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

JOB's influence on Vogel

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

  • #61
    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    I believe it was Simon's decision to fire Jim midseason. Bird didn't want to do it.
    Contrary to what Krapitz wrote, I think Bird had wanted to do it probably since mid-January (about the time we started seeing Tyler playing and Josh in a suit), but he had to convince Herb to sign off on it before he could pay a coach half a season to sit at home. We know he practically had to force the former head coach to play Tyler.
    Last edited by Sandman21; 12-29-2011, 08:19 PM.
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      But only thing worse was the time that he had James guard A. Staudimire for three straight possesions in N.Y. only to have him score at will on him three straight times. That is the day I lost my mind and that is the day he should have been fired.
      You're not the only one who d*mn near lost their mind during that game.

      I'm sorry, but I wasn't fond of JOB AT ALL. I gave him a chance during his first season, and hated him after the second. Personally, the only thing he contributed to Vogel was getting his foot in the door and showing him how NOT to coach a team.

      My God. I'm having flashback to when he decided it was a good idea to run a two PG backcourt (Ford and Watson) with two players under players 6'2" against New Orleans during the 2009-2010 season. I do believe that was the game where Darren Collison got his first triple double. Heck, I wouldn't have been as mad if he would AT LEAST had TJ Ford guard Collison (speed for speed matchup), but he kept insisting on having Watson run PG and Ford play the SG. I can honestly say that EVERYONE who couldn't stand JOB have that ONE game where they decided "Yep, he gotta go.".

      D*mn...now my blood pressure is up. I have to go get a drink now.


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        Ever thought that maybe why they ended up not being part of the future was because our coach did not know how to properly coach them? Rush has every bit as much pure talent as Granger if not more, yet he was told just to sit in the corner (he wasn't the only one). This team always played better when McRoberts started over Murphy, or received significant minutes. Maybe with the right coach McRoberts would have received the playing time to become a much better player than he is, or we could have had a coach who knew how to get the most out of Rush. JOB was a major reason why these two players did not have a future here, not the sole reason, but a big reason.
        Quoted for truth.

        Also deserves many thanks in my view. Both players had their growth stunted as professionals as a result of how they were handled, and to an extent at this point the same is true for Roy IMO. Hopefully Roy is now learning how to play as a big in the NBA as a result of having West to help guide him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          Quoted for truth.

          Also deserves many thanks in my view. Both players had their growth stunted as professionals as a result of how they were handled, and to an extent at this point the same is true for Roy IMO. Hopefully Roy is now learning how to play as a big in the NBA as a result of having West to help guide him.
          I would assume having the opportunity to work with Bill walton, Tim Duncan, and Nene helped him a little bit. You don't seem to realize you just insulted Roy.

          You know who was working with our young talent helping them improve before JOB was fired? Frank Vogel, among others. That was a big part of why he could take over mid stream. These players aren't broken.
          Last edited by spazzxb; 12-30-2011, 02:28 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

            Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
            There is nothing to be gained from that. I simply want people to get over it and move on. I have have been a Bird supporter and have never been against Vogel. I just didn't like the whole team being minimized to a discussion of one man, that was always what irked me. I didn't see value in scrapping the active coaching staff to bring in a new person mid season unless they were the long term replacement. We were told at that point in time no one was qualified to take over from with in. These positions were accused of being a JOB fanboy which was unfair and entirely inaccurate. The JOB fanboy is nothing but a figment of the Haters imagination (except for flox).
            spazzxb also said in a later post.
            You know who was working with our young talent helping them improve before JOB was fired? Frank Vogel, among others.

            Here is where you and I will vastly disagree with each other. There is no way of discussing the Indiana Pacers prior to Vogel taking over without talking about Jim O'Brien. That was a huge part of the problem, he was omnipresent in every aspect of the team.

            You could not talk about player rotations, you could not talk about style of play, you could not talk about whether a player was or was not doing their job without the context of wondering whether this was or was not part of O'Briens plan.

            Now believe me there are other system coach's, take Phil Jackson for example as an extreme, he is devoted to the triangle. But you never wonder if a player is playing out of position because Phil has decided to fit a round peg into a square hole.

            The offense was certainly a product of his coaching. Notice how Vogel has the opposite coaching strategy yet we still have a wider variety of shots.

            According to Bob Kravitz, Mike Wells & every other player who would be interviewed they all said the same thing. Jim O'Brien was the only coach you would hear in practice, when he allowed assistant coach's to work with players it was after receiving his instructions on what to do with them. He took no advice from anyone and in fact one of Birds statements the year before Dick Harter retired was that Jim would be instructed to take advice from Dick (didn't happen but Bird said it anyway).

            No, it's impossible to not talk about Jim O'Brien when you talk about those pacers because he coached in such a style that there is no other way to do it.

            Poor shot selection, defense by scheme instead of skill and playing games by % instead of actually adjusting and working a game plan are always going to be remembered for those teams. But I think if anything at all it will be his absolute insistence of having a power forward who could stretch the floor that he will be the most remembered for. Tyler or Josh, you could never have both because they had to share time with Posey last year. The years before that you had Troy Murphy playing min after painful min. although every time he was gone for any extended time our teams played better. "We must play small" should be engraved on his headstone.

            For Gods sake Phil Jackson was just outright making fun of him here for using Murphy & Dunleavy at the 4 and 5.

            However the greatest humiliation was in the summer league (which btw he also insisted on coaching) one time he had Josh chucking up 3 pointer after 3 pointer when Rick Kamala who was broadcasting the game with Steve Smith said "you know Smitty that Jim O'Brien can't be happy with that" to which Steve agreed. I set there with a face palm because I knew the truth and lo and behold the brought Jim over during the 3rd quarter to talk about the club and when Kamala said to Jim "you can't be happy with Josh putting up those three point shots" Jim just looked at him and said "we insist that he does it". He then went on to try and explain his offensive philosophy about stretching the floor and I am certain that during that talk he actually showed his forked tongue and cloven hooves.

            Anyway when he left Rick turned to Smith and asked "was he kidding about McRoberts shooting the three" to which Smith said "I don't think so".

            I'll just go ahead and say it now.

            He was the worst coach I've ever seen and that is saying something considering I lived through George Irvine twice. Yes to answer the next question he made Isaiah Thomas look like John Wooden.

            Now before you scoff and blow it off understand this. My criteria for coaching is beyond X's & O's. It also is in adjustments, personnel usages, and interpersonal relationships with your players and mostly understanding that if something isn't working you try something different and by trying I don't mean try it once and then revert back to what was not working.

            He also gets points taken away from him because I know him to be a very smart coach, he can coach any style and he knows almost every style. But he is so committed to his way that come hell or high water that is what he is going to do.

            That is hubris that is stubbornness and ultimately those are traits in a coach that are deadly when they don't work.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              He then went on to try and explain his offensive philosophy about stretching the floor and I am certain that during that talk he actually showed his forked tongue and cloven hooves.
              Great post, but I love how nonchalantly you threw that in. Well played.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                I have no problem with system coaches. (although I think that coaches that simply adjust their offense to fit their players are better) I've seen many types of systems work.

                I find that being able to motivate (fail on JOB's part) knowing players strengths and putting players in a position to succeed (fail on JOB's part) knowing good rotations, and player balance, aka what guys play well together and provide enough offense and defense (Fail on JOB's part, I actually find that Vogel struggles a bit with this one too.)

                But coaches that have successful systems have successful systems because they adjust their systems to their players strengths.

                You know, I came here as a Price fan. For two years (at Uconn) I watched a kid who had a natural ability of knowing when to pass and when to score, and when he had the freedom of knowing darn well he wasn't going to come out of the game except for breathers, he actually tended to side on the "stop shooting when missing" mentality. (His senior year, after Jerome Dyson was injured. Calhoun essentially had to beg Price to shoot more, even when he'd miss.)

                Now, I've said that Vogel stuck him on the floor with four guys who couldn't score, making him the main scoring threat, which is partially why he shot the way he did. But I also have to think, that part of the reason was because for a year and a half, he was taught that if he doesn't chuck up a three, he's coming out of the game..and might not return for a month.

                You could see the effects of JOB when Price got a little panicky/was trying to help the team catch up. He'd speed up the court and either chuck up a bad shot or pass it to someone so they could chuck up a three pointer. Why wouldn't some of the other bad habits JOB taught the guys be showing up.

                Do you know how often Price drove to the basket and passed the ball back out to a three point shooter at Uconn (instead of passing it into the post)? He probably did it more times in one game with JOB coaching than his entire career at Uconn.

                I know AJ's game better from before he was a Pacer better than the other guys on the roster. . And quite frankly, I haven't seen such a radical change in a player's behavior..like ever. He tends to be a kid that just does what a coach tells him to do unless he's got some freedom, but he was still doing things that were pretty much the opposite of his natural tendencies. And that change just happened to fit into things that JOB preaches. I'd imagine a few other young guys (Josh a little, Roy probably, Granger sure seems like it. The mood about Granger has drastically changed from just two seasons ago.) are in a similar position.

                Jimmy took some young guys, ignored their strengths and taught them bad fundamentals because he never adjusted to the game and to his players. Spreading the floor is good. Not EVERYONE needs to spread the floor. Player movement is good, but have some structured plays as a fall back for when needed, instead of the TJ/DC/AJ iso.

                Systems are fine, if you've got the right players they can work. Sometimes though, you need to tweak them. If you don't have the right players you need to adjust. Jimmy just didn't know how to do that or flat out refused. A lot of his core beliefs were accurate on it's face (Vet over young guy, floor spacing, etc..) but were taken to the extreme, and actually weren't accurate on the team he had.
                Last edited by Sookie; 12-30-2011, 04:27 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  He was the worst coach I've ever seen and that is saying something considering I lived through George Irvine twice.

                  I wish I could say the same. I might have a bias because I was actually coached by him, but I had a coach who exemplified all of the worst attributes of O'Brien. Also if you want to transcend sports I can't say at all that O'Brien is a worse coach than Caldwell. Caldwell is in a league of his own, I have never seen a team with as much talent as the Colts have do so poorly.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                    It's worth mentioning I think, what Bird's role in all of this is. And that is, I don't think we know. From reports we heard, Bird wanted to keep JOB. It's almost widely accepted how ludicrous it was to keep JOB as long as he was. However, we also know Bird was insistent that Paul George among others get more playing time.

                    I guess I'm suggesting we don't actually know whether or not Bird wanted JOB fired. The reports we have suggest he didn't [want him fired]. Some of the facts surrounding the issue suggest he did.

                    Either way it's not entirely pertinent. We have a strong coaching staff and Bird is doing a fine job brining in personnel. Just thought it's at least worth thinking about whether or not Bird is the one to blame for the JOB fiasco.
                    Last edited by mattie; 12-30-2011, 08:05 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      It's worth mentioning I think, what Bird's role in all of this is. And that is, I don't think we know. From reports we heard, Bird wanted to keep JOB. It's almost widely accepted how ludicrous it was to keep JOB as long as he was.
                      Yeah, it doesn't matter. Bird should have fired him long ago. If he suddenly saw the light midway last season, that's no consolation.

                      Bird has a hard@ss side to his personality that somehow fellowshipped with JOB's demons which led to an irrational stubbornness to keep the coach rather than honor the players' wishes. Thankfully, Herb or somebody knocked some sense into him.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                        I don't blame Larry for holding on to him, when we weren't really playing JOB-ball at the start of last season, the Pacers were actually playing pretty well most nights, and despite our dislike of the guy, Larry really couldn't justify canning him.

                        And then Jim discovered that Posey could kind of shoot the 3....
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                          I don't get why so many on the board insist on demonizing Obie. His final 2 years were pretty bad, yes, and Vogel appears to be a much better fit. But did he really do so much lasting damage?

                          Our roster was pretty bad during most of Obie's tenure, does anyone dispute that? So the mediocre record is just a reflection of that. You might not have liked Obie's style due to philosophical or aesthetic reasons, but it's gone now and Vogel hasn't shown signs of incorporating the objectionable parts so shouldn't we all be happy about it?

                          It's silly to think that every thing that Obie did was evil. Obviously he did some good things as well, the indisputable one being that he helped to change the culture of a team in disarray. pacergod2 has pointed out several basketball things, and I'll add another - several of our players had career shooting years under Obie, which I don't think is an accident. You might not agree with Obie's emphasis on the long ball (and I don't) but the improved shooting comes in useful even now.

                          Lastly, I also think it's silly for Larry to get near universal praise for Vogel, while getting a pass for keeping Obie for so long. I really don't think there was some brilliant plan behind Vogel becoming coach - Obie was clearly Larry's guy to the end, and he selected Vogel to take over for continuity's sake. That Vogel worked out was something of a happy accident, and to Bird's credit he recognized it and rewarded Vogel appropriately. But not, it should be noted, before reaching out to other coaches (Adelman supposedly), and even then Vogel's return was preconditioned on getting better assistants.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            The irony of this is that yesterday I had a post all written, typed and placed on the board but deleted before I hit send called "exercising the devil".

                            .
                            I guess even the devil can't resist all those holiday treats. . .


                            sent from my tiny brain.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              Our roster was pretty bad during most of Obie's tenure, does anyone dispute that? So the mediocre record is just a reflection of that.
                              Yes, I actually do dispute that. I keep going back to this point. Jim said he couldn't make the playoffs with the roster he had last year. Frank Vogel not only took the SAME exact roster and made the playoffs, he then changed everyone else's opinion about the roster.

                              I guess I shouldn't be saying everyone.......

                              Answer this question. Does David West sign with the Pacers if Jim stays on as the HC?


                              HELL NO!

                              He (West) has given some pretty specific reasons as to why he picked this team. Because of the youth, the talent, and the deep roster.

                              Does trading Mike Dunleavy for George Hill take a bad roster to those positives?

                              Hardly.

                              But yet that was the only roster change that had happened when West picked the Pacers. It's not like Bird revamped the roster really quick.

                              Nope, same exact players. The only thing that changed was the HC who was deciding on who was going to play.

                              EDIT: And you can say that you weren't talking about last years roster, but when he had Murphy from two years ago, but I'll go back to the original point.

                              Jim told us last season that the Pacers weren't good enough to make the playoffs. Think he regrets saying that now? I sure do.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                                Obrien may have just been here to hold court until all the bad contracts were gone.
                                So keeping OBie was a save money move. Also Obrien was brought in to instill some professionalism and discipline, or at least I seem to remember hearing that from Bird.
                                I had forgotten about the Posey defense on Howard. Ahhh, Good Times....
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X