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

Coaching options

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

  • #16
    Re: Coaching options

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    Bill L.??

    bill laimbeer.. lol

    i hope like h3ll your not referring to that clown..
    Yup

    He's proven to be a good coach, and we've got the right type of players for him. Seems like a good match to me.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Coaching options

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      When [Bird] was a player, he wasn't dealing with relationships. He was dealing with a basket and a defender. In that situation, he was ruthlessly successful.
      Bird was the undisputed leader of his Celtics teams, which had a lot of fine leadership from both players and coaches (Maxwell: "Climb on my back."). I don't think you become a leader like that by making yourself the dictator of a team through force of will; I think that leadership is something that happens in trust and relationships, and in inspiring others to excel and work for a common goal.

      And backing it up with action.

      I'd refer you also to Bill Walton's recent remarks about Larry Bird:

      Originally posted by Bill Walton
      "Larry asked me and I work for Larry Bird. I always have," said Walton. "Larry Bird is the reason that I have the life that I do have. He gave me a chance, a chance to be on his team 25 years ago and I owe Larry everything -- the chance to be able to give back, the chance to be able to do whatever I can to help him in his goals and his dreams."
      :
      Last edited by O'Bird; 08-07-2010, 02:38 PM. Reason: Making it 33% better.
      :

      "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

      "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

      "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Coaching options

        Sounds like a lot of Walton hyperbole to me.

        Before Walton ever met Bird, he was mentored by John Wooden, won several NCAA championships and an NBA title. You think THAT may be why he has the life he has?

        I don't dispute your point about Bird being the Celts team leader. And apparently Walton is alluding to some of that. But team captain is not the same as coach, is not the same as GM.

        And, anyway, my point wasn't that he was dictator. My point was that he is good at trust and relationships. And he can be a real softie. A GM needs to be tough at times, and I wonder if Bird's softness in relationships affects things like his judgement regarding JOB.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Coaching options

          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
          Yup

          He's proven to be a good coach, and we've got the right type of players for him. Seems like a good match to me.
          when has laimbeer proven to be a good coach? you mean in the wnba.. secondly i dont want a former piston in charge of the pacers. no disrespect towards your suggestion, but laimbeer is not the guy i want replacing JOB.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Coaching options

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            But team captain is not the same as coach, is not the same as GM.
            Larry Bird, in fact, was an outstanding coach. A coach has got to demand accountability, sit the guys who aren't getting it done, and make them like it. There's no being a "softie", as you put it, in that arena, and a team that gets to the last round doesn't get there because their leader is not willing to make tough decisions.

            A team leader (not always the captain - leadership can show up all the way through the roster) has got to demand accountability also, as far as that goes, and get in people's faces and say point-blank what is not getting done. Bird was not shy about doing that as a player, so it isn't too surprising that he could do it as a coach. It's harder to do as a player, in fact, because you're on the same level, in a sense, as your teammates.

            :
            :

            "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

            "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

            "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Coaching options

              Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
              "loses his team more along the way"? - it's not obvious what you mean by this. But one thing is obvious: the fact that coaches often, or even usually, lose a team after three years doesn't mean that they will lose a team. I don't think that you're claiming that Bird thinks you have to change coaches every three seasons. The question is not what often happens, but what IS in fact happening.

              And THAT is what you consider a good argument for replacing Jim O'Brien? A bit theoretical, wouldn't you say? I seem to be saying this a lot: what else have you got?



              This is a really excellent question. I doubt that a benchmark like 41 wins or whatever has been set, nor should it. The players have to win the games, so it depends on the players' effort - your point above about "losing" the team. The coaching staff can teach and inspire, and demand certain things like effort on defense, but that's for nought if you don't have the talent. On the other hand, if the coaching staff loses the team, then it doesn't matter how talented they are.

              A coach has to demand accountability. TJ Ford got benched because he wasn't getting the job done. There may be a "toxic" relationship between TJ and coach right now, but do you think that he shouldn't have been benched? I think that coach did the right thing. It would help the relationship with the team, if I'm reading the situation right (like you, from quite a distance), if Ford were traded before the season.



              Here's a different view:



              And I happen to think that the roster has some promising young talent, and that it will blossom over the next few seasons (Roy Hibbert already has advanced by leaps and bounds). But this team relies on journeymen and young players for big responsibilities and big minutes. Earl Watson, Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, Dahntay Jones, and Tyler Hansbrough (when healthy) all played significant minutes; and that is not a recipe for getting into the playoffs. Fans tend to overvalue their own team's players, of course, especially draft picks.

              Having said that, your comment about the importance of a playoff appearance is well taken. The Pacers need to get there this year because of the financial plan they have in place. That is not only the coaching staff's responsibility, though. You've got to have the horses, and last year the Indiana Pacers did not. They might have made it anyway given better health; that's because the team is well-coached and has been over-achieving. I'm obviously not alone in that assessment - see the link above that rated the Pacers' personnel 25th out of 30.

              :

              basically Bird has stated in his own stint with the Pacers and when Carlisle was let go that 3 years is about the extent that any coach should stay with one team. Im not saying i agree with it, but overall there is some validity to that philosophy, but obviously there are exceptions like Jerry Sloan in Utah. im not sure what Bird meant by that statement but im sure many on here are aware that these comments have been made from Bird.

              therefore, based off of birds feelings about a coach not staying longer than 3 years tentatively speaking, i would say without significant improvement from JOB this season that he may be let go.

              furthermore, this thread is purely hypothetical.. the last thing i wanted to get into was another JOB debate about whether he is a good coach for this team or not.

              if you feel JOB is the right man for the job so be it.. state that and go on your merry way. but overall most pacer fans want JOB gone.. i would guess at least 75%. regardless of whether JOB is replaced or not.. im simply asking for opinions on who many would suggest to become the next coach of the Pacers.

              nothing more nothing less.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Coaching options

                I didn't expect to see a day when Larry Bird was called soft.

                :
                :

                "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Coaching options

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  basically Bird has stated in his own stint with the Pacers and when Carlisle was let go that 3 years is about the extent that any coach should stay with one team.
                  If he really thinks that, why, then, did he retain Jim O'Brien?

                  Can you provide a link, so that we can see what Larry Bird actually said?

                  :
                  Last edited by O'Bird; 08-07-2010, 04:41 PM. Reason: Larry's sake
                  :

                  "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                  "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                  "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Coaching options

                    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                    If he really thinks that, why, then, did he retain Jim O'Brien?

                    Can you provide a link, so that we can see what Larry Bird actually said?

                    :
                    i tried to find a link regarding his statement and was unable to do so. im not gonna spend on hour searching for the comments he made. but im certain most pacer fans are aware that bird has stated exactly what ive paraphrased in that 3 years is about the length any coach should stick around.

                    why did he retain JOB, i wonder the same thing myself. my only reasonable explanation is we cannot acquire the kinda coach he wants until there is more talent on this roster. as im sure you know SVG was the original choice for the pacers head coaching position but he turned us down. thus, until this team is on the upswing again, which will likely be next year with another solid draft and hopefully a player or two added via FA or trade, then is when a more successful coach will be considered. until then JOB is the guy we have to stick with, which sorta makes sense. why fire JOB when the roster is still a year or two away from becoming more competitive.

                    i dont see JOB lasting past this season unless he wins 50 and/or gets us into the playoffs.

                    which brings me to the purpose of this thread, who is the coach that pacers fans feel will bring this team more success. if there isnt one then more than likely JOB will continue as the pacers head coach.

                    until there is a potential upgrade, JOB will continue, and until the roster is more talented, its likely a more successful coach will not want to come here.

                    who really things byron scott wouldve taken the cavs job if he would have known LeBron would not stay. coaches want a team that gives them an opportunity to be successful.

                    if JOB is such a great coach, then why would he have accepted the pacers job, when it was obvious this team was not gonna be considered elite for at least a few seasons.

                    JOB is here until the team improves, once this happens im interested in who pacer fans would like to see take over.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Coaching options

                      This is from an ESPN piece about the Isiah firing and Carlisle being Larry's top choice.

                      ...Walsh said Thomas would "possibly" have remained on if Bird had not been hired, though he had similar concerns the Pacers wouldn't regroup under Thomas.

                      "I would have been very worried about going into the season because I would agree that I think that it could blow up early," Walsh said. "And if it did, then we'd be in a worse situation."

                      The team said it would honor the final year of Thomas' contract.

                      Bird guided the Pacers to the 2000 NBA Finals and had the best three-year record in their NBA history during his time as coach.

                      "I've always said, three years and you need a new coach," Bird joked.

                      Indiana had the best record in the Eastern Conference at the All-Star break this past season, making Thomas the All-Star coach, but went 14-19 the rest of the season and lost in the first round of the playoffs to Boston...

                      http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1604235
                      I think presenting this quote (as many on PD do) as some sort of Bird Doctrine regarding the handling of each and every coach is a bit ridiculous.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Coaching options

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        ... im certain most pacer fans are aware that bird has stated exactly what ive paraphrased in that 3 years is about the length any coach should stick around.
                        If avoidingtheclowns has the right quote, then it looks as though your "most pacer fans" missed the irony. And unless you've got a different quote in mind, shall we regard the matter as settled?

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        why did he retain JOB, i wonder the same thing myself. my only reasonable explanation is we cannot acquire the kinda coach he wants until there is more talent on this roster.
                        My "why" was rhetorical; I think I know why he was retained, and it's the same reason that Bird gave for keeping him. I don't have a good reason, as far as I can tell, to doubt Legend's sincerity.

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        why fire JOB when the roster is still a year or two away from becoming more competitive.
                        If you place such stock as Bird does in the "culture" of a team, even sacrificing talent to get the culture he wants (as in, Jack gone, Dahntay in; not even letting Tinsley in the building), why would you tolerate having an inferior coach, right when your young guys need the development? And in fact in re-upping Jim he gave him credit, once again, for altering the culture of the team.

                        Let's be honest here. Isn't the real reason that people are down on Jim O'Brien because the Pacers haven't made the playoffs? There's cognitive dissonance here; you can't win without talent, yet you're claiming that he has to win a certain number to stay. You claim that the talent isn't good enough to win, and yet the coach has to win in order to stay and coach the better talent. No, it just doesn't add up.

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        i dont see JOB lasting past this season unless he wins 50 and/or gets us into the playoffs.
                        Bravo. It's good to see someone making an actual prediction. By the way, I don't know if you've been noticing the last few years, but if you win 50 you can count on being in the playoffs, so there's no "and/or" involved.

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        who really things byron scott wouldve taken the cavs job if he would have known LeBron would not stay.
                        That's a strange statement. Was everyone really assuming that LeBron would only consider Cleveland, and that all that hoopla was hype? Not at all. Scott didn't know one way or the other, that's the whole point; he asked LeBron publicly to stay; if he had been sure that Bron was staying, why bother? Coaches want to coach, and they want the best gigs available. NBA head coaching jobs are the top of their field.

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        if JOB is such a great coach, then why would he have accepted the pacers job, when it was obvious this team was not gonna be considered elite for at least a few seasons.
                        I'll grant your premise that it WAS obvious, though at that point management, for one, had not yet decided to pull the trigger and re-build. And I don't know everything that went into O'Brien's decision, but some of all of these must have been in play:

                        1. The chance to work with Larry Bird. This, at any rate, is something he mentioned at the time. Makes sense to me.

                        2. The chance to get an NBA head coaching job. There are 30 in the world; it's the top of the profession.

                        3. The salary.

                        :
                        Last edited by O'Bird; 08-07-2010, 08:00 PM.
                        :

                        "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                        "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                        "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Coaching options

                          It's interesting that Marc Jackson gets so much support as the future coach. It seems that no NBA team agrees with that assessment.
                          Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Coaching options

                            Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                            It's interesting that Marc Jackson gets so much support as the future coach. It seems that no NBA team agrees with that assessment.
                            I don't know what kind of coach he'd make - I'll bet the people skills are good. But it would be a loss for broadcasting if he made the leap. I think that he and Van Gundy are the best pair out there right now - both the most informative and the most entertaining - and Mark has a special talent for coming up with a zinger just as they go to commercial break.

                            :
                            :

                            "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                            "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                            "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Coaching options

                              Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                              I don't know what kind of coach he'd make - I'll bet the people skills are good. But it would be a loss for broadcasting if he made the leap. I think that he and Van Gundy are the best pair out there right now - both the most informative and the most entertaining - and Mark has a special talent for coming up with a zinger just as they go to commercial break.

                              :
                              I like Van Gundy, but Jax gets on my nerves.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Coaching options

                                Bill Laimbeer is known as one of the best basketball minds amongst the younger set of coaching candidates there is. Not only is he an X's and O's guy, but he has also played enough to understand player movement. You would assume he plays a post-centric offense that revolves around defense and rebounds. Two things he absolutely prioritized in his game as a player.

                                As for JOB, O'Bird has brought up some very good points about O'Brien. There is really two sides to the discussion up to this point.

                                A. We have had too little talent taking up our cap space and injuries have hampered the team's ability to win.

                                B. JOB has yet to make the playoffs.

                                The rest IMO is a judgment call as to what he has done with the talent. Has he probably won more games than he should have with the players he has had... probably.

                                Has he adapted his whole game plan and system to a bunch of veterans in an attempt to win now... yes. Has this hurt the development of our young players... yes. Will it be a successful system for us to be truly competitive... no. Will we have this system once our team has blossomed into a competitive team with significantly more talent... no.

                                To put this argument of JOB into perspective... he has done a good job teaching our young players. I know it doesn't seem like JOB has much patience for them in terms of game management, but from all indications I have ever heard, JOB is an excellent teacher of the game and the fundamentals necessary to become a better player. I think the behind the scenes coaching he does definitely goes unnoticed, or not noticed enough. JOB has done what he was asked with a deck stacked against him.

                                This is the year that we should see significant changes in the offense and basketball theory behind the overall system. JOB understands that you must outscore the other team. It is difficult to go anywhere without the ability to score efficiently in a playoff setting. This is true. However, the system we employ and possibly the talent we employ as well are not good at two fundamental areas of successful playoff runs, defense and rebounding. Defensively we should be a much better team in the future. We have a ton of length and athleticism. We unfortunately have a lot of expiring contracts who do neither very well. Troy, Dun and Ford are bad at defense. Troy is the only decent rebounder, but within the context of the rebounds he gets, he is not nearly as good as he statistically performs. Foster is very good at both, but hasn't stayed on the court and is a liability offensively. These are not the players you win championships with unless they are in a much more limited role than we use them.

                                JOB must play the younger players more. This is obvious to those who want to look to the long-term. JOB must play the veterans. This is obvious to the people who always want to win every time they touch the court. Unfortunately this conundrum of basketball satire is almost the anti-yin-and-yang. In our scenario, these two ideologies do not complement one another in a worldly manner. We are torn between the two and feel the need to pick one or the other.

                                JOB has done a lot better than he gets credit for on this board. His winning percentage can't back that up. For a win starved franchise, what do you do? Behead the coach in a display of despair by playing the tyrant or do you praise the coach like a benevolent despot for circumstances outside of his control?
                                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X