Why make this statement???

[Peck]

Re: Why make this statement???

WHY they got the minutes doesn't change the fact that they got them. It isn't something to be used in defense of JOB's rotational preferences, maybe, but it doesn't invalidate the minutes.

Or are you saying that Roy's and Rush's minutes are IRRELEVANT in a season where Jeff and Dun have not been available as expected?

True, but I just didn't want it to be assumed that JOB really was a good coach at developing young talent.

However to be fair I don't think he would be a bad coach at developing young talent if that young talent played his style of ball.

That is why you really have to scratch your head at what Bird has done with getting the players he has and keeping the coach he has.

[Gamble1]

Re: Why make this statement???

Roy and Rush? I say no. They are right where they should be - I see no delay with either.

Price? he is a rookie would he be further along had he played 40 minutes every game? sure, but I have also seen cases where too much playing time too early can delay a players development - bad habbits, confidence being hurt. I'll give you Price a little bit delayed at the margins - nothing that is going to change anything. I figure unless you are a great player a lot of rookie season is just learning the NBA lifestyle. I think by January next season Price is going to be what Price is regardless of the amount of minutes he played this season

Look at Granger does anyone suggest he would be any better now if he would have played more minutes his rookie season?

Playing too much too soon can be a bad thing. I think it will all even out and a player is going to be what a player is.

I am not a coach or a guy who can tell you what it takes to develop NBA talent but I do know if you don't work you don't improve. Rookie or not if you don't play then you don't know what your up against. What types of defenses you'll see what type of players you will face.

In addition to this if you have ever worked on a team it helps to know each part and how each part can help out the other. Right now JOB has taken parts not in future and has given them priority over those parts that "will" be in the future. The Pacers will be playing at a disadvantage because of this and instead of a future well oiled machine we will have a hodgepodge team who will still have to learn to work together.

The developement argument that you are making is really sketchy. What former players were hindered as a result of too many minutes and how do you know that? Each player is different and who knows if its a bad thing for Price, McBOB, Hibbert or even S. Jones.

[Unclebuck]

Re: Why make this statement???

Roy has only played the min. he has this season because Jeff Foster went down with a season ending injury early on. That is not my theory btw, re-read JOB talking about why Dunleavy is suffering on the offensive end.

Rush is playing becuase Dunleavy has not been playing to expectations. Had Mike come back and been like he was two years ago Brandon would be playing about what Luther Head does.

Circumstances have forced O'Brien to play these two, not some desire to see them improve.

so what, the topic is whether the players development has been delayed - not whether it would have been delayed if Foster and Dun would have been healthy - fact is they weren't.

[Unclebuck]

Re: Why make this statement???

True, but I just didn't want it to be assumed that JOB really was a good coach at developing young talent.

However to be fair I don't think he would be a bad coach at developing young talent if that young talent played his style of ball.

That is why you really have to scratch your head at what Bird has done with getting the players he has and keeping the coach he has.

Oh believe you me, no one thinks Jim is good at developing young talent (or good at much of anything) [me personally I think Jim has been slightly above average at developing young talent - but I know no one else thinks that at all, not at all, not even a little bit. Everyone believes Jim ahtes the young, hates them

[Unclebuck]

Re: Why make this statement???

The developement argument that you are making is really sketchy. What former players were hindered as a result of too many minutes and how do you know that? Each player is different and who knows if its a bad thing for Price, McBOB, Hibbert or even S. Jones.

I think it hurt Tinsley in some ways that he was the starter his first game. (but I think it probably would have done Tinsley some good to earn his minutes struggle to find minutes.... (his best season was when he didn't start the first 25 games of the season) (I would also argue that if he didn't start at all his rookie season - he still would have been what he was - and that is my major point a player is going to be what a player is going to be.

Whether a roookie plays 35 games and averages 5 minutes per game or if he plays all 82 and averages 25 minutes per game. That player is going to be the same within a year or two anyway - as their talent, desire, IQ...indicates.

Playing time for a 1st or second year player is not the panecea that so many suggest in this forum. Obviosuly I am not suggesting lebron james should have sat his rookie season - but we don't have a young player like that. But even if James didn't play at all his rookie season he'd still be what he is today.

[BillS]

Re: Why make this statement???

True, but I just didn't want it to be assumed that JOB really was a good coach at developing young talent.

However to be fair I don't think he would be a bad coach at developing young talent if that young talent played his style of ball.

That is why you really have to scratch your head at what Bird has done with getting the players he has and keeping the coach he has.

To be completely honest, I think there are few to even no coaches in the NBA who are good at developing young talent except when they are forced to do so. This includes when a bad team gets a potential superstar - they ain't playing him minutes just to develop him, they are giving him minutes because he's the best they've got.

[Speed]

Re: Why make this statement???

I think it hurt Tinsley in some ways that he was the starter his first game. (but I think it probably would have done Tinsley some good to earn his minutes struggle to find minutes.... (his best season was when he didn't start the first 25 games of the season) (I would also argue that if he didn't start at all his rookie season - he still would have been what he was - and that is my major point a player is going to be what a player is going to be.

Whether a roookie plays 35 games and averages 5 minutes per game or if he plays all 82 and averages 25 minutes per game. That player is going to be the same within a year or two anyway - as their talent, desire, IQ...indicates.

Playing time for a 1st or second year player is not the panecea that so many suggest in this forum. Obviosuly I am not suggesting lebron james should have sat his rookie season - but we don't have a young player like that. But even if James didn't play at all his rookie season he'd still be what he is today.

I don't agree, I think actual NBA gametime minutes can completely change the learning curve. Now I agree everyone has a ceiling overall, but most guys never reach it, so I guess it's like this to me. Guys can only progress so fast, but you can stifle or stunt that growth by not giving them the minutes to figure it out and develop.

For example, I pretty much believe AJ belongs in the NBA, I've seen enough to think that. I don't know however, what exactly he needs to work on this summer. I mean I think I know some of it, but why not see the whole picture.

So AJ works on some of the stuff we know, but maybe he could've identified more.

This isn't even counting the experience factor of knowing what works at the big table and maybe adjusting that game to game.

So the statement was it doesn't matter for 2 years down the road, but if you delay development it does to me and then it piggy back each year you don't get that experience/development. It becomes an exponential delay at that point, I think.

Roy's another example, he limited his own time last year, but still got enough exposure to start to put it together. This year, he's kind of jerked around by match ups and has delayed getting as many lumps as maybe he should have, maybe not.

Lastly, almost no player reaches their true ceilings, a group gets close, so I think until your body starts to betray you as you get older, these guys need to get as much development in as quickly as possible. Not set them up to fail, mind you, but expediting their development as well as not inhibiting the timeline of growth.

[Peck]

Re: Why make this statement???

To be completely honest, I think there are few to even no coaches in the NBA who are good at developing young talent except when they are forced to do so. This includes when a bad team gets a potential superstar - they ain't playing him minutes just to develop him, they are giving him minutes because he's the best they've got.

Indeed

[cordobes]

Re: Why make this statement???

Heh, how testy. Very unprofessional statement.

To be completely honest, I think there are few to even no coaches in the NBA who are good at developing young talent except when they are forced to do so. This includes when a bad team gets a potential superstar - they ain't playing him minutes just to develop him, they are giving him minutes because he's the best they've got.

Why are you equating developing young talent to force feeding them minutes?

That's an extremely common assumption among fans (that's why every fan of every team complains about their coach hating the young players) but I've always thought it's an extremely faulty one.

[joeyd]

Re: Why make this statement???

I don't know about ruining the future, but I will say he's delaying the future.

Some would probably contend that JOB is ruining our future's past. Heavy, I know! But the fact is that there will be little from this or the past couple of seasons that will remain memorable about the basketball team itself. At least for me.

[BillS]

Re: Why make this statement???

Why are you equating developing young talent to force feeding them minutes?

That's an extremely common assumption among fans (that's why every fan of every team complains about their coach hating the young players) but I've always thought it's an extremely faulty one.

Fair enough, because that is exactly my point of view. I've fallen into the same trap as others with that statement.

What I should have said was more like "giving young players lots of game time", which is certainly helpful if done right but (in my opinion) is by no means essential to early NBA development.

[Gamble1]

Re: Why make this statement???

Whether a roookie plays 35 games and averages 5 minutes per game or if he plays all 82 and averages 25 minutes per game. That player is going to be the same within a year or two anyway - as their talent, desire, IQ...indicates.

You should tell that to Gerald Wallace, Micheal Redd, Chauncey Billups, Corey Maggete, Ben Wallace.

Guys peak at different times based on experience. The more experience the faster they reach that peak, IMO. Who knows if Price is going to be a starter in the NBA but if you don't let him try you'll never know. Worst yet you could be one of those teams that trades a asset away too early only to find out that you had a very good player on your hands.

My point is that the Pacers have a great opportunity to let player have some experience while not changing the fact that we are missing the playoffs. Why not take advantage of it.

[Tom White]

Re: Why make this statement???

...they thought deeply about what they said. You could ask them a question such as "what do you think about this weather?" But they might think about this question this for a full minute before responding. JOB is no Nobel Prize candidate (and I don't mean this in a bad way---how many of us are Nobel candidates?), but someone really should suggest that he think before he speaks.

I try to do this, also. It gives me time to decide WHICH foot I'm going to put in my mouth, when I do speak.

[Tom White]

Re: Why make this statement???

When I've paid between $6,000-10,000 every season over the last 3 years to watch this moron of a coach make a mockery of the team I love, I'll call him anything I want to. He's just a coach, he's not freaking Ghandi, plus he's making millions of dollars, screw him. I owe him nothing. What? are we gonna hurt his poor wittle feelings.

He's looks more and more like a incompetent fool daily and he's been a complete tool recently. I don't have the vocabulary to describe how bad I feel about this a-hole, but I'll keep trying, just to p*ss off the "respect" police.

Venting feels good.

Wait a minute. You've paid THAT MUCH MONEY to watch this team............and yet.........O'Brien is the moron?

I'm sorry. I just had to do that.

[Brad8888]

Re: Why make this statement???

Wait a minute. You've paid THAT MUCH MONEY to watch this team............and yet.........O'Brien is the moron?

I'm sorry. I just had to do that.

Rant begins:

On behalf of those of us who have spent big money on tickets in hopes of things beginning to improve while the "Plan" has been developing...

That said, I finally got to the end of my contract and am now able to spend far less for decent to very good seats for only the games I want to see, so from the outside looking in for the first time in over 10 years, I can see where you would think this is funny.

I assume that you haven't had to regret spending that big money while those in seats all around you are paying FAR less than you did to watch this poorly coached ineffective product in person, all the while just wishing that someone would just make it all stop and get on with making the changes it will obviously take to improve both coaching and results.

End of rant.