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

O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

    http://www.indycornrows.com/2011/1/3...ents-on-firing

    Harry Truman, during his time in the White House, was a considered a poor president. The conventional wisdom of the 1950s viewed him as potentially one of the worst in American history. He was dumb and bad then, but today President Truman is correctly remembered as one of the country’s best chief executives. Truman did nothing to affect this change, passed no new legislation, gave no fresh speeches or military orders. Merely, a lot of people realized a lot of other people were wrong.

    It was quite the turnaround.

    Star-divide

    Certainly, none of that relates in any way to Jim O’Brien’s performance as Pacers head coach, but it is just one of many, many examples in American history, in human history, in universal history, or whatever kind of history you choose, sports history even, of conventional wisdom being wrong.

    Want a basketball example? Doc Rivers. Loathed, hated, mocked by Celtics fans, until he took their team to two NBA Finals. Rivers was a dolt, but a coach learns quite a bit, apparently, once Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen dress in his locker room.

    The popular sentiment among Indiana fans is to condemn O’Brien, fired Sunday in his fourth season here. In the interests of keeping this column clean, I won’t cull some of the more hateful rhetoric toward our team’s coach, for which the worst offenders should hang their head in shame. He was still the Pacers’ coach, after all.

    But I will personalize these remarks somewhat. I like Jim O’Brien. This is fairly well-known. I’m one of the few Pacers fans who refuses to toe the line like a good little sheep and rage against the foibles of "JOB." Quite often, I get categorized as a Jim O’Brien defender, and that’s fine.

    I wouldn’t have fired O’Brien today, or at any point this season, and perhaps not even in April, depending on what we saw from our team in the second half of the season.

    The lessons of the Indianapolis Colts’ success are many, but the least of them is hardly continuity and stability. When it comes to coaching, especially, I believe many in professional sports are fired too quickly. As soon as a team struggles, boom, talk radio is on the coach’s job status like syrup on a pancake.

    That doesn’t mean stability for stability’s sake with an unproven leader or system. But try as they might, no anti-O’Brien fan can make a compelling case that O’Brien or his system never succeeded.

    O’Brien knows how to take a team to the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. Did it twice, in Boston and in Philadelphia. That track record accounted for a large part of my faith in him to do the same in Indiana.

    His offensive system, of spacing the court with shooters and using the 3-point shot to open lanes for driving and cutting, works with the right players, and the front office did a decent job tailoring the roster to O’Brien’s pretty-decent concepts. Two years ago, Indiana ranked fifth in the NBA in scoring.

    In hindsight, that 2008-’09 season is even more remarkable given that the Pacers didn’t have a Kobe Bryant or Steve Nash, the sort of coach’s-dream facilitator enjoyed by some of the other Top-5 offensive units.

    O’Brien’s best four players that year, in terms of the offense, were Danny Granger (his excellent breakout season), Mike Dunleavy, T.J. Ford, and Troy Murphy. One of those guys (Dunleavy) played in only 18 games. Two of them (Ford and Murphy) are held in contempt by some of the same folks who despise O’Brien.

    So how on God’s green earth did a team relying heavily upon Marquis Daniels, Jarrett Jack, Stephen Graham, the original deer-in-the-headlights versions of Rush/Hibbert, and Rasho Freaking Nesterovic manufacture one of the NBA’s best offenses?

    Given that Daniels, Jack, Graham, and Nesterovic have played only minor roles in other cities after leaving Indianapolis, a rational train of thought might credit O’Brien’s system. But I forgot the part where suggesting competency on the part of O’Brien amounts to treason.

    Look, joking aside, of course the man had faults. Few coaches don’t. But accurately pointing out mistakes and weaknesses doesn’t poison the entirety of a coach’s performance.

    Fans who represent my beliefs honestly know I’m not an O’Brien apologist (if one accepts the premise that an apology is owed). This hasn’t been O’Brien’s best season in Indiana. I’ll gladly point out the problems, if you’d like.

    Obie badly mishandled the power forward position, causing the team to play four-on-five offensively early on with Josh McRoberts, who owns no discernible offensive skill other than dunking ability, and had not done anything in his NBA career to suggest use as a starter. O’Brien played James Posey at the four, despite the veteran’s size and age disadvantages and the fact that other coaches had used Posey exclusively at small forward. Posey had a 3-point shot, which O’Brien liked, but running Posey out there on the 10 percent chance he’d have a game like the Hornets game (Dec. 20, 15 points) didn’t make up for the rest of the nights in which JP was essentially useless. It took O’Brien a ridiculous 32 games to realize Tyler Hansbrough was the best power forward on the roster (as I enjoyed Bird quietly alluding to in yesterday’s press conference).

    O’Brien couldn’t settle on a nine-man rotation, which good teams win with. True, O’Brien never had a good team, and most of the so-called rotation issues were driven by the constant string of injuries the past two years, but it certainly was bothersome this season, as I pointed out several times on my Twitter account. Hansbrough’s in, Hansbrough’s out, Jones is in, Jones is out, Foster’s out, Foster’s in, George is in, George is out, and so on.

    In Milwaukee, on a last-second play in which the Bucks’ only chance was to get a tip-in, O’Brien used the 7’2 Hibbert to guard the inbounder, rather than the basket. Didn’t like it.

    Against San Antonio at home, Posey finally sat for 48 minutes, then with under a second to play, removed his warm-up and took the most important shot of the game ice-cold. Didn’t like it.

    In Golden State, on Monta Ellis’ game winning shot, Rush got isolated on Ellis, even though Rush is better defending bigger players and got his ankles broken by a quick crossover that Ford or Collison might’ve contained. Didn’t like it.

    The offense, for whatever reason, endured a lot of winnable games shooting under 40 percent. Didn’t like it.

    But guess what? Evaluating a coach is tough. Players give us a bunch of statistics. A coach’s performance, other than wins and losses, is subjective, and even wins and losses are contained by high-and-low-end possibilities. For example, O’Brien wasn’t winning 55 games in Indiana. Gregg Popovich or Jerry Sloan wouldn’t have won 55 games in Indiana, either, with O’Brien’s rosters.

    So just spouting off 121-169 (Obie’s overall record here) doesn’t do a whole lot. (O’Brien was 182-158 outside of Indy, for those wondering.) Bird said it himself yesterday: "Just because he’s the head coach doesn’t mean he’s the reason we’ve lost all these games."

    What’s more, that Indiana record doesn’t come with the injury asterisk that it should. Followers of the Pacers on a game-by-game basis under O’Brien know this is the first healthy team he’s had in three years.

    Don’t take my word. When the aforementioned Rivers came through Indianapolis this season, he made a telling remark about our coaching staff: "They’ve had a three-year stretch where you can’t have as many injuries as they’ve had, so [O’Brien] has a chance to actually coach his team for the first time in awhile."

    And that’s correct. Even in 2007-’08, O’Brien’s first year, his point guard (Jamaal Tinsley) and best player (Jermaine O’Neal) combined to play in only 70 of a possible 162 games (less than 50 percent). The issues of Dunleavy’s knee and Granger’s foot the next two seasons, among many other ailments, are of such recent importance that they don’t need to be rehashed.

    Okay, says the irritated O’Brien basher, what about this year? He had his players in uniform, not in suits. Clearly 17-27 is a bad record. To which an O’Brien defender says: Well, bad teams have bad records.

    Coaches, as Pacers analyst Tim Donahue astutely pointed out the other day, are assigned far too much influence by fans. This is a player’s league.

    The Pacers lack talent. Enough talent. Seasoned talent. Talent that knows how to win. Star talent. Diverse talent. Consistent talent.

    Listening to Frank Vogel try to convince himself otherwise was one of the few comedic highlights yesterday.

    "We’ve got a good basketball team," Vogel said. "I’m taking over a good basketball team. I fully expect us to make the playoffs this year. I believe this is a good basketball team."

    With all due respect to Coach Vogel (who I hope succeeds early and often, by the way), the standard for use of the word ‘good’ needs to be lowered.

    Healthy and good teams don’t end up 17-27.

    And that sums up the Jim O’Brien era, in my eyes. He never had a good team, and he had one healthy team, whose season O’Brien didn’t even get to coach to its completion.

    That’s a fair chance only in this insane, fire-so-and-so.net age, where fans who couldn’t coach a team if they received Vince Lombardi’s implanted brain decide on an impulse that the guys running their team are idiots and ask for termination.

    Had the players quit on O’Brien, as they did Rick Carlisle, I would support the firing, as I did Carlisle’s. But I don’t think our guys ever stopped playing hard.

    ESPN’s John Hollinger has a lot of credibility. He talks to scouts and general managers and all sorts of basketball minds. His job is to analyze the NBA.

    Hollinger said last week that O’Brien is the "least of [Indy’s] problems."

    The view outside of this fan base is, as the Miami Herald reported, that O’Brien is a "respected coach." Bill Simmons, author of The Book of Basketball and famous Celtics fan, has written that Obie is "an underrated coach who worked a borderline miracle with the '02 and '03 Celtics."

    I agree with them. I think O’Brien’s a smart guy who knows basketball and deserved better. A better fate. Better players. And, of course, better treatment from fans.

    Unfortunately, that means I don’t get to celebrate like so many other Pacer people at news of his demise. You seem to be having fun. My advice: enjoy it while it lasts, because the smart bet is we’re about to find out O’Brien wasn’t the problem.

    I said there were a few funny moments at Conseco Sunday. Other than Vogel’s overly-optimistic evaluation, there was the fact that Frank has had but one boss as a coach in the NBA. One boss in Boston, Philadelphia, and Indiana. Jim O’Brien.

    "He’s been a mentor to me in every sense of the word, and I wouldn’t be here without him," Vogel said.

    The irony of O’Brien-bashers celebrating the promotion of an O’Brien loyalist is almost too much. After all, it’s not like Vogel learned just about everything he knows about the NBA from the awful, bad, terrible O’Brien. Maybe there won’t be much change, after all!

    From a standpoint of spacing the court…

    At any rate, I appreciate those who read this with an open mind to try to understand my rather lonely point-of-view. I wish Jim well and thank him for working hard to try to win. If nothing else, we ought to be able to agree on that much.
    some good points made by the author
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

    I got to here:

    O’Brien knows how to take a team to the playoffs in the Eastern Conference.
    Welp, from what we've heard from his meeting with Larry, he didn't know how to get this team to the playoffs. And that's all that matters.

    [edit] I scanned the rest of the article and found this gem:

    ESPN’s John Hollinger has a lot of credibility.
    Yeah, um, not to be impolite to the author, but this isn't worth my time. I'm gonna go back to watch the rain freezing.
    Last edited by Kegboy; 01-31-2011, 06:14 PM.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

      Many PD posters have been saying the same thing....JO'B maybe "part" of the problem...but the overall lack of talent on the roster is the other "part" of the problem that shares equal blame for our current situation.

      I've said it before....we're a mediocre Team that is capable of under-achieving ( after December ) or over-achieving ( before December )...how we do would be based purely on what the Coach does.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

        That was to long for me. Who was the author?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

          tl;dr. O'Brien is old news.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

            These same Celtic fans who thought Rivers was a "dolt" apparently love Jim O'Brien.

            So maybe it's just the Celtic fans who are wrong.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

              Irrelevent

              That pretty much sums it up. Pick at any one point and maybe the case sounds okay, but this was a culmination of a lot of things that really just need to be said or done. There is no way any of the vets over youth choices were right, simply because the teams didn't win anyway and you could have at least gained some experience, player interaction comfort, and confidence. None of the stuff to the press which included not only the "irrelevant" comment on a nice outing by Josh, but also the MIP discussion on Roy this year and the "AJ showed us he was good enough to play and now that we've seen that it makes sense to put him back on DNP".

              You can 3 ball and struggle on with less talent, but let that fall on them. Let them play poorly and get ripped, let them play AT ALL and it turns the finger from you to them. You can say to fans "I'm doing what I can, but you've seen these guys, there young and raw and maybe not ready to win seriously at the NBA level...all I can do is keep trying to coach them up because that's what I'm here for."

              JOB's job was EASY, or should have been. We all knew any coach was 100% F'd when it comes to W-L the first 2 years. Fans just wanted to not have criminal issues and whiners on the team anymore, that's all. JOB and Larry took care of that with almost no effort, it was one of the first things they'd resolved by the summer before season 2.

              From then on fans were locked into the idea of the long climb out with systematic player development full of the pains of growth and learning. All he had to do was do that, all he had to do was coach up some kids and let them/force them to work during NBA games so they'd develop. He didn't have to beat the Celtics or Lebron or the Lakers or even the Hawks. No one said "Dang, I thought this was a solid 4th seed team and he couldn't get them to win."

              If the coach was fired because of the W-L record that was the wrong reasons. It was how he handled every other item besides that. The W-L was the free pass.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                Nobody has ever said we had a Lakers or Heat line-up here. It will be...it always has been...a young developing team with a few competent vets, with two fairly unambitious goals: continue to develop a young core, and make the playoffs. (It's the East, so that's not that ambitious.)

                I don't know if I buy the reports of JOB's supposed negative assesment of our playoff prospects (in his last interview with Bird), but it's been more and more obvious over the last few weeks that O'Brien's quirky rotations and near total lack of in-game intuition were factors (at some level) in our decline. I agree; a coach's influence is often overestimated. But the Pacers' playoff chances are a borderline proposition...we either end up just out of the playoffs, or just in. A few percentage points, two or three wins, are going to make a difference, looks like.

                We're not going to overhaul our offense to a dramatically different system. It's the middle of the season, and as the author points out, Vogel is an O'Brien man. But I like our chances with an O'Brien disciple who may actually be able to see and react to what is going on in front of him more quickly than his mentor.


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

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                  Kegboy, it gets even worse IMO because of this one..
                  Had the players quit on O’Brien, as they did Rick Carlisle, I would support the firing, as I did Carlisle’s. But I don’t think our guys ever stopped playing hard.
                  So this guy supported firing Rick because JO, Tins, Harrison, Harrington....and who else, quit on him. Talk about backing the wrong horse.

                  No one thought Danny quit on him, Jackson loved the dude and that's been proven by examples many times over, and Dun/Troy just freaking got here.

                  What players quit on Rick but were reached by JOB, were turned around by JOB. What players did JOB get to play that Rick couldn't reach? Again, Dun and Troy at mid-season can't quit on a coach they just met with almost no practices even.


                  Anyone who says "I supported firing a guy who surprised the league TWICE by taking teams well beyond expectations and each to an ECF because Tinsley, JO, Harrington and Ron didn't love him" is a nitwit, there's just no two ways about that. Those dudes, right down the line, are coach killers. None have gone on to save the NBA world or prove much worth beyond a team role filler or empty stat loader (Al). Ron had to freaking salvage his horrible season with a couple of playoff miracles in order to regain some kind of respect as a player.


                  I'd rather have the coach that took Ron to the all-star game and got him a DPOY award and took a disaster to round 2 and has Dirk ripping through one of his finest seasons along with a list of "didn't you used to be great" players.

                  Sheesh. It would be different if Rick had been terrible before or was bombing in Dallas. Winning 50 games with 3 different teams in 10 years is how you go on to be Larry Brown, Lenny Wilkins, Sloan, Jackson, etc.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                    lol, Pacers_Chants.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                      I gave O'Brien chance after chance to win me over, but as this season continued I had absolutely no hope that he was the right guy for the team. Yes there were injuries, but when the players tune you out, you obviously aren't the right guy anymore. Hearing some of the players' comments during the postgame (George and Hansbrough specifically) made me think they weren't too sad to see him go. He would not make good adjustments on the fly and took out players in the wrong situations. Yes, it's not all O'Brien's fault, but not having him here gives us a better chance to win than with him here. While I don't wish anyone to lose their job, he had to go. If you think he should've stayed, I'm sorry, but you don't know basketball.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                        I think there is a huge difference between "being good little sheep", as the author says, and having eyes.

                        Some may have formed "their" opinions by going by whats popular, but I'm sure many of the people who disliked his coaching made that decision on there own. It takes just as little thought to blame things on people being "sheep" as it does to be a sheep.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                          I thoroughly read the piece, and I am dismissing it as nonsense.
                          ...

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                            It never ceases to amaze me how a well written and well intentioned author as Cornrows who can express complex thoughts in a coherent fashion can look at what has gone on with the Pacers and the undeniable dissatisfaction that has been expressed by the fanbase and then simultaneously belittle the viewpoints of the clear majority of fans, both casual and rabid alike, while primarily defending himself and another colleague (yes, count55 was an O'Brien supporter in my opinion despite occasionally saying that O'Brien might end up losing his "utility") even more than O'Brien himself.

                            But, obviously, he has every right to his opinion, and we have the right to agree or disagree with it as we see fit and express ourselves accordingly, and choose whether or not to read his musings.

                            I look forward to reading actual basketball opinions from Indy Cornrows in the future. This was not his best work. Also, hopefully, with the O'Brien negativity dying down, count55 will come back around here to add a divergent, statistics based viewpoint back into the mix here in an environment where statistics will not produce as skewed a result as they did under O'Brien.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: O'Brien's most famous supporter comments on firing

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              It never ceases to amaze me how a well written and well intentioned author as Cornrows ...
                              FYI, Pacers_Chants on twitter wrote this novella.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X