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

Coaching options

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

  • #31
    Re: Coaching options

    Here is what I am expecting to see happen. O'Brien will be given a front office job at the end of his current contract as a reward for coming in to a bad situation and filling in while knowing the team would not be very good for several years because of salary cap hell. It will be reported as a promotion instead of a firing. In doing this, Bird can be loyal to his friend while still doing what he knows he needs to do.
    “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Coaching options

      No other options are viable for the Pacers at this time other than to stay the course, which is why they have.

      Our coach plainly is not in favor with fans here or in general, and there are several problems with his philosophy of how spacing the court is achieved in a way that works whether shots are falling or not. One additional glaring problem is that our coach doesn't believe in making in-game adjustments, and often allows momentum changes to go too long without timeouts. He also refuses to change rotations away from his attempts at making mismatches when the opposition makes changes accordingly, often as soon as he puts whatever convoluted lineup he puts on the floor to achieve small ball, or smaller ball with two pgs (little danger of that early on this year with AJ hurt and two shooting guards likely to split the pg slot).

      The contention that coaches don't win games is absolute BS. Players, even at an elite level (which the Pacers are not), require an outside viewpoint to provide basis for decision-making and strategy during games that the players simply don't have time to address, assuming the opposition has a coach who changes strategy during the course of games when their initial strategy begins to fail. They need guidance. Players who are not at elite levels need MORE guidance, not less. Otherwise they languish in mediocrity at best, or implode (which happened with alarming frequency this past year).

      For example, looking to the Colts, anyone who follows them knows that after every series during the game, Peyton looks at printed out pictures and diagrams of what the opposing defenses actually did and analyzes why he was or was not successful and makes adjustments both for himself and the remainder of the offense to counter what is being thrown at them. Then, at halftime, even more major adjustments are made, and the Colts often play an entirely different way in the second half than they did in the first, and generally soundly beat the opposition in that half (not always, but generally). In basketball, there is no time for such a thing, so the coaching staff must do that for the players, and those coaches who do that efficiently put their players at a comparative advantage vs. those who do not.

      Under Bird as a head coach, in game changes came frequently on both ends of the court as the games ebbed and flowed. That likely came from a combination of Bird and Carlisle working together, and to a lesser extent with Harter's defensive input. Bird, himself, not only said the 3 year rule (and was not joking at other times he said it as time passed and he was further removed from actually being the head coach), but also said that Carlisle pretty much did the majority of the work when Bird won COY and that he didn't feel like he deserved it. That factored in heavily when Larry Bird publicly stated, prior to being brought in as President of Basketball Operations that he was disappointed in the Pacers record the previous season and that, with the right coaching that the team would have won about 20% more games, or nearly 50. That is why, I am sure, that Bird, immediately upon being hired, set about getting his own affairs in order, made little or no contact with Thomas, and then hired Carlisle as soon as the pieces fell in place for Larry Brown to take Carlisle's spot for the Pistons.

      So, Larry Bird believes that coaching does indeed make a difference, and a significant one, with respect to team performance and winning. It is bizarre how similarly this coaching staff has ended up attempting to make this team play when compared to Thomas, though. I still feel that there are many elements of the "quick" that have been implemented despite not having personnel who are physically and mentally capable of playing the game in that way with, just like in the days of Thomas, little guidance from the sideline other than exhortations to push the ball, rotate defensively, and take the shot. The reason the players have not been successful and have not had the required buy in is that they recognize that there is a certain futility to it, especially in the face of injuries, and times that players are played out of their positional comfort zones in a way that creates mismatches that are often actually against the Pacers players as opposed to being in their favor. These things, coupled with a lack of consistent, adequate playing time for young players who even O'Brien admitted outplayed the veterans in practice at times in seasons that were blatant rebuilding years, are the cogent arguments for replacing O'Brien.

      That pretty much refutes all of the positions put forth by the FO, while those here, arguably some of the Pacers most ardent followers, for the most part don't buy the company line, with a few notable exceptions.

      The money was put where their mouth was because it was the cheaper alternative, especially when it was recognized that the roster could not be altered radically except through the draft, until the undesireable players such as Murphy, Dunleavy, and Ford have their contracts expire, and it would be unlikely that desireable coaches who currently either have head coaching or commentating positions, or are lead assistants for successful franchises would want a position where they would not be able to alter both the roster and the current strategy that the players would be forced to unlearn when faced with transitioning to a new coaching staff with a different philopsophy (that is part of Bird's thought process on the 3 year rule as well I would guess). O'Brien has the advantage heading into the potential lockout due to the uncertainty, but that should end shortly thereafter, especially with the added bonus of franchise financial flexibility that will likely be cherished by Simon and Morris, and whoever they decide to lead the team into the future will without question hold that flexibility in high favor as well, and it will certainly impact all decisions that will be made at that time. Until then, insanity rules, with the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and that is compounded by the inflexibility of our coaching staff in the face of roster changes and injuries.

      Fitting players into predetermined roles, as if they are chess pieces, rarely is optimal in my opinion. Fitting a flexible strategy to the available roster, then changing it as players get injured or return from injury, and having the ability to maximize the strengths of a given roster is the sign of a quality coaching staff and would lead to having a roster of players who would run through walls for that coach because the players recognize that the coach is maximizing all of their abilities to excel and earn more money because their talents are being utilized as fully as possible within the available parameters at any given time.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Coaching options

        Originally posted by dlewyus View Post
        Here is what I am expecting to see happen. O'Brien will be given a front office job at the end of his current contract as a reward for coming in to a bad situation and filling in while knowing the team would not be very good for several years because of salary cap hell. It will be reported as a promotion instead of a firing. In doing this, Bird can be loyal to his friend while still doing what he knows he needs to do.
        If this does happen lets just hope that his new position is as a "Consultant", with no ties to personnel, scouting, player relations or basketball operations.

        Just "Consultant"!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Coaching options

          Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
          If this does happen lets just hope that his new position is as a "Consultant", with no ties to personnel, scouting, player relations or basketball operations.

          Just "Consultant"!
          Like the Knicks just did with Isiah Thomas (I think. Or does Isiah have an actual basketball role with them again?). Brilliant!
          Last edited by Brad8888; 08-07-2010, 11:30 PM. Reason: I think.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Coaching options

            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
            Like the Knicks just did with Isiah Thomas (I think. Or does Isiah have an actual basketball role with them again?). Brilliant!
            I think keeping OB around is just as bogus as the next man but if he's gonna be here next season I would hope his most important responsibility is to make sure Larry's triple non fat soy latte is prepared properly.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Coaching options

              [QUOTE=O'Bird;1047161]If avoidingtheclowns has the right quote, then it looks as though your "most pacer fans" missed the irony. And unless you've got a different quote in mind, shall we regard the matter as settled?


              as the poster mentioned below, bird did state the three year rule on several occasions. im not that interested in proving a point that im gonna scour the internet to locate his exact words. honestly, its not that important to me. it seems your blowing this way too far out of proportion, i dont know if ive upset you by assuming JOB will be gone next year or if you just enjoy this kinda back and forth, but it seems your out to attack every comment you can that ive stated. which is cool, ive got no problems with you disagreeing with me on what seems like everything i state. but just so you know, im not into the back and forth banter as much as you are. moreover, were all fans of the blue & gold and each of us are entitled to our opinons so i see no need to take this too seriously. but for the sake of boredom i will play along here.


              My "why" was rhetorical; I think I know why he was retained, and it's the same reason that Bird gave for keeping him. I don't have a good reason, as far as I can tell, to doubt Legend's sincerity.

              so be it.. my response was rhetorical in a sense as well. i also tend to feel that i know why O'brien was retained and i shared it with you were asking or not.

              If you place such stock as Bird does in the "culture" of a team, even sacrificing talent to get the culture he wants (as in, Jack gone, Dahntay in; not even letting Tinsley in the building), why would you tolerate having an inferior coach, right when your young guys need the development? And in fact in re-upping Jim he gave him credit, once again, for altering the culture of the team.

              i dont know if i ever stated O'brien was an "inferior" coach. i dont think o'brien is the best coach in the nba, but certainly not the worst either. logically, the only response that makes sense is that at the time o'brien was hired he was the best fit for the job. SVG rejected the offer from the pacers and O'brien was plan B. i dont know who else was available at the time. the team did well in the second season and showed much progress, and why on earth would we hire a guy then fire him 2 seasons in, knowing the talent is still not on the roster. again, seems were turning this into something more than i really intended. the logistics of why JOB was hired, extended, and so on no one has the answers to, but I have my hunch as to why he is still the coach but that is completely irrelevant to this topic. which is again, if JOB is fired after next season who pacer fans like to see replace him.

              Let's be honest here. Isn't the real reason that people are down on Jim O'Brien because the Pacers haven't made the playoffs? There's cognitive dissonance here; you can't win without talent, yet you're claiming that he has to win a certain number to stay. You claim that the talent isn't good enough to win, and yet the coach has to win in order to stay and coach the better talent. No, it just doesn't add up.

              your interpretation of what im stating is erroneous. again we could go back and forth on this but its not the reason i started this thread. im just not into this sort of debate at all. but to respond to one thing here, the real reason i dont like JOB is his style of coaching. dont agree with chucking up 3's all the time, wanting a player like mcbob to focus on threes, and all the smallball lineups that JOB implements. plain and simple i dont think JOB is that great of a coach. do i think he is inferior, no, but i believe there are better coaches than O'brien and im hoping once the roster is more competitive we will land one of them. additonally, i was a much bigger fan of Carlisle than i am of JOB, and would prefer someone like Carlise to replace him. its unfortunate the numerous issues this franchise encountered while Carlise was here, because i think he is one of the better coaches in the NBA, but i understand why the two split ways. carlise i think burned out on the job after the two tumultuous seasons the pacers had back to back. to put it simply, i dont agree with JOB's style, but overall i think he is a very knowledgeable coach in many respects, and who am i to disagree with Legend. however, at the end of the season if a better coaching candidate is available, and can be sold on the future of this franchise, O'brien will be let go.



              Bravo. It's good to see someone making an actual prediction. By the way, I don't know if you've been noticing the last few years, but if you win 50 you can count on being in the playoffs, so there's no "and/or" involved.

              thanks for the sarcastic response.. but yes im completely aware and when i stated this i assumed there might be some confusion but didnt care enough to go back and edit. but to clarify im basically saying in order for JOB to ensure himself another season as the head coach he will need to win 50, or at least lead the team to the playoffs.


              That's a strange statement. Was everyone really assuming that LeBron would only consider Cleveland, and that all that hoopla was hype? Not at all. Scott didn't know one way or the other, that's the whole point; he asked LeBron publicly to stay; if he had been sure that Bron was staying, why bother? Coaches want to coach, and they want the best gigs available. NBA head coaching jobs are the top of their field.

              again, it seems to me your looking for anything you can to find a reason to debate. i dont know all the inside info as to why scott took the job with cleveland, but im pretty sure scott wouldve turned it down had he known lebron would not be returning. but the opportunity to coach a lebron type player was apparently worth the risk.

              I'll grant your premise that it WAS obvious, though at that point management, for one, had not yet decided to pull the trigger and re-build. And I don't know everything that went into O'Brien's decision, but some of all of these must have been in play:

              1. The chance to work with Larry Bird. This, at any rate, is something he mentioned at the time. Makes sense to me.

              2. The chance to get an NBA head coaching job. There are 30 in the world; it's the top of the profession.

              3. The salary.

              plain and simple, o'brien was not birds first choice, realizing that we were not gonna land a top tier coach, bird took the safe option and went with o'brien. i dont understand what the point in all this is? the topic is coaching options that pacer fans would like to see replace JOB if he is let go after next season. from your posts is it safe to say you are a fan of JOB? your original point was, what provides me with evidence that JOB is not the guy the FO intends to keep. i guess i shouldve made this much easier and just stated i dont know.. just as you do not know if he is the guy they want around if this team ever does return to an elite status. all im really looking for on this thread is the names of potentail replacements for O'brien, not a debate on who the FO wants as the future coach. generally speaking its pretty obvious most pacer fans want a new coach, so im wondering who they would like to see replace the current one, thats all im really searching for from this thread.

              im not saying JOB is the worst coach in the league, but i do not agree with his style of ball, and am hoping a better option becomes available next offseason.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Coaching options

                Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                Bill Laimbeer is known as one of the best basketball minds amongst the younger set of coaching candidates there is. Not only is he an X's and O's guy, but he has also played enough to understand player movement. You would assume he plays a post-centric offense that revolves around defense and rebounds. Two things he absolutely prioritized in his game as a player.

                As for JOB, O'Bird has brought up some very good points about O'Brien. There is really two sides to the discussion up to this point.

                A. We have had too little talent taking up our cap space and injuries have hampered the team's ability to win.

                B. JOB has yet to make the playoffs.

                The rest IMO is a judgment call as to what he has done with the talent. Has he probably won more games than he should have with the players he has had... probably.

                Has he adapted his whole game plan and system to a bunch of veterans in an attempt to win now... yes. Has this hurt the development of our young players... yes. Will it be a successful system for us to be truly competitive... no. Will we have this system once our team has blossomed into a competitive team with significantly more talent... no.

                To put this argument of JOB into perspective... he has done a good job teaching our young players. I know it doesn't seem like JOB has much patience for them in terms of game management, but from all indications I have ever heard, JOB is an excellent teacher of the game and the fundamentals necessary to become a better player. I think the behind the scenes coaching he does definitely goes unnoticed, or not noticed enough. JOB has done what he was asked with a deck stacked against him.

                This is the year that we should see significant changes in the offense and basketball theory behind the overall system. JOB understands that you must outscore the other team. It is difficult to go anywhere without the ability to score efficiently in a playoff setting. This is true. However, the system we employ and possibly the talent we employ as well are not good at two fundamental areas of successful playoff runs, defense and rebounding. Defensively we should be a much better team in the future. We have a ton of length and athleticism. We unfortunately have a lot of expiring contracts who do neither very well. Troy, Dun and Ford are bad at defense. Troy is the only decent rebounder, but within the context of the rebounds he gets, he is not nearly as good as he statistically performs. Foster is very good at both, but hasn't stayed on the court and is a liability offensively. These are not the players you win championships with unless they are in a much more limited role than we use them.

                JOB must play the younger players more. This is obvious to those who want to look to the long-term. JOB must play the veterans. This is obvious to the people who always want to win every time they touch the court. Unfortunately this conundrum of basketball satire is almost the anti-yin-and-yang. In our scenario, these two ideologies do not complement one another in a worldly manner. We are torn between the two and feel the need to pick one or the other.

                JOB has done a lot better than he gets credit for on this board. His winning percentage can't back that up. For a win starved franchise, what do you do? Behead the coach in a display of despair by playing the tyrant or do you praise the coach like a benevolent despot for circumstances outside of his control?
                regardless, i dont wanta see a former piston coaching the pacers. i pretty much despise the pistons franchise hope to not be associated with them in anyway. they are to me at least one of our biggest rivals and laimbeer is not the guy i want no matter how promising of a coach he may become.

                i sincerely respect your POV, but laimbeer will not be given the job, at least not with Legend around.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Coaching options

                  About Bird's comment about a team starting to tune out a coach after about 3 seasons.

                  There are only 4 players remaining from just 3 seasons ago: Granger, Murphy, Dunleavy & Foster.

                  Only Granger is signed after the coming season.

                  Point is, you don't need to replace the coach after 3 years if you turn over the roster.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Coaching options

                    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                    About Bird's comment about a team starting to tune out a coach after about 3 seasons.

                    There are only 4 players remaining from just 3 seasons ago: Granger, Murphy, Dunleavy & Foster.

                    Only Granger is signed after the coming season.

                    Point is, you don't need to replace the coach after 3 years if you turn over the roster.
                    It seems like Danny is tired of him, though. And he's pretty important.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Coaching options

                      OK so the former Celtic, running the Pacers won't hire a former Piston on the same premise.

                      I would say that Larry Bird despised Laimbeer as a player, because he was on a rival team himself. Laimbeer was a great teammate. Laimbeer knows the game. He is exactly the type of player Larry Bird would respect for what he did on the court. He's definitely a guy you love to hate, but when on your side, is a great addition. I would assume that carries over to coaching as well. Larry would do well by hiring him, so why would he let a guy who used to be a rival not help this franchise over superificial reasoning?
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Coaching options

                        Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                        OK so the former Celtic, running the Pacers won't hire a former Piston on the same premise.

                        I would say that Larry Bird despised Laimbeer as a player, because he was on a rival team himself. Laimbeer was a great teammate. Laimbeer knows the game. He is exactly the type of player Larry Bird would respect for what he did on the court. He's definitely a guy you love to hate, but when on your side, is a great addition. I would assume that carries over to coaching as well. Larry would do well by hiring him, so why would he let a guy who used to be a rival not help this franchise over superificial reasoning?
                        I could be mistaken, but I don't think Bird has hired anyone in as an assistant or head coach who did not wear green as a player at some point. Even former Pacers are relegated to front office PR positions instead of anywhere near the bench (with the notable exception of Billy Keller who Bird and O'Brien probably respect as a great shooter). Laimbeer never did wear green, so his chances are diminished if that is as much of a factor as it appears to be so far during Bird's tenure. That is very unfortunate in that it limits options severely.

                        I hope I am totally wrong about the green guys on the sideline. Carlisle was a green guy, obviously, but I didn't care about that as he is a top notch coach.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Coaching options

                          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                          I think presenting this quote (as many on PD do) as some sort of Bird Doctrine regarding the handling of each and every coach is a bit ridiculous.
                          That wasn't the only time he's talked about it, though. He's gone on at length about it on multiple occasions.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Coaching options

                            Yes. Larry Bird has stated the 3 year effect multiple times; not sure why it's being debated or argued.

                            Also, Bill Laimbeer would be a Pacer if he was coaching our team, not a former Piston. We need to get him if he's clearly the best coaching candidate.
                            Last edited by imawhat; 08-08-2010, 02:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Coaching options

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              That wasn't the only time he's talked about it, though. He's gone on at length about it on multiple occasions.
                              When were the others? The only other time I can recall was when he was leaving the Pacers bench. Each time it seemed more convenient than a rule that is set in stone -- he wanted to leave and then he fired Isiah after three years as his first act in the front office. Since that time, however, we've seen Carlisle get a fourth season and Jim O'Brien (at least for the moment) get to start a fourth year.

                              I think he's talking philosophically - three years is a good time to reassess the coaching position, no matter what front office you're in. This isn't exclusive to Larry. How many coaches in this league make it beyond a year and a half or two years? Most coaching deals usually are around three years (maybe structured like Jim's with an option for an additional year or something similar).

                              Do I think Carlisle was fired because he'd maxed out Bird's coaching year allotment? No and that won't be the reason O'Brien isn't retained beyond this season (if that's how it happens to work out in April). Do we all think that if Jim had won 50 games the last two years that Bird would stand firm with this "3 years and out" policy?

                              There are many good reasons to discuss why O'Brien might be fired this season or won't be retained beyond it - none of which have to do with "Larry said teams need new coaches every three years."
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Coaching options

                                Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post

                                so why would he let a guy who used to be a rival not help this franchise over superificial reasoning?

                                Prejudice against former rivals, hatred of the Pistons, and stubborness to the point of Celtics love trumphs everything else just to name a few. I don't believe Bird is big enough to overlook past rivalies to hire someone he doesn't like even if that person could help the Pacers.

                                I'm one who wouldn't mind giving Laimbeer a chance at coaching the Pacers, but a snowball in he11 has a better chance than that ever happening.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X