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

A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

    Good afternoon, and Happy 4th of July to you all!

    Today I want to write about our Pacers new direction, and some potential problems and conflicts that are looming on the horizon I believe between our Pacers front office and our current head coach. Looking closely, I can see storm clouds starting to gather.....particularly when you look at the specifics of the draft moves we made on June 26th.

    The debate will rage on forever in the minds of Pacer fans whether trading Jerryd Bayless for the package including Brandon Rush and Jarrett Jack was a wise course of action or not. Some say it was a bad idea to pass on a player with the potential all star abilities of Bayless to instead take the "safer" pick of Brandon Rush, a player who is likely more mature and ready to play from "day one", as a certain ex Presidential candidate was fond of saying. Others believe that the Pacers made the right choice, taking a player that more closely resembles a more traditional player to fit a specific role....a player easier to "fit" into an entire team structure of play. In effect taking a player very sure to be "good" over a player with a 50/50 chance of being great or a bust. Arguments can be made either way, and in reality there is no right or wrong answer......it simply depends on too many other factors yet to be determined.

    In selecting Rush, the Pacers selected a player who I projected in my draft profile of him to be a likely all first team NBA rookie team player next year. Rush has excellent specific skills, appropriate size for his position, and seems like a man very ready emotionally and maturity wise for his leap into the NBA. Most people agree with that analysis, as Rush was a popular player before the draft among many NBA analysts as a draftee likely to help his team immediately next season.

    In Rush, the Pacers took a player to pair along with Roy Hibbert whom they drafted at #17. Hibbert and Rush were in many ways made to play with each other. Hibbert, and excellent passer and very good screener, playing with Rush, a fine player coming off screens who can catch and shoot as well as any player available. Defensively, Hibbert can hold his own inside with his great size and strength, and Rush's awesome lateral quickness and defensive skill one on one will somewhat eliminate the need for Hibbert to be asked to help as much on the perimeter. These 2 players GO TOGETHER well, and it is clear that Larry Bird recognized that, and orchestrated his draft night and overall offseason plan to find players who both "fit" and "compliment" the long term vision and roster plan he has for our franchise. Rightly or wrongly, the Pacers front office can no longer be accused of not having a clear plan or direction. By selecting these 2 specific players to fill the roles they seemed destined to fill, the Pacers seem to clearly be building a more defensive oriented, half court playing, "set position" roster. Players who are "athletic" hybrids who can play multiple positions and do a variety of things seem to be now a thing of the past, having been taking out of Conseco Fieldhouse with the moving vans that escorted Donnie Walsh out of the building.

    However, I also wrote in my draft thread about Brandon Rush that, as high on him as I was and as potentially good as I thought he might become, that he was a bad fit for our team because I didnt think he was a good fir for the offensive system that Jim O'Brien runs. Because of that, I was fairly certain that the Pacers should and would pass on Rush on draft night. I was wrong about the Pacers not selecting Rush, but I don't think I was wrong about him not really having the type of skill set that Jim O'Brien could use in the most efficient way. I am positive that Larry Bird knows that a "catch and shoot", fine individual defender in Rush, and a slower center who isn't a great offensive post up threat to score in Hibbert, isnt exactly the prototype Jim O'Brien has in mind for those positions in his system, yet he chose them anyway. What does that tell us?

    I think the moves we are making since Larry Bird officially took over can tell us many things, some obvious and some not, about where this franchise has been in the past, and where it is going in the future. Trying to be a fortune teller for the next few years, and trying to recreate past events with a lack of information are both difficult tasks, but I think if we read between the lines we can logically come up with a list of conclusions:

    1. I no longer believe SHAWNE WILLIAMS was truly Larry Bird's guy in the draft a few years ago.....that move has Donnie Walsh written all over it. Bird seems to value guys who are mature, established in their positions, who can help right away. Williams was the exact opposite of that prototype. However, he fits the Walsh type of player, (especially as Donnie grew older) a player who can play multiple spots with a large amount of "upside". Bird was forced to explain that pick on national TV, and to our fanbase, but my thought is looking back he did as he was told to do and nothing else.

    2. We were told that Larry Bird hand picked Jim O'Brien as our coach last year after only discussing it on the TELEPHONE. Everyone one of us bought that story hook, line, and sinker.....but does it really make sense now that it happened that way? Larry Bird has a vision of building an old fashioned team in a conventional way, and yet hires a very unconventional coach with some radical ideas of how to play offense? In his first draft, Bird selects 2 players who seem to be fine prospects and ready made to help immediately, except he takes guys who really don't fit the way this coach plays the game from a strategic standpoint? That doesnt make sense to me either.

    I think it might be more likely that Walsh wanted Jim O'Brien, and either forced Larry to hire him or talked him into it gently. Perhaps the phone call between Bird and O'Brien that led to his hiring was more of Bird just getting to know him a little, before throwing his hands up and telling Donnie that he'd go along with his wishes one more time. Remember, Walsh is the same guy who made unconventional coaching hires in the past quite often.....Dick Versace, George Irvine, Bob Hill, an older Jack Ramsey, the risky Larry Brown, Isiah Thomas.....even Larry Bird himself at one time.

    3. Bringing back Al Harrington. We were told at the time that Bird wanted Harrington back to pair with Jermaine O'Neal. Does it sound like a Lary Bird move to you in retrospect? Bringing back an undersized "hybrid" forward with a questionable attitude but lots of skill.......doesn't that sound more like Donnie Walsh, especially when you look back at it through the lens of history?



    Ok, so now here we are, in the summer of 2008. The Pacers have a vision, and a clear idea and plan moving forward. The Pacer franchise all seems to be singing from the same songsheet in their public pronouncements.....but does it make sense in reality, espcially when it comes to Jim O'Brien? What does this mean for the future?

    Look at it logically:

    1. Rush is a superior shooter coming off screens along the baseline, and Hibbert was one of the best screen setters in the draft. But, our head coach prefers spacing and one on one play off the dribble instead of setting multiple screens for shooters.

    2. Our head coach likes a 4 out 1 in system for offense, which requires players who can play multiple positions and also requires a true low post scorer. Yet, the Pacers pass on a multiple position "hybrid" guard in Bayless. The Pacers pick a slower "true center" in Hibbert whose strength as a player is not being a legitimate post scorer, and pass on picking a kid like Darrell Arthur, who could be a perfect "3/4" combination forward in the O'Brien scheme.

    3. Our head coach has a defensive scheme that requires his "bigs" to be mobile in hedging screen/roll situations and to rotate more than most teams demand, requiring quickness and flexibility. Instead, we draft Roy Hibbert, who will be a fine NBA center but certainly doesn't have those particular skills.

    In summary, Bird has acquired players who compliment each other perfectly (Ford/Jack and Rush/Hibbert), but who do not fit in with the coaching strengths of Jim O'Brien, at least as I see it now. All this talk about everybody being on the same page left out one ingredient: the actual head coach!

    So far, Jim O'Brien has by all counts played the good soldier, and I assume that he will continue to do so. But his bosses have made it clear that these players are all expected to help immediately this season, in spite of the fact that they don't "fit in" as well as everyone has been led to believe. Combine that with the fact that Jerryd Bayless fell into an IDEAL spot for his talents in Portland, and the pressure on Jim O'Brien to succeed immediately will be ramped up to almost impossible levels come December 2008.

    The problem for us is that Jim O'Brien has never shown any ability to adapt his style at all. He is a "true believer" in what he is teaching, and would likely play the same way regardless of the personnel he has. That stubbornness and dogged confidence to teach the game as he sees it purely is both his strength and weakness as an NBA coach.

    Like every rebuilding job, there is often some snags along the way. I think it is obvious that our head coach and our front office do not see the game and building a team the same way, regardless of any public pronouncements to the contrary. A big question mark in all of this is will the Simons allow Bird to fire O'Brien, considering he is owed quite a bit of cash, if we get off to a slow start? If not, there will likely be a lot of drama still going on in downtown Indianapolis this winter, and the summertime optimism we all feel right now will be down the drain, lost to competing and contradicting visions of the game by 2 head strong men.

    I see no way this ends well for Jim O'Brien's tenure as head coach.....the only question is how it all plays out leading up to his ouster, which is sure to happen now I believe. The question only is : "What will the lack of cohesion between our coaching staff and front office cost us as fans and as a franchise?"

    It is this disconnect I see that has the storm clouds looming this season, and has me worried that next few months arent going to be as positive and productive as we all hope.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

    I'll try to keep this short and sweet. Job plays the pick and roll a ton for players to get shots. Don't know what you are talking about. JOb's offense is what I call structured freelance, it involves many styles. The players we had last year dictated the way we played. Last year this team was so bad defensively that we wouldn't be caught dead playing half court basketball. At times last year we tried slowing it down a bit and got smoked every time. I've said many times since the draft, we are trying to become a versatile team. We will be able slow it down at times with perimeter defenders in Rush and Jack. Post defenders in Foster and Hibbert. When I watch Pacer's games I see much knowledge in the way JOb coaches the game, he will adjust. Many seem to think this guy doesn't have a clue, I guess that is why he's coaching and were posting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

      It seems like Hibbert could fill the Post Presence role quite well for JOB. With his size and offensive skills, he should be able to draw a double team in most situations, and his passing is superb.

      I don't know really I guess. Have to see how it all plays out.

      To really examine this, I think you have to look at how he coached his former teams. Was the offensive system he ran in Boston identical to the one he ran last year? We all know he likes the three pointer, but as far as pick and roll offense, or whether to play up-tempo or halfcourt? How did Boston run things.

      I know JOB loved paul pierce, and I have heard that Rush has a similar game, so I am not sure how he will be a bad fit.
      Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 07-04-2008, 01:22 PM.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

        I don't know if I buy this idea that Donnie was still making all the decisions. I think the O'brien hiring was an attempt to bring fans back with a more up tempo run and gun style of play.

        As far as Rush, he can play 2 positions. I think they view a Granger-Dunleavy-Rush trio on the wing provides them with 3 players who are interchangable on the wing. He can also shoot the three which we all know O'brien loves. So I think he actually fits that mold. Hibbert is, IMO, a desperate attempt to give them a half court defensive presence since we dealt our only one away . I mean of all the big guys available at the time of our pick, none had much defensive potential, except maybe Hibbert. Sure Hibbert has other skills, however, Bird spoke of his defensive ability before the draft. And I think they hope Hibbert can develop into a good rebounder and use his passing ability to ignite the break ala Kevin Love, plus give them a descent low post option in half court and a big defender to protect the basket. So in a lot of ways, I think they think, Hibbert could develop into the perfect center for the system. They don't need a center to run as much as provide them with a focal point to run offense through when the game gets slowed down to a crawl in the playoffs.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

          So T-bird, in short I think you're saying that Bird might be looking to replace the coach after 3 years.

          Bird did mention that O'Brien was the right coach for "this team" when he was hired. Bird is now in a position to change the team to his liking, more than likely that would require a coach to change his system or a new coach.

          My guess is we get a new coach. These things tend to happen from time to time in the NBA. I don't view it as a major problem, just the team evolving into a contender again.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

            TBird,
            Good post. As always.

            A few things to consider w/ the Bird/O'Brien/Player dynamic.

            -Consider what Bird said he wanted to do when he was coaching the team. He said he wanted to increase the tempo and get out in transition. He wanted play a style of ball that was more prevalent in the 80s. He didn't do it around 98 as much as he said he would, but I think that's because of the age of our roster then and that he was hesitant to tinker too much considering we were one of the top 4 teams in the league. O'Brien certainly coaches an unconventional offensive style for today, but when you look at the tempo we played at last year, it definitely had the markings of a 1980s-style transition/shoot the open mid-range/perimter shot ballclub.

            -Consider the needs of the system vs. the patience and maturity required to play for O'Brien. JOB doesn't take crap from players. He's a no nonsense kind of guy. Bayless fits his system better as a player, but I'm not so sure that isn't overshadowed by the fact that Rush fits the system better from an attitude standpoint. If the Pacers determined that Bayless didn't have the maturity to buy into the system, what was the use of having him on the roster?

            -Consider what Bird said about the tenure of coaches and how players tend to tune guys out after 3 years or so. I don't think O'Brien will be around in 4 years, because I think Bird will replace him after 3 to 4 full seasons. O'Brien seems like a guy who would understand this. From his standpoint, if he knew Bayless wouldn't have the maturity to fit the system until JOB was on his way out, would O'Brien want him or need him?

            -Hibbert isn't the ideal fit at a big man, and I 100% agree that he doesn't fit the system to a T. I think the pick here was made more with a general need in mind rather than a system need. Keep in mind however that the first thing out of Bird's mouth was that they ran him through pick and roll tests and were satisfied with his ability to defend the play adequately. It was pretty clear we needed some bodies inside, and I can't remember the last time a guy of his size, experience, and skill set fell to 17. Consider the mid-80s Celtics as Bird's idea of a model. It's pretty clear that we aren't even approaching their talent level, but they got out in transition with certain players playing certain roles. Neither Parish nor McHale were the most mobile guys by this time, but they were better than average passers with soft hands and post moves. Hibbert is by no means even a poor man's McHale when it comes to post moves, but he fits the bill as well as anyone available at 17 in this draft. If we could pull a trade for a better fit using a combination of picks and players, I think we would have. We just have the necessary trade bait at this point.

            The end result of all of this is some compromise between O'Brien's style and the team on the court, but from a career standpoint, I think O'Brien is on board. Last year O'Brien's hands were tied. This year, we will improve, but still get another good pick in the draft while continuing to weed out the bad apples. By O'Brien's fourth (and probably final) season, I can see us being a pretty solid 4 to 6 seed in the East, O'Brien and the Pacers parting ways, and O'Brien parlaying his improved coaching stock into another gig.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

              I don't see O'Brien as the coach to take us to the next level anyways. He's more of a transition coach that Bird hired because he's a veteran and has the schemes to win more games than he should with a young roster. An uptempo system can exploit the average young team's strength's: speed, athleticism, while it can sometimes hide their weaknesses, like lack of defensive saavy. Also, in the regular season, you can get a lot of teams to play to your style when you go uptempo, which can help win more games. In the playoffs, this typically doesn't happen.

              Bird said he doesn't like a coach to stay past like 4 years anyways, so I don't see O'Brien sticking around when this thing starts getting really good.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                I never thought O'Brien was going to be a long term solution as our head coach.

                I don't know if I quite buy into the theories your laying out but I do beleive Bird is not going to let his current coaches system dictate how he builds the team.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                  You are correct with our draft picks not neccesarily being optimal for J'Obs offense. They seem like they would do very well under Rick, especially the late 90s offense that he had.

                  But, let's not forget TJ Ford, who is absolutely perfect for J'OBs offense.

                  I think it is smart not to pick players based on the coach or even based on building around another player (JO). It is good to leave your team the ability to play multiple styles.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                    Wow...interesting read if not speculation. I will have to digest this for awhile.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                      I say Bird pulls double duty. He should remain president of basketball operations and become our head coach.
                      I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                        Good afternoon, and Happy 4th of July to you all!

                        Today I want to write about our Pacers new direction, and some potential problems and conflicts that are looming on the horizon I believe between our Pacers front office and our current head coach. Looking closely, I can see storm clouds starting to gather.....particularly when you look at the specifics of the draft moves we made on June 26th.


                        Tbird
                        I disagree and here is why.

                        1. I believe the hiring of JOB was not only to entice fans back but a Bird type of coach. What I mean by that is that JOB is not a Rick Charisle who took crap from players. Bird in my eyes wanted a discplinarian.

                        2. I am not even going to try to agrue with you on bball formations but I will say that JOB has taken nonathletic and not very diverse players to new heights. The player I have in mind is M. Dun who in my opinion is not ideal for JOBS system. Rush's limitations are similar to M. Dunleavys in my eyes. He can't create and he is a limited ballhandler. JOB has shown that he can work with less than ideal players and be successful.

                        3. You might be right that JOB time is limited but I doubt it will be a nasty storm between the two. The Pacers basically resurrected JOB's career and he in turn gave the pacers some much needed accountability. My question is this. Who is availiable that would do a better job in your opinion.

                        Finally JOB won't be let go if we make the playoffs next year and atleast show promise. Given what happened this season I believe he can take T.Ford, M. Dun. Granger, Nesto,
                        Murphy and our bench to the playoffs.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 07-04-2008, 03:30 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                          Originally posted by ChicagoPacer View Post
                          Consider the mid-80s Celtics as Bird's idea of a model. It's pretty clear that we aren't even approaching their talent level, but they got out in transition with certain players playing certain roles. Neither Parish nor McHale were the most mobile guys by this time, but they were better than average passers with soft hands and post moves. Hibbert is by no means even a poor man's McHale when it comes to post moves, but he fits the bill as well as anyone available at 17 in this draft. If we could pull a trade for a better fit using a combination of picks and players, I think we would have. We just have the necessary trade bait at this point.
                          This exactly what I was talking about on another thread. Bird has the "Boston puzzle or Boston equation" on his mind. There is no doubt in my mind this is the formula he is going to utilize in building HIS team. Of course he's not going to get McHale or Parrish type pieces right off the bat but I think he is lokking at the attributes of each position when he was playing and taking the best available player to fill those spots. It will take some time and some fine tuning but he knows what he wants. If the coach wants to go along with it - fine. But I truly think he knows how to build a championship team and has been handcuffed.

                          As far as JOB. I wasn't crazy about the hire. I think we settled on a lower tier candidate who was willing to take the job. We weren't going to get anyone more high profile.

                          I'm looking forward to this playing out because I think I understand the vision and that vision will take a little patience. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but I don't think I am.
                          Last edited by ABADays; 07-04-2008, 10:33 PM.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                            Never liked JO'B as a coach, won't be upset to see him leave.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization

                              Hmm... only breezed through this; will come back in a bit and do a more thorough reading.

                              But part of what you said, if I'm remembering correctly, was that Rush wouldn't be a good fit next to Tinsley. You said he'd be best next to a quick slashing PG. That sounds a lot like TJ Ford.

                              Am I wrong about this?
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X