as they are essentially still agreeing the coach has to make that decision even if fans might disagree with his resulting choices).

The FO sends a mixed message by providing players who are veterans and who, in the coach's KNOWN and PUBLIC opinion, deserve playing time over the young guys the FO supposedly wants to develop as quickly as possible. If the FO believes the young guys should have more time than the ones the coach thinks will do a better job, then they need to clean house of the vets OR find a coach who sees the skills of the young players the same way they do.

In other words, setting young guys up to develop is well into the 90% range of being the FOs job in planning the strategy for a season. Tactically, the coach has to play the best he has when he has them - the remaining up to 10% however is that there ARE gray areas and choices that could increase playing time without sacrificing the end goal.

Since86
08-20-2012, 01:22 PM
The coach's job is to play the guys he thinks are best in the best way he can play them. He may not be competent in terms of making that decision, but once he has got his depth chart his job is NOT to bench the best guys in favor of giving significant minutes to the young guys (arguments about how much time is significant and how much time can be given without taking away from the guys the coach thinks earned their playing time aside, as they are essentially still agreeing the coach has to make that decision even if fans might disagree with his resulting choices).

Coaches bench better players for younger players with more potential every single day. Thinking Jim should do the same, when the organization is clearly trying to bring in and develop younger players with more potential, isn't a very extreme position to hold.

There are various coaching approaches. Playing to maximize your wins is one approach. Coaching for the future is another.

I think Jim's coaching for max wins was just the wrong choice, especially when Vogel comes in and starts playing younger players and reaching the playoffs when Jim said it wasn't doable even with playing the supposed better, older players.

I really wasn't trying to argue which approach is best, just saying that Jim wasn't apart of the rebuilding process.

ChicagoJ
08-20-2012, 01:29 PM
True, the front office could have taken away Jim's pet veterans. The front office sent a mixed message.

Coaches are supposed to by myopic, they are focused on winning the current/next game. Not the big picture. And that's what Jim did. He cashed in some early-season wins with the stinky veterans while making sure the younger players didn't reach much of their "potential". The team could have been further along when Vogel took over, but that would have been because the youth were developed. Jim got everything he could out of the veterans (that stunk). That's not a bad coach, that's bad vision. That's my complaint with him. I didn't like his gimmicks either, but on the other hand Run-TMC was a gimmick that worked extremely well and helped Nellie's reputation as a coach, so we shouldn't summarily dismiss coaches with gimmicks.

Bball
08-20-2012, 01:51 PM
True, you can take away the coach's pet players to make sure he's developing the players you want developed or to see what their potential looks like with real game experience and a track record. OTOH, having some vet players for the young guys to look up to and emulate work habits and see how they manage their time and health during the season and off-season isn't necessarily a bad thing either. So if the coach overplays those guys and you've made your thoughts known to the coach about your plans for the team then that is on the coach.

oxxo
08-20-2012, 02:05 PM
JOB saving the Pacers? He didn't keep casual fan interests. And I don't know about you guys but I've been following the Pacers for 20+ years (since I was 5) and his last season is the only one where I stopped caring. Posey on Amare/Griffin broke me.

I don't see how anyone can argue he helped the Pacers franchise in any way. He didn't develop young guys and leaned on castoff vets to get us 30-40 wins. People don't care about 30-40 win teams anymore than 20 win teams. The 30-40 win range is NBA purgatory. No one cares and you (generally) don't get better.

Bball
08-20-2012, 03:04 PM
JOB saving the Pacers? He didn't keep casual fan interests. And I don't know about you guys but I've been following the Pacers for 20+ years (since I was 5) and his last season is the only one where I stopped caring. Posey on Amare/Griffin broke me.

I don't see how anyone can argue he helped the Pacers franchise in any way. He didn't develop young guys and leaned on castoff vets to get us 30-40 wins. People don't care about 30-40 win teams anymore than 20 win teams. The 30-40 win range is NBA purgatory. No one cares and you (generally) don't get better.

What was O'Brien's best record as a Pacer coach?

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 03:23 PM
What was O'Brien's best record as a Pacer coach?

His best record was 36 and 46 = NBA purgatory.

PR07
08-20-2012, 09:11 PM
Absolutely not. How could anyone argue otherwise? Playing losing, illogical, and uninspiring basketball kept this team in Indy? Hah.

That's all I'll say.

McKeyFan
08-20-2012, 10:48 PM
I wouldn't credit him for the rebuild, however he did a good job helping change the culture and instilling discipline.

He really instilled some discipline and laid down the law with Tinsley during that Phoenix game.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 10:51 PM
He really instilled some discipline and laid down the law with Tinsley during that Phoenix game.

:lol:

duke dynamite
08-21-2012, 09:53 AM
That's a reason why you fire the coach before he hurts you.

It wasn't always the coach's fault, though. They players didn't need to suck so badly.

Unclebuck
08-21-2012, 10:05 AM
He really instilled some discipline and laid down the law with Tinsley during that Phoenix game.

Yes he did. Well not during the actual game. But we know that game led to Tinsley being benched. We know that game led to a film session where heated words were exchanged between the two.

if I were to make a list of the top 5 things Jim did as coach, his benching of Tinsley would be in the top 5, maybe it kight be number 1.

Major Cold
08-21-2012, 10:46 AM
Yes he did. Well not during the actual game. But we know that game led to Tinsley being benched. We know that game led to a film session where heated words were exchanged between the two.

if I were to make a list of the top 5 things Jim did as coach, his benching of Tinsley would be in the top 5, maybe it kight be number 1.


That is one thing I liked about JOB. The FO was hesitant to move on situations. Their hesitancy led to the Artest debacle, SJAX craze, JO's entitlement, Tinsley holding us hostage, lost trades (Augustin, Mayo, and others), and ironically JOB staying too long.

JOB at least forced their hand in dealing with Tins.

docpaul
08-21-2012, 10:50 AM
He really instilled some discipline and laid down the law with Tinsley during that Phoenix game.

I will never forget that game. I've never seen such a display of selfish basketball, ever. It was borderline surreal.

vnzla81
08-21-2012, 11:56 AM
It wasn't always the coach's fault, though. They players didn't need to suck so badly.


The players he was playing sucked that was the problem, Ford,Dunleavy, Murphy, Rasho, Head, Murray, Posey, etc, etc, he had better players on the bench but refused to play them.

spazzxb
08-21-2012, 04:35 PM
The players he was playing sucked that was the problem, Ford,Dunleavy, Murphy, Rasho, Head, Murray, Posey, etc, etc, he had better players on the bench but refused to play them.

IF you want to have an actual intelligent dialog try naming names. You never talk about an alternative, you just complain alot using what ever ammo you can think of. It just comes across as if you have a very surface level knowledge base behind what you say. Posey was on this team for 1 season and wasn't even playing when JOB was fired, Mcroberts was not better than Murphy. Didn't TJ Ford get benched(hell I don't even think he should have). If Roy could breathe and stay out of foul trouble Rasho would have played less. Are you digging up Rush v. Dunleavy, otherwise who was better? I barely remember Head. Your aurguments are very weak.

Then I remembered that to you better means loosing games and now I regret spending the time typing any of this.

ps. smile at my temporary avatar, you know that dogs awesome.:-)

Sandman21
08-21-2012, 05:05 PM
Posey was on this team for 1 season and wasn't even playing when JOB was fired, )

Uhm, yeah he was..... He was averaging 18 minutes a game when JOB was fired. In fact, JOB playing him over McBob late against Chicago was a big reason we blew that last game under Jim the Quitter.

Another Posey fact: 88% of his 241 FGA that year were for three. He hit just about a third of his shots. JOB kept playing him.

Peck
08-21-2012, 05:13 PM
IF you want to have an actual intelligent dialog try naming names. You never talk about an alternative, you just complain alot using what ever ammo you can think of. It just comes across as if you have a very surface level knowledge base behind what you say. Posey was on this team for 1 season and wasn't even playing when JOB was fired, Mcroberts was not better than Murphy. Didn't TJ Ford get benched(hell I don't even think he should have). If Roy could breathe and stay out of foul trouble Rasho would have played less. Are you digging up Rush v. Dunleavy, otherwise who was better? I barely remember Head. Your aurguments are very weak.

Then I remembered that to you better means loosing games and now I regret spending the time typing any of this.

ps. smile at my temporary avatar, you know that dogs awesome.:-)

I was going to type up a long counter to your post but then I looked at your temporary avatar and decided that this dog is awesome so I can't dispute anything you say in this post because of this dog. :)

spazzxb
08-21-2012, 05:21 PM
I was going to type up a long counter to your post but then I looked at your temporary avatar and decided that this dog is awesome so I can't dispute anything you say in this post because of this dog. :)

Thats what I was hoping for:-). We don't need to go back there, I just wanted VZ add some substance.