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

comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy :)

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

  • #31
    Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I don't see how this comment can be good for the board.
    Sorry Hicks, but that's not a shot at most. Don't think of it as an insult to the board as a whole, but a challenge to those who refuse to believe O'brien could possibly be defended. It seems like some of his biggest detractors have already admitted they will not waste their time reading it, and I say challenge your own beliefs a little. How can one possibly believe something if one doesn't question their own beliefs. I think if someone took the time to construct this thing it should be acknowledged by Pacer fans, and nearly a day later all this thing gets is a total of 13 comments most of which are lofty at best. Numerous threads in a negative light have recieved much more attention, and I find it disgusting. It took 20 minutes to read, and I enjoyed it. To me, that's not asking much, is it?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

      JOb is not a bad coach. Lots of bad coaches enter and leave the league every year. So, a bad coach is one that has a very short tenure in the league...or a former star player like Zeke, who has no business coaching at this level.

      So, the fact JOb has stuck around the league deserves respect. At the same time, there are a lot of veteran coaches out there that have a higher market value than JOb. You can't just ignore what the market is saying and claim JOb is John Wooden. The experts and investers who have far more information than anyone here are clearly telling you that JOb is an average NBA coach. He was the second choice to coach a bad team...and apparently was available. It's not like he's a hot commodity folks. At the same time, he's not chopped liver.

      But some of his personnel decisions are very frustrating to see...which may be his greatest weakness as an average coach.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

        No offense, but I'm old, so I think I'll wait for the movie.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

          Whatup Pacer Nation, Don here. I'm new here and I must say I'm impressed by what I've seen so far as I poke around your site.

          Someone informed me that My Case for JOB was posted here. I must say I'm flattered!

          (Yes you'll just have to take my word for it that I wrote it, I'm not an impostor )

          I hope you all won't mind me addressing a few things.... (warning, another LONG post coming up )


          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          Why anyone without a vested personal interest in Jim O'Brien's employment would go to these lengths is beyond me.

          I got about one third of the way through. I do intend to read the rest of it at some point, hopefully soon. It is remarkable, in my view, how similar this poster is to O'Bird in phrasing and thought formation, and likewise how similar both are to Jim O'Brien himself, both from quotes in the media, as well as what little I heard his radio shows back when he had those.

          If it actually is O'Brien, or someone from his staff, good. We have something to look at and understand so we can perhaps appreciate what is being done more, or possibly we can quantify why we believe it to be wrong, despite the fact that it can be safely assumed that the vast majority of us have never been NBA coaches. We still understand the game, and I now am coming to believe that, if this indeed is someone who is involved with coaching the Pacers, the gameplan is being massively overthought, and that is why the players, no matter who we have had here, have had such a difficult time executing the O'Brien system, except in spurts.
          LOL OK Let me clear this one up. I've never met Jim O'Brien, I don't know any members of his family, I don't have any financial stake in Jim O'Brien's career, and I don't know anyone that works for the Pacers. I'm just a big fan of the Pacers who thinks that Jim O'Brien is a good, not great, coach (in general I think you need to win a championship before you are deemed "great"). I think he is very underappreciated by many Pacers fans. In terms of questioning why anyone would go to these lengths... keep in mind this was not some speed-induced 96 hour marathon writing session. 20 to 30 minutes a day definitely adds up. Imagine combining all of your posts from the last few weeks... slowly but surely you'll have a lot of material. But I didn't have enough time to revise and to tie everything together as I wanted to. I'll provide a little "cliff's notes" commentary in case anyone is interested.....

          CHAPTER 1--DEFENDING THE DEFENSE..... I think some people have this misconception of Jim O'Brien as some kind of a Paul Westhead/Loyola Marymount wannabe, a guy who doesn't give a darn about defense who is only concerned with pushing tempo and outscoring opponents. And I can see why many people would have this impression--O'Brien followed a period of Pacers basketball where we had top 5 defenses (under both Isiah AND Carlisle) with guys like Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and later with Stephen Jackson. And I think some people view the passing of the coaching baton from Rick Carlisle to Jim O'Brien, as the reason for less favorable defensive outcomes the past 3 years, without appreciating that the defense was bound to get worse with Murphy and Dunleavy, irrespective of coaches. And also--whether you like our offensive approach or dislike it, pushing the tempo also meant that we would be giving up more points per game compared to what fans were used to. (Did you notice today that Bob Kravitz invoked Paul Westhead in his column? I'm not saying he was necessarily trying to conflate O'Brien with Westhead, but I think it still speaks to this urban legend that O'Brien could care less about defense).

          But if you look at O'Brien's ENTIRE coaching career, you would know that he is, indeed, a "defensive-minded" coach. In fact, just my guess... if we didn't have a defensive-minded coach like Jim O'Brien the past few years, we could have easily been a bottom 5 defensive team considering our personnel, youth and roster turnover.

          CHAPTERS 2 and 3--Basically reviewing O'Brien's previous coaching experience. I sometimes hear people smearing his previous experience without providing much context, so I wanted to set the record straight. Boston--+13, first conference finals in 14 years. Philly, +10, and the team took a step backwards after he got fired. At the time I happened to follow what he did in Boston and Philly, and I thought he did a fantastic job of getting more out of less. Most people observing at the time felt that he pretty much stretched the potential of those teams to the limit (I did not make up those John Thompson and JVG quotes--someone on indystar basically accused me of this lol--i use them because they were reflective of what most analysts were saying).

          So I think this is extremely important to consider.... if you're only frame of reference about Jim O'Brien is that he followed a Pacers streak of 16 playoffs in 18 years, only to miss the playoffs in all 3 of his seasons here (and furthermore, playing a style and sometimes using lineups that people don't care for)..... then frankly it's very understandable why so many Pacers fans don't care for the guy.

          But actually, when you look at his ENTIRE career, INCLUDING his 3 years here as Pacers coach... you see an unmistakable pattern of a coach who gets teams to overachieve.

          I'm not necessarily using this as support--but did you see that Wall Street Journal article recently, that noted how most NBA coaches don't really make an impact either way? They listed 5 or 6 notable exceptions including Jim O'Brien. I realize that a lot of the O'Brien detractors probably dismissed the study or didn't believe it, but it was was not news to me. It's what Jim O'Brien does, and considering we are in a "small" market without any star players, we better make darn sure we have a coach in here who has a proven track record of getting more out of less, Jim O'Brien or not.

          .... People sometimes ask, what did Larry Bird ever see in Jim O'Brien, or, what does Bird STILL see in this guy? Well, my educated guess is that he sees him as I do and as many around the league view him; a guy who pretty much milked as much as possible out of those Boston and Philadelphia teams, and a guy who has kept Indiana competitive and in playoff contention despite a rebuilding period that has been made even more difficult thanks to multiple injuries to key players. Recently si.com had the following blurb… “An opposing team's scout sizes up the Pacers

          Other teams have more talent, but the Pacers will have a better record than they should because of Jim O'Brien, depending on how long he stays with them. I don't know how anybody can say he's not a good a coach. Maybe he doesn't have the best relationships with his players, but he gets players to play hard. They've won games they had no business winning over the last two years.”

          Now, you may personally disagree with this scout, but it’s probably safe to assume that Bird feels the same way, otherwise O’Brien wouldn’t still be here. And I know this will probably be unpopular... But looking at our roster and our injuries the last few years, I think we probably should have been in the 20 to 25 win range....we can't look at our talent level in a vacuum, we need to be honest and recognize that on most nights we were probably at a talent disadvantage.

          CHAPTER 4--OFFENSE. I know this is a controversial topic but here's how I see it... Jim O'Brien inherited one of the worst offensive teams in the NBA in 2007 (dead last if you base it solely on points scored per 100 possessions). As such, he determined that we didn't have the personnel to consistently walk the ball up the court to allow well-prepared defenses the opportunity to set up. He determined that we didn't have the personnel to consistently be effective in half-court sets. So he decided to push tempo and encouraged players to shoot early in the shot clock if they were open in order to compensate for our talent disadvantage.

          Now, people may personally not like that style and think it's kind of "gimmicky"... but is it really all that hard to find fault with the rationale (and furthermore, the results considering we still averaged 35 wins with a roster short on talent and high on key injuries?). Sometimes people say something like... "well you can't win a championship playing this style." Well with all due respect I think that misses the key issue. As an extreme example, obviously you're going to play a different style if you have Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol. We didn't have the talent to compete for championships, and we arguably didn't even have the talent to be a playoff team. So O'Brien adapted to this reality--he had to build a style of play around Granger, Murphy and Dunleavy... and frankly I think he did a fantastic job.

          I think people have this impression of O'Brien as a one-trick pony who just takes the same "system" with him wherever he goes, but that's not true. He's adapted to key personnel at all 3 of his stops.

          I may be wrong, but I think a lot of the friction came last season... we had missed the playoffs 2 years in a row so people were probably fed up with O'Brien ball already (but again as I try to remind people of, winning 36 games those first 2 years was actually quite an achievement). And then... Hibbert began to emerge and people wanted to go ahead and revolve the offense around our second year center. Hey, honest difference of opinion. I can't say any of you are wrong to have wanted that. But I viewed Hibbert as a project center in year one, and a situational player in year 2. As such, gameplans were only occasionally Hibbert-centric instead of all the time. I think on most teams Hibbert would not have gotten 25 minutes of playing time. But I guess it comes down to your overall opinion of Hibbert. But instead of giving him too much too soon, O'Brien sent the message that Hibbert needed to EARN a bigger role. I think that's the way it should be with younger players, and as such, in year 3 Hibbert is seeing more touches with his improved conditioning and improved rebounding ability. I think O'Brien did a fantastic job in Boston of helping to bring out the leader in Antoine Walker. I see a similar thing happening now with Hibbert. O'Brien encourages a culture of accountability and wants players to take ownership, and that's part of why I tell the story of O'Brien sometimes letting Walker lead team huddles... Hibbert has natural qualities of leadership and work ethic, and I think that O'Brien has played an important role in helping to bring a lot of that out of him. (Don't misunderstand, I definitely give the majority of the credit to Hibbert, but I think it's a mistake to overlook O'Brien's role). Regardless of your feelings about last year, I think it's phenomenal the progress Hibbert has made in just 2 years.

          CHAPTER 5--Just more random nonsense in case anyone is interested (my thoughts on murphy at center, The Toronto back-to-back last season with Conner as coach, mcroberts and "irrelevant", things like that). I would also like to clarify... when I say that Rush "failed", I didn't mean that he was beyond repair. This was in reference to his 5 game suspension, but by all accounts he is another player who has really pushed himself this past summer. Hopefully he keeps up what he started last night.


          But anyways... I'm not saying that O'Brien is perfect or correct about everything... but it comes back to perspective and expectations... when considering that we had been in the playoffs 16 of 18 years, sometimes I feel like many of my fellow fans don't have a good concept of what a rebuilding period is going to look like. It's supposed to be ugly and messy. So when people say things like "last year O'Brien's performance on the bench was one of the worst-coached NBA seasons I've ever seen"... heck, people make it sound like we only won 13 games last year!! Our best player, who I don't even count as a top 25 overall player in the NBA, missed 25% of his games and was probably never really 100% in the other 75%... plantar fascia is a tough injury, it's always a good reminder to look at how Tim Duncan's efficiencies declined across the board with the same injury in 05-06. So for people who use the "eyeball test"... well, I think the eyeball test is influenced by your expectations. And I think that if the eyeball test were more reliable, I think people would understand that a lot of coaches would have struggled to win 25 to 30 games with this team and these injuries the past 3 years. Which is why I lead off with my estimate... 98% of why we missed the playoffs the past 3 years had nothing to do with our coach, but because of our lack of talent and our injuries.

          So I'm not just some kind of a JOB "fanboy." I support him because I think he's best for this team. If we miss the playoffs for a 4th straight year... even though I won't be a fan of scapegoating our coach for this given the top to bottom improvements of teams in the East (besides Cleveland and Toronto), I could see some value next summer in making a change just for the sake of change. I probably wouldn't care for it but I will reluctantly support it. But in the meantime, as I think others have tried to say... whether you like O'Brien or dislike him, let's try to put the past behind us and focus on what could be a very exciting (and surprisingly good) season. Thanks for taking the time for those of you who have read what I had to say, and go Pacers!!!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

            I agree that O'brien is not a world beater, but is slighty better than average. I've said this before. Who is going to come to a below average to average team and coach better? Who wants to coach here that is better? I respect O'brien for taking the challenge, and overall I believe he has done a good, but not great job. Since Jim arrived, this team has over-achieved. Now, I believe this current team has average talent, and this season will be the ultimate measure of how good O'brien is by making the playoffs. If the team doesn't improve in the win column, I will give in and say it's time for a coaching change. Until then I remain a supporter of O'brien.

            Thanks Don for chiming in. I enjoyed your post. We have an insane lack of O'brien supporters here.
            Last edited by Noodle; 11-11-2010, 12:31 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

              Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
              It took 20 minutes to read, and I enjoyed it. To me, that's not asking much, is it?
              Who are you, Evelyn Wood? You may well be a speed reader, and if so I commend you for having that skillset, but I believe I spent at least 30 minutes reading the third of it that I had time to earlier, and it took that long because I was attempting to do it justice as opposed to skimming it, despite not agreeing with the basketball parts I finally got to after the poster explained in painstaking detail what method was going to be utilized during the dissertation.

              I did find what was written articulate, both more defensive and having more offensive execution in its expression than the Pacers have had on the court for the most part, and an accurate portrayal of what we have seen from O'Brien. It is very detailed, and requires thought to process both the poster's thoughts, as well as the thoughts that have been expressed by other posters that are being responded to, which I feel is required to fully understand something more than "Everybody is wrong, O'Brien is better than he is being portrayed, and in fact he is better than the revered Rick Carlisle in several respects". Obviously there is much more to it than that.

              As I stated earlier, I do intend to read the remainder in the near future, despite being one of the more (currently) vocal detractors here. Who knows, I may be influenced by it, though I don't think I have been so far.

              Granted, many won't bother to read it because they realize that they have heard it all before, and have discussed it or read about it to the point that they are sick of it, and many likely don't have the time it would take to truly read for comprehension.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                Who are you, Evelyn Wood?
                I'm not a pioneer of any sort, but yes I do read very fast. I was actually exaggerating though. In reality, it took about 30-40 minutes to read all five parts.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                  I'm not saying how long it's taking me to get through it. Too revealing of my attention span...but, the half I've gotten through so far, and the 'abridged version' that Don posted above are excellent. Well thought out, well expressed, and not obnoxiously idealogical.

                  Hope we see more from you, Don. Welcome. Well argued and informative.


                  [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                    OK...finally manged to get through the whole thread.

                    One question, if you want to opine, Don: What do you think about AJ's inactivity vs TJ's revitalized role? Obviously, we don't see what goes on in practice, but that one factor seems to me to be the most obvious questionable call from JOB this year....and 'questionable' is about as strong a word I would apply at this (3-3 record) point.


                    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                      I would like to thank donswanson for his post. I don't agree with everything but he does make a interesting arguement. I am ready to accept those and feel with all that being true, we should overachieve and win or first NBA CHAMPIONSHIP THIS YEAR.
                      Good is the enemy of Great


                      We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
                      -- Frank Vogel.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                        Personally, I can't get thru the lengthy defense of O'Brien because I've watched the games. I see coaching decisions I don't agree with and I see results that are because of bad coaching. I do not look at the W-L record as the be all-end all in coming to that conclusion.

                        Furthermore, the idea that a team that is poor offensively needs to play a fast game is just crazy to me. Sure, push the ball up the court and try to catch the defense napping but if it's not there then be patient and get a good look in the flow of the offense.

                        Just as crazy is reading the team has poor defensive players so we need to increase the offensive tempo to... I don't even understand any defense of this philosophy. You increase possessions for the other team and you give the other team baskets in transition. So you make defending much harder and spot them baskets on the way to scoring even more points.

                        But besides all of that there's the rotation questions... over reliance on a 'stretch 4'... the team's lack of situational awareness that is a direct result of what O'Brien has preached

                        I've seen enough to know Jim O'Brien makes any fan of fundamental basketball despise every minute he's on the bench.

                        You can explain what he's attempting but you can never make me believe it's good basketball.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                          Jim isn't a good coach because he preaches contradictions. Period. I've said it since the very day we found out that he was going to be the next coach.

                          His defensive philosophy directly contradicts his offensive philosophy. And it's crazy.

                          His defense is mainly set up around protecting the basket, as it should be obviously because that's what defenses are designed to do. The Pacers, like all teams, want to stop pentration, and make the offense shoot quick, long shots. Low percentage shots.

                          What does he preach on offense? Taking the open shot, regardless of where it comes in the shot clock. No, he doesn't preach just chucking the ball, but how many times have I heard Quinn say that he won't yell at a player for missing an open shot, but he will yell at them for not shooting it? Too many times.

                          Jim has this idea that an open shot is a good shot. That's not the case. Obviously defenses can't stop all aspects of the game. It's just too hard in general, and then the league impliments pro-offensive rules and it becomes even harder. Any team, regardless of playing level, can get open 3pt shots, whenever they want them. That's not a hard play to setup nor is it a hard play to execute.

                          But yet it's not only encouraged, it's coached. If you're hitting them, great. But when it comes down to crunch time, and your whole identity is taking open shots, and you don't have the patience nor discipline to work the ball for a GOOD shot, you get forced shots with a hand in the face. Every time I watch the Pacers I have multiple "Oh nooooo, oh, good shot" moments and even more "wow, not a good shot there....."

                          If you can't be patient and wait for a good shot at the 7min mark of the 2nd quarter, you're not going to be patient and get a good shot with 30secs left in a tight ball game.

                          That's the problem. I don't care about a few quick, open, long shots during the course of a basketball game, but I do care when that's what is being coached. And that's what's being coached.

                          So to sum it up quickly, Jim's defense is designed to force the opponents into long shots, but yet he preaches open shooting, regardless if they are long shots. Long shots are extremely easy to get, and players routinely fall into the trap of defenses letting the offense take quick long shots. What he wants the opposition to do is exactly what he coaches his team to do.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                            Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                            Whatup Pacer Nation, Don here. I'm new here and I must say I'm impressed by what I've seen so far as I poke around your site.

                            Someone informed me that My Case for JOB was posted here. I must say I'm flattered!
                            Welcome DonSwanson to PD! yea i used to post over on indystar.com but there are alot more diehards over here and have become a big fan ever since stumbling upon this site back when. dont get me wrong, there are some good guys over on indystar as well.. but the pluck forums pretty much suck imho.

                            I want to make clear as i pointed out in my first post that i was not the author.. and so on.. hope you were not offended by me posting your comments over here. i know there are some on here, few and far b/t that do support O'brien so this was more for their benefit, and thought some might enjoy the post. if anything i was thinking it would get a chuckle simply due to the length of the article : )

                            when i first read it i was like damn.. its humorous just the length of the article, and then i noticed it was well written and seemed sincere so i wanted to share it with PD.

                            glad to see you made it over here on PD, I really think you will enjoy the site and bring alot of good comments to the forum!

                            ps.. you never responded to my comments on your idea to trade for Gilbert Arenas over on the indystar.. i was a little dissapointed about that since i took the time to explain why bringing in arenas would be a bad move. not sure if you still feel like that is a good idea or not.. but wouldnt mind hearing your thoughts on the subject as well.

                            again welcome to PD and nice work on the article, i have yet to read it all the way through, because i wanted to get the opinions of others before doing so.. but it seems to have created a bit of a stir so i think it is worthy of my time.. dont take that the wrong way or anything.. pretty busy guy and am currently working on an certification for my profession.. so my mind is a lil zapped from all the verbiage there, but i will definitely read it when i get a moment.

                            Go Pacers!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                              Jim is average at best. He can take a certain type of team and get them to out-perform expectations ( a team with limited athletic ability for example)

                              However his stubbornness to adpat to his personel, instead of wanting his personel to adapt to his system, is his greatest weakness

                              He is a student of the game and has some decent offensive game plans, but the doubble talk and doubble standards he does, allows him to lose faith of his players quickly
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                                bump


                                [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X