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

I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

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

  • #16
    Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    I'm willing to bet 62% is still much higher than any other NBA coach.
    I am not 100% sure and DisplacedKnick can clarify on this - but Pat Riley used to call almost every play on the 90's knicks teams. With Wade, he obviously has let loose but he used to call all plays with that Knicks team.
    ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      I'm willing to bet 62% is still much higher than any other NBA coach.
      Unless I get a "donation" I'm not going to count the plays the opposing coach calls. Of course if you are willing to bet enough money it could be worth my while. Let's see you are saying more than any coach. It would be interesting to see what Pat Riley does.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Unless I get a "donation" I'm not going to count the plays the opposing coach calls. Of course if you are willing to bet enough money it could be worth my while. Let's see you are saying more than any coach. It would be interesting to see what Pat Riley does.
        What's the point? Do you guys really think Rick would call as many plays if he had the creators Phoenix or Dallas has? He calls plays because it works. Players don't like it and that's a whole other issue but it works if the players run it right.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

          Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
          Also its amazing how many assists Jamaal can get when Dun and Murph actaully hit some shots.
          And the funny thing was, I saw several assists that were left on the floor by blown plays. Jamaal hit the guy in the right spot, and they botched the easy shot. But there were a couple spectacular plays too, so I guess it evens out.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

            62% is way to high for a team of professional players.

            62% might as well be 100%, which is what it feels like - I'm sure - to the players. If 5 times out of 8 (including fast breaks, etc.) the team has to look to the sideline for the play call, its no wonder they feel restricted.

            I'm not sure its appropriate to compare this to any post-Bad Boys era coach - go back to the 70s and 80s and you'll see just how much today's ego-maniac coaches are taking away from the performance of the best athletes in the world. Let 'em play and make plays. Yeesh.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

              I think our players are too "stupid" to handle a free-flowing offense. They usually racked up 30 turnovers while playing matador defense.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                There lots of reasons a coach chooses to control his offense more by calling more set plays.....and some of them none of you are thinking about. Here are some reasons why a coach might call alot of set plays:

                1. He wants to limit possessions to protect his poorer DEFENSE. Ive coached this way when I had a poorer defensive team/matchup....this way lets me control the pace and "rhythm" of the game, and makes sure time runs and keeps my defensive inadequecies from being exposed as much.

                2. You are playing a team that fast breaks alot, and/or your own team struggles in transition defense. Running a set play more often assures you that you will have better floor balance, and protects against fast breaks by the opponent because you make sure to have guys in position to get back.

                3. You do it to attack a specific area of the floor, get a specific player a shot, or to attack a particular opponents weakness. Your players may not find this on their own in a more freeflowing style, calling a set enables you to put your team in the best position to succeed on that possession. For instance, you know that a particular big man struggles guarding the screen/role, so you call a play specifically designed to exploit that weakness.

                4. Your team has a particular play or plays that they run extremely well, and you want them to run those as much as possible. Reggie Miller of the single/double screen at the baseline, with Jackson up top reading the defense and feeding him the ball.....that play doesnt happen by happenstance, its a set play designed and called for by the bench or the point guard.

                5. You dont trust your point guard to make a good decision on what to call, so you do it for him. Many players dont like the responsibility of deciding the play call, they actually WANT the coach to make that decision for them.....I know none of you probably think that, but its true. Leadership on the floor isnt a natural phenomenon, its a rare thing, and if your point guard doesnt naturally possess it, your only choice is to help him somehow, if you arent able or willing to improve or develop that trait in him.

                Summary: There alot more reasons to call a set play than just being an egomaniac or control freak.


                A few other random points about this thread, which is a good one:

                -Just because RC may call something, doesnt mean its a set play. It could just be a decoy believe it or not....it also could just be a "formation" that he'd like the players to begin in or stay within during the possession, within that framework they may have different freedoms and options. I often myself would call a "formation" out depending on how Id like to structure my offense that possession (1-4 high, 1-4 low, 4 out, 3 out, post exchange, spread, high 5, triangle, double stack high or low or combo, box zipper or box philly, etc etc) those wouldnt be memorized patterns, but formations based on how I wanted the players to space the floor or with whom to screen for/with.

                Someone up above mentioned Pat Riley. One of his theories from coaching was that he wanted his dominant post players to get alot of touches. In his system, "fist down" was a signal to his team only that he was demanding his big center (Kareem, Ewing. Shaq) to get a touch in the low block if at all possible. It didnt necessarily mean that he called an exact pattern of movement to create that, only that he was reminding his team that his 5 man may not have had a touch in 3 possessions, or that he wanted the ball inside as a point of emphasis, or whatever.

                On the decoy front, against teams you play multiple times you may have several different dummy calls, and also you may have several play calls that all mean the same thing, just to confuse the opponents assistants who are charting such things or any scouts who are advance scouting you.

                Its also possible that. especially in the NBA level where your 2nd half bench is in front of you DEFENSIVELY, that you are calling out defensive tactics to be used in the next trip down court, and not what you are about to run offensively yourself.

                Having said all of this, in general I believe in the NBA coaches do try and control the game a bit much, and would be better served alot of times by coaching individual players and not controlling the flow quite so much.....however, there are legitimate reasons coaches go that way.

                The main point I think Im trying to make is that this question is alot more complicated than most of you believe, and what might be the right way to play with one team in one situation and game can be wrong in another, and vice versa. There is no silver bullet to success....

                Just my opinion of course....

                Tbird

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                  Originally posted by Jay View Post
                  62% is way to high for a team of professional players.

                  62% might as well be 100%, which is what it feels like - I'm sure - to the players. If 5 times out of 8 (including fast breaks, etc.) the team has to look to the sideline for the play call, its no wonder they feel restricted.

                  So if the number would have been 34% I'm sure you would have said well 34% might as well be 100%.

                  And no I did not include fastbreaks in my counting, I specifically excluded those. You must not have read my first post all the way through.

                  Also Rick calls a lot fewer plays when the Pacers get stops - so I don't see Rick's play calling slowing the team down

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                    I believe to state that a coach should merely be a practice coach and not attempt to call any plays during a game is one of the most ridiculous statements that could be made.

                    There are some great things that I see in todays players. Most of it involves the word athleticism and overall talent.

                    But there are quite a few negatives that I see as well. And I think most of those involve an overall decline in discipline and fundamentals.

                    If I wanted to see a TOTAL lack of discipline and fundamentals, then I suppose I'd spend my time watching playground basketball.

                    But I don't. When one spends a ton of money to attend a game, a couple of things are important to me. I want to see synergy and comradery of my players, I want to see solid decisions and I want to see decent fundamentals. I certainly don't mind my players taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves on the court, within the structure of the game plan. And... if at all possible, I'd like to see my team win.

                    I don't want to watch a bunch of haphazard crap out on the floor. Jeesh, I could have been watching the And1 games all these years if I wanted to see that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                      Which brings me to my realization last night: is a "player call" offense after a defensive stop some sort of reward system? I remember that being a HUGE issue in 03/04. If the players wanted to run, they relied on Ron Artest to get a stop (steal/whatever) and push the ball up. Ron really, really wanted to run. So much so that he wouldn't even give the ball to the PG sometimes.

                      Perhaps Carlisle established a habit in that era that continues today. "No scooby snack until you get a defensive stop."

                      The reason it worked then and obviously doesn't work now:

                      1) We no longer have elite defenders that can get the initiating stop; and
                      2) we are young and inexperienced and as such turn the ball over too much when we run.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        So if the number would have been 34% I'm sure you would have said well 34% might as well be 100%.

                        And no I did not include fastbreaks in my counting, I specifically excluded those. You must not have read my first post all the way through.

                        Also Rick calls a lot fewer plays when the Pacers get stops - so I don't see Rick's play calling slowing the team down
                        I must've misread. Sorry.

                        Regardless, if my boss is looking over my shoulder 5/8th of the time I'm working, I'm looking for a new job. I don't need to be micromanaged. Nor do these players.

                        If Rick feels compelled to micromanage that much, then its up to management to get him some players he trusts. Management don't get a free pass here - its obvious to everyone on the planet I assume that the mismatch between this coach and these players is deep, and cuts through at every level. And its management that failed to match the parts correctly. I do believe that other coaches, however, could get these players to perform in a trustworthy way.

                        If anything, however, Rick needs to be smart enough to be demanding players that he can trust. It seems to me that Rick doesn't want players he can trust because he seems obsessed with proving "his gameplan" will win, regardless of the players he has.

                        No, Rick, this is the NBA. Having the right players (and getting them to buy into a system) is what wins. But the players should be comfortable executing that system without feeling compelled to look to the bench for instructions throughout the game.

                        If they aren't comfortable, are we sure the players can't learn or could it be that Rick can't really communicate/ teach. Gee, that wouldn't be the first time we've heard that. I'm not 100% ready to throw the players under the bus here as being "unworthy of trust."

                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                          Jay -

                          I'd say that it was pretty obvious last summer and all the way up to the trade deadline that the Pacers were trying to trade at least one player that Carlisle doesn't trust. There were far too many rumors to believe that the Pacers weren't trying to trade Tinsley.

                          But even though Rick was probably asking for a trade of Tinsley, I do believe that folks are fooling themselves if they believe that Rick would not continue to call a lot of plays regardless of who the personnel is.

                          I've known several micro-managers throughout my career, and very few of them ever change.

                          Heck, if I were the Pacers, I'd get rid of Tinsley too. Not only because I don't trust him with the reigns, but also because he lacks either knowledge and abilities (and possibly willingness) to play defense.

                          But where does a lack of trust stop?

                          For example, most teams double team Jermaine. In their double teams, the one thing they seem to be willing to give up to Jermaine is the 10-12 foot fadeaway jumper. And Jermaine continues to take them, and for the most part, he misses them.

                          Should we have a lack of overall trust in Jermaine because in these situations he doesn't have the good sense to pass out instead of taking the bad shot? Because quite frankly, I don't trust Jermaine to give up the ball instead of taking the shot any more than I trust Tinsley to not pass into a situation where all Jermaine will have is a double team and a poor shot to begin with.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                            Regardless, if my boss is looking over my shoulder 5/8th of the time I'm working, I'm looking for a new job. I don't need to be micromanaged. Nor do these players.
                            Um, this is professional sports PLAY CALLING, ie PART OF THE FREAKING JOB. Come on Jay, this angle has turned into "I will dislike Rick no matter what", not a realistic view of the situation.

                            How many QBs quit the NFL because the coach is always calling plays? How many pitchers quit MLB because the manager calls pitches, pitchouts, when to steal, when a pitcher can stay in the game, when to pinch hit, and so on?

                            The coach gets FIRED if the team loses, not the player. F the player, his job isn't on the line. What's he got to be uptight about. How about this deal, Rick calls NO plays but if the team goes sub-.500 every player on the team loses his job in the NBA and goes to work as a assisstant coach for a mid-major college for 4 years (and gets the cut in pay to go with it).

                            Wow, suddenly having to put up with play-calling isn't so bad.

                            Manning might get to change Tom Moore's plays, but that's by far the exception rather than the rule. And even that (having options) is coordinated with Tom before the game/season.


                            If anything, however, Rick needs to be smart enough to be demanding players that he can trust. It seems to me that Rick doesn't want players he can trust because he seems obsessed with proving "his gameplan" will win, regardless of the players he has.
                            You TRUST the player to run your GAMEPLAN. What else is their for him to put trust in? That the guy will do his own thing and win in spite of ANY coach? How can it be a contradiction for RC to want his gameplan run and to want a player he can trust? They go hand in hand.



                            Another reason besides T-Bird's good list is that a coach might be trying to control a ball-dominate player(s) from excluding the team from the offense. You are MORE likely to get a series of screens from a set play than from a PG just bringing it up and doing something on his own.

                            Jay, do you really want Tinsley as the head coach instead, making all the play calls? You're already frustrated that Tinsley only gets to choose 40% of them, so I assume you want it to be closer to 60, 70, or more.

                            Hmm, who do we trust more to make the SMART play call - Tins or Rick?

                            BTW, Buck didn't count the RESULTS of those situations (which would be a pain without Tivo to help). What if 90% of RC's playcalls went for baskets while only 25% of the other possessions got points? Wouldn't you want to improve team scoring by getting more plays called by RC rather than to hurt scoring by moving to the less efficient method?

                            We don't currently know the numbers, but that means that assuming his plays are failing is just as wrong as assuming that every play he calls is money.


                            The team was winning more before the trade than after it. That's just pure chance. Rick calling plays, yeah, that's the problem.


                            Besides, what's the difference if the players are running one of Rick's plays even when he doesn't call it? I'll tell you one thing, all those Dunleavy jumpers coming off of screens are coming from a Rick play, and probably one he told them to run.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                              I trust the PG to read the defense and react to it.

                              There are plenty of HS and college PGs that are allowed to do that. I'm sure Tinsley has been allowed to do that in his past.

                              Tinsley's problem isn't his ability to read the defense, its that he gets too aggressive or show-boaty in taking advantage of what's there. So instead of treating the problem, we're amputating.

                              Look, if he's not willing to be coached out of this, that's one thing. But does anybody really believe Rick would let Steve Nash run the offense?

                              PS - There were a number of us that, even when the team was winning, were pointing to the excess play calling as a reason the winning was not sustainable. Let's not pretend that this is a new criticism brought on by a losing streak. That complaint has been there all along.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I counted the number of times Rick Carlisle called a play during the Hawks game

                                Well, what did he do with Mark Jackson as the offensive assistant coach?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X