Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

    Pacers strategy
    O'Brien has no qualms about 3s
    New coach sees shot as a key weapon in team's arsenal

    The standard approach is to get the ball to a player close to the basket, kick it out if he doesn't have a good shot, reverse it, and look for another good shot.

    Coach Jim O'Brien has no problem with that, and will incorporate such a strategy into his offensive game plan with the Indiana Pacers next season. But he's also fine with flinging 3-pointers.

    More than fine, actually.

    "We're going to shoot the 3," he says matter-of-factly. "I don't know (how often), but we're going to shoot the 3."

    Based on his history as an NBA head coach, which covers 21/2 seasons with Boston and one with Philadelphia, the Pacers could set a franchise record for 3-point attempts next season if they collect enough shooters on their roster.
    Their single-season record is 1,575, set in 2004-05, when coach Rick Carlisle turned loose the perimeter shooters on his shook-up roster following the Detroit brawl and resulting suspensions.

    That, however, was merely sticking a figurative toe in the water compared to O'Brien's head-first dive in Boston. The two Celtics teams he coached for a full season averaged 2,051 attempts. The Philadelphia team he coached in 2004-05 took 1,453 3-pointers despite a shortage of serious threats.

    The ones he had, however, were utilized. Allen Iverson took more 3-pointers that season (338) than in any of his 10 seasons since he was a rookie. Kyle Korver had 558 attempts, the most of his four-season career, and tied for the league lead in made 3-pointers with 226.

    Consider that former Pacer Reggie Miller, the NBA's all-time leader in 3-point field goals made and attempted, took more than 500 3-pointers just once in his 18 seasons -- in 1996-97 when the line was closer to the basket and injuries made him the team's only legitimate scoring threat most of the season.

    O'Brien believes getting three points for a shot that many NBA players can hit with reasonable frequency is too good an opportunity to pass on. It brings the added bonus of spreading the floor and creating opportunities for players who can post up by making it difficult to double-team them, and allows teams not blessed with great rebounders to compete on the boards by going after long rebounds.

    "I just think it's a hell of a weapon," O'Brien said. "It's very difficult to guard if you have three or four guys on the court who can shoot the 3, with one good low-post player.

    "The formula of good, tough defense and unpredictable offense is very important. Teams that are utilizing that (philosophy) are teams that are succeeding.


    "I can't have enough perimeter shooters."

    O'Brien's 3-thinking philosophy, honed in part by the years he spent as an assistant to Rick Pitino, has won over assistant Dick Harter, a classic, old-school coach who came up through the college ranks.

    "He has a great ability to make his player confident to take 3s or open shots," Harter said. "A lot of coaches don't have that ability, particularly old college coaches. We tended to restrict guys a lot. Maybe you got a little better shots that way, but you don't shoot as confidently."

    Harter believes the NBA 3-point line should be moved farther from the basket, but otherwise has come to agree the shot should be utilized to its fullest.
    "I think it's good for the game," he said. "It makes it more spectacular. It makes the swings quicker and bigger. Whether it's good for the sanity of coaches, I don't know."

    O'Brien doesn't have a knee-jerk response to the shot. He'll give players the freedom to miss a few and keep taking them if they have proven themselves capable of hitting them in the long term.

    "The main thing is, I don't want to send mixed messages to our team," he said. "Danny Granger, Stephen Graham or Troy Murphy, if they miss three 3s in a row, you're not going to see me holding the side of my head. They have to know we believe in it and they have to be cold-blooded about it."

    O'Brien's belief in the 3-pointer is so strong that he doesn't want to see too many shots taken a step inside the line.

    "It's the worst shot in basketball," he said. "Sometimes you have to shoot it and some guys, that's their forte. I'm not going to take that away from them. But generally speaking, guys who can shoot mid-range jump shots can also shoot 3s.

    "It's not 3s at all costs; it has to be a standstill, open 3. We're not going to shoot challenged 3-point shots."

    Second-year forward Shawne Williams has first-hand experience with the new philosophy. He was told by Pacers president Larry Bird not to shoot any 3s when he began his offseason workouts last spring. O'Brien had different instructions after he took over.

    "The first day he worked me out, I was shooting 3s," Williams said. "I was hardly hitting the rim because I wasn't used to it."

    Williams should be an interesting test case for O'Brien's philosophy. He hit 37 percent of his 3-pointers last season after hitting just 31 percent in his lone college season at Memphis. He expects to improve his percentage next season, although he was hitting 33 percent of his attempts through the first three summer league games.

    "I'm a totally better shooter than last year," he said after the summer league practices. "Right now, my legs aren't there. I'm not used to running like that and then shooting 3s.

    "I love it, though. I like to play that way."
    Most players do.

    Most fans like to watch it, too.
    So will former old-school coaches like Bird and Harter . . .
    "When they go in," Harter said, smiling.

    ================================================== ================================================== =================

    Three at a time

    A look at how the Pacers have utilized the 3-point shot throughout their 40-year history:

    1967-68: They take 360 3-pointers in their inaugural season, hitting just 27 percent. Jimmy Rayl makes 57-of-175 attempts (.326).

    1970-71: Their 1,024 attempts are the most they will take until the 1996-97 season, when the line is closer to the basket. Their team percentage is .299. Team leader Billy Keller shoots .365 percent.

    1976-79: There is no 3-point shot for their first three seasons in the NBA.

    1985-86: They attempt a franchise-low 143 3-pointers. That's a good thing, as they hit just 23 of them (.161). By comparison, five players on last season's team attempted more than 143 3-pointers.

    1994-97: The NBA moves the line in to 22 feet for three seasons to increase scoring. Coach Larry Brown, who had not utilized the shot much in his first season with the team, relents and opens the offense. Reggie Miller attempts a franchise-record 536 in Brown's final season (1996-97).

    1999-2000: They hit a franchise-record .392 percent on their way to the NBA Finals. Derrick McKey, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson and Jalen Rose all shoot better than 39 percent, while Austin Croshere (.362) and Travis Best (.376) also provide legitimate threats.

    2004-05: They attempt a franchise-record 1,575 3-pointers during the suspension-depleted brawl season, with eight players taking more than 100 of them.

    -- Mark Montieth

    http://<br /> http://www.indystar.c.../1088/SPORTS04
    Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 07-15-2007, 10:59 AM.
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

    In other news, Pat Riley has no qualms about hair gel, Phil Jackson has no qualms about the triangle offense, and Larry brown has no qualms about coaching in a new city.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
      Pacers strategy
      O'Brien has no qualms about 3s
      New coach sees shot as a key weapon in team's arsenal

      The standard approach is to get the ball to a player close to the basket, kick it out if he doesn't have a good shot, reverse it, and look for another good shot.

      Coach Jim O'Brien has no problem with that, and will incorporate such a strategy into his offensive game plan with the Indiana Pacers next season. But he's also fine with flinging 3-pointers.

      More than fine, actually.

      "We're going to shoot the 3," he says matter-of-factly. "I don't know (how often), but we're going to shoot the 3."

      Based on his history as an NBA head coach, which covers 21/2 seasons with Boston and one with Philadelphia, the Pacers could set a franchise record for 3-point attempts next season if they collect enough shooters on their roster.
      Their single-season record is 1,575, set in 2004-05, when coach Rick Carlisle turned loose the perimeter shooters on his shook-up roster following the Detroit brawl and resulting suspensions.

      That, however, was merely sticking a figurative toe in the water compared to O'Brien's head-first dive in Boston. The two Celtics teams he coached for a full season averaged 2,051 attempts. The Philadelphia team he coached in 2004-05 took 1,453 3-pointers despite a shortage of serious threats.

      The ones he had, however, were utilized. Allen Iverson took more 3-pointers that season (338) than in any of his 10 seasons since he was a rookie. Kyle Korver had 558 attempts, the most of his four-season career, and tied for the league lead in made 3-pointers with 226.

      Consider that former Pacer Reggie Miller, the NBA's all-time leader in 3-point field goals made and attempted, took more than 500 3-pointers just once in his 18 seasons -- in 1996-97 when the line was closer to the basket and injuries made him the team's only legitimate scoring threat most of the season.

      O'Brien believes getting three points for a shot that many NBA players can hit with reasonable frequency is too good an opportunity to pass on. It brings the added bonus of spreading the floor and creating opportunities for players who can post up by making it difficult to double-team them, and allows teams not blessed with great rebounders to compete on the boards by going after long rebounds.

      "I just think it's a hell of a weapon," O'Brien said. "It's very difficult to guard if you have three or four guys on the court who can shoot the 3, with one good low-post player.

      "The formula of good, tough defense and unpredictable offense is very important. Teams that are utilizing that (philosophy) are teams that are succeeding.


      "I can't have enough perimeter shooters."

      O'Brien's 3-thinking philosophy, honed in part by the years he spent as an assistant to Rick Pitino, has won over assistant Dick Harter, a classic, old-school coach who came up through the college ranks.

      "He has a great ability to make his player confident to take 3s or open shots," Harter said. "A lot of coaches don't have that ability, particularly old college coaches. We tended to restrict guys a lot. Maybe you got a little better shots that way, but you don't shoot as confidently."

      Harter believes the NBA 3-point line should be moved farther from the basket, but otherwise has come to agree the shot should be utilized to its fullest.
      "I think it's good for the game," he said. "It makes it more spectacular. It makes the swings quicker and bigger. Whether it's good for the sanity of coaches, I don't know."

      O'Brien doesn't have a knee-jerk response to the shot. He'll give players the freedom to miss a few and keep taking them if they have proven themselves capable of hitting them in the long term.

      "The main thing is, I don't want to send mixed messages to our team," he said. "Danny Granger, Stephen Graham or Troy Murphy, if they miss three 3s in a row, you're not going to see me holding the side of my head. They have to know we believe in it and they have to be cold-blooded about it."

      O'Brien's belief in the 3-pointer is so strong that he doesn't want to see too many shots taken a step inside the line.

      "It's the worst shot in basketball," he said. "Sometimes you have to shoot it and some guys, that's their forte. I'm not going to take that away from them. But generally speaking, guys who can shoot mid-range jump shots can also shoot 3s.

      "It's not 3s at all costs; it has to be a standstill, open 3. We're not going to shoot challenged 3-point shots."

      Second-year forward Shawne Williams has first-hand experience with the new philosophy. He was told by Pacers president Larry Bird not to shoot any 3s when he began his offseason workouts last spring. O'Brien had different instructions after he took over.

      "The first day he worked me out, I was shooting 3s," Williams said. "I was hardly hitting the rim because I wasn't used to it."

      Williams should be an interesting test case for O'Brien's philosophy. He hit 37 percent of his 3-pointers last season after hitting just 31 percent in his lone college season at Memphis. He expects to improve his percentage next season, although he was hitting 33 percent of his attempts through the first three summer league games.

      "I'm a totally better shooter than last year," he said after the summer league practices. "Right now, my legs aren't there. I'm not used to running like that and then shooting 3s.

      "I love it, though. I like to play that way."
      Most players do.

      Most fans like to watch it, too.
      So will former old-school coaches like Bird and Harter . . .
      "When they go in," Harter said, smiling.

      ================================================== ================================================== =================

      Three at a time

      A look at how the Pacers have utilized the 3-point shot throughout their 40-year history:

      1967-68: They take 360 3-pointers in their inaugural season, hitting just 27 percent. Jimmy Rayl makes 57-of-175 attempts (.326).

      1970-71: Their 1,024 attempts are the most they will take until the 1996-97 season, when the line is closer to the basket. Their team percentage is .299. Team leader Billy Keller shoots .365 percent.

      1976-79: There is no 3-point shot for their first three seasons in the NBA.

      1985-86: They attempt a franchise-low 143 3-pointers. That's a good thing, as they hit just 23 of them (.161). By comparison, five players on last season's team attempted more than 143 3-pointers.

      1994-97: The NBA moves the line in to 22 feet for three seasons to increase scoring. Coach Larry Brown, who had not utilized the shot much in his first season with the team, relents and opens the offense. Reggie Miller attempts a franchise-record 536 in Brown's final season (1996-97).

      1999-2000: They hit a franchise-record .392 percent on their way to the NBA Finals. Derrick McKey, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson and Jalen Rose all shoot better than 39 percent, while Austin Croshere (.362) and Travis Best (.376) also provide legitimate threats.

      2004-05: They attempt a franchise-record 1,575 3-pointers during the suspension-depleted brawl season, with eight players taking more than 100 of them.

      -- Mark Montieth


      http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS04/707150391/1088/SPORTS04
      Does this mean he will make the team?
      The eyes of the Granger are upon you.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

        I think all the players that got guaranteed contracts will make the squad. I would love to see Stephen Graham on the Pacers. People say Joey Graham is better, but I'm a Twin and I know, If theres one twin is better than the other one, the other isn't far behind!!! Trust Me. Plus I've seen him play, I think he's solid!!! I wouldn't Mind Owen on the squd either
        R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

          Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
          People say Joey Graham is better, but I'm a Twin and I know, If theres one twin is better than the other one, the other isn't far behind!!! Trust Me.
          kinda like Horace and Harvey grant weren't far apart?

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

            That's one set of twins
            R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

              Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
              That's one set of twins
              Tom and Dick Van Arsdale?

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                I like what O'Brien has been saying since he was introduced as head coach. His style is undoubtedly more "fan friendly" than was Carlisle's. I think the key factor in how our three point shooting plays out is in the hands of Williams and Granger. I know Williams didn't make it off the bench too much last season but if the vibe I'm getting from this summer is accurate he is going to get more than enough chances to prove himself in the 07-08 season. Granger has proven he has the ability to be solid from behind the arc. He had his good nights and his bad in that aspect but no player is perfect and this will only be his third season. Kareem will help no doubt but he can't be expected to take the full load of the three in this offense. At least there won't be as many people falling asleep in the stands this season.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                  My biggest fear is that Obie is going to take cues from Mike Davis's CT3 offense.

                  At least Bracey Wright isn't on the Pacers' roster.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                    I like Dick's quote about Jimmy instilling confidence. That's always been Foster's biggest problem. For years every preseason would start with Jeff hitting 17-footers, than he'd miss a couple and go into his shell and not try anymore.

                    Of course, Jimmy's saying if Jeff's hitting 17-footers he should be shooting 3's. Which IMO is idiotic.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                      Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                      At least Bracey Wright isn't on the Pacers' roster.
                      That's probably the trade that didn't get announced last night.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                        I'm still not willing to just assume O'Brien's an idiot, so I take it he was referring to "long" mid-range (20ft), not actual mid-range.

                        I'll echo liking the fact that he instills confidence in the players taking the open shots.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                          Boy, that statistical rundown and analysis of the 3, including how much Reggie shot it sure does sound familiar.

                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...t=32302&page=3

                          The whole thread in fact.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            I'm still not willing to just assume O'Brien's an idiot, so I take it he was referring to "long" mid-range (20ft), not actual mid-range.

                            I'll echo liking the fact that he instills confidence in the players taking the open shots.
                            When Quis shoots 250 3PAs at a 29% rate just remember that you liked the confidence.

                            There's brave and there's stupid. Sometimes you can't tell the difference based on actions till you see the results.

                            Plus Hicks I have to say I loathe how you keep putting this into "genius/idiot" terms, as if there is no other way to view it. How about STUBBORN? How about DEDICATED TO A STRATEGY? How about OVERCONFIDENT in his plan?

                            What, no GOOD coach ever lost a game or had a sub-500 season? Why is it that Rick being moved out of Detroit and Indy is proof that he was a bad people person but JOB losing 2 jobs and not getting a hint of interest after that till Larry PHONE interviewed him isn't proof of anything?

                            Just use the same math on ALL the numbers, that's all I ask.

                            JOB has a strategy he believes firmly in. His teams have won enough to make him feel that this strategy is sound, and perhaps he's right. But his plan certainly has questionable results up to this point and it could be that it's just not the best possible approach.

                            Being wrong isn't the same as being stupid. There isn't a single great thinker in the history of the world that wasn't wrong about at least a few things.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Star==> O'Brien has no qualms about 3s

                              Originally posted by JOB
                              "It's not 3s at all costs; it has to be a standstill, open 3. We're not going to shoot challenged 3-point shots."
                              Tinsley never has. How's that working out?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X