Again I remember reading articles were they called what the Pacers were doing as "never been done before" or something like that, NBA gurus didn't have an answer for how a team could still win while having a bad to horrible shooting % and a horrible offense.
I'm not arguing that the system is a good one or a sustainable one (who really knows that?), but it was quite effective last year.
there is no reason to let go of Frank Vogel before Granger gets back but if there is one it would be in an effort to not lose Brian Shaw. no interest in Mike Brown at this point in the season.
Sloan is not walking out of retirement to fix this cluster****. It is only fair to keep Vogel and see what happens when Granger returns. Let the Pacers decide this offseason.
* i still do not understand why Granger waited until training camp to take care of his knee.?
Vogel is being stubborn about the offense. It has to change. He can stay coach, but the offense must change. You have Brian Shaw there. You are a great defensive coach. Run the Triangle with Brian Shaw running the offense, and you focus on motivation and defense.
I have the perfect solution for the offense:
Just go that way really fast (toward our own basket). If something gets in your way, turn.
/I hope at least one person gets that.
I'm beginning to wonder if shackling the players with sets is the biggest cause of our offensive putridity. I see no harm that can come from removing the reins and just letting the guys do thier thing for one game. Call it the intramural league offense. At the very least it gets rid of the predictable sets other teams just wait for us to run now.
Even at that, if a coach comes out with what people perceive as an ineffective offense, that offense is going to get criticized (and has been since the beginning of last season - he got slack when he took over because he was simplifying and focusing a disjointed read-and-react offense).
There's no rule that says because a coach is new you have to be satisfied with what he implements. The question is rather a matter of how long you are willing to give him to correct the flaws.
For many people (myself included), Vogel was being granted the benefit of the doubt due to the poor circumstances of his takeover and his first full season having no real training camp. The expectation, though, was that an offense that was prepared with a full off-season and training camp would correct the issues with the flow that existed with last year's offense. So far, we have not seen that; even taking execution into account this is an extremely one-dimensional offense.
Ultimately, just like for a player, it comes down to results. I defended JOB on the forum not because I thought he was a good coach but because I thought people were pointing at the wrong things when they criticized him. In this case, I think people have pretty much the right idea about what Vogel's flaws are. Personally, I'd give him a little more time, but not necessarily the whole season.
Now we have Roy in a slump and no Granger to take pressure off of him and PG.
It's just silly to evaluate our offense without our best player and arguably most important player. I think we've downgraded the bench. And we've made a mistake in trying to force Hill to be something he's not. (Especially when he's a great player for us when left to do what he's best at.) I think bottom line, this team as constructed needs a simple offense.
I'm not saying Vogel doesn't have flaws. I don't know if he knows what a pretty offense looks like. But I am saying it's probably silly to criticize someone whose offense was the seventh most efficient in the NBA last season for their offense. Sure it was simple, but it was clearly effective. But if we must criticize the offense, I think we also have to take into consideration what type of players we have..and what they are capable of doing. Because it looks to me like they aren't capable of running a pretty and smooth offense because they don't screen, move without the ball, or move the ball.