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

Jim O'Brien, another chance?

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

  • #76
    Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
    i agree i think Mike Brown could be a good coach he played to his strong points in cleveland(lebron LOL). I like Mike Browns style better than JOB's. I just want JOB to play to our strong points, which is PnR with DC and getting roy involved and gettin DG33 open looks. Not the motion and get the pf a wide open look normally a 3 . The last part is so true he needs to devolpe the young guys PG24 and magnum & lance & price but of couarse this season duns and jones will PG24 's mintues. ugg JOB makes me mad.
    I like your content.

    But I thought you might like to know that last Friday was National Punctuation Day.

    http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/index.html
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

      Plus he's just totally ruined 3 quality years of development time when nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation of the future (ie, this season and the next 2-3 seasons) and he should be held accountable for that.
      On your general point of nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation.

      I reject that notion out of hand on so many levels. First let me say I think Jim has done a nice job developing the young guys, I would give him a solid B in that regard. I've stated that over and over again and won't get into the specifics of that in this post.

      But to the more general point of nothing being at stake. What about winning games. Isn't that why you play the game. (I know, I know the argument well they would have won the same or more games if the young guys played, who knows that before the fact though)

      Plus it is really easy to look back after the fact and decide that nothing was at stake. is anything at stake this season besides developing the young guys. And so if Jim does that to your liking and for sake of discussion the pacers win 28 games - then you want him back next season then right?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
        This concept is the crux of my opposition to the O'B way, and I have never considered things from this perspective before.

        Taking the opposite view of your post, why would you reduce the amount of time spent on your strength, offense, and thereby increase the amount of time spent on defense, your weakness, by increasing the team's pace of play on offense? That opens the team up for failing defensively more frequently on a per game basis due to increasing the duration of time spent defending while reducing the opportunity to succeed and control the game by reducing the amount of time spent playing offense. That, for me at least, is an underlying cause for what has been happening throughout the O'Brien years here.

        To me, it is almost as simple as the old school days of the four corners "freeze the ball" strategy when inferior opponents ended up competing with, and sometimes beating, superior opponents by slowing the game down to the Nth degree. Obviously, the shot clock completely invalidates that strategy, but the fact remains that teams do have the ability to dictate the pace of the game while they are on offense in accordance with the maximization of strengths vs. weaknesses, and, for the simplified purposes of this discussion, if a team is stronger offensively (and not just at shotmaking, which is an entirely different matter) and weak defensively, the pace of the game being slowed down should maximize the overall rate of success (W's) as long as there is sufficient time to get off quality shots without being totally predictable in doing so.

        If, as alleged by O'Brien and his supporters, the opposite is true, that the team is stronger defensively than it is offensively, then the game has, in fact, been played too slowly, and the changes that O'Brien has indicated are being implemented with more of the offense being run through Roy should not be implemented at all due to the fact that they will slow down the game, and nothing could be further from the truth with respect to the utilization of Roy and its impact on the success of the franchise this year and in the future.

        Now, do I believe that the play has been too slow? No, it has been far too fast due to our lack of defense in the half court and our lack of offensive rebounding especially since Foster's back issues sidelined him, and I have maintained that numerous times despite others believing that slowing the game down would have relegated the franchise to being like the Memphis Grizzlies or other downtrodden franchises.
        Good stuff Brad. I think in interpreting this discussion, we really have to take into consideration transition offense and defense. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have had the foundation of solid half-court defense predicating the tempo of the game. They get into transition on long outlet passes from their bigs where Tony Parker and Manu Ginolbili and Rajon Rondo can push the ball to beat the other teams defenders down the court. They base everything they do on their half court defense and rebounding the basketball. Many coaches' philosophy on basketball lay this as their foundation to their systems (and it is the opposite of what we have done over the last several years).

        With regard to the Pacers, I have been really really surprised that we haven't seen more on ball pressure from our PGs over the last couple of years, to take a few more seconds off the shot clock in helping our defensive rotations prevent a scoring opportunity. I completely disagree with the sentiment that we have been a better defensive team than offensive team. When looking at our tempo, we have wanted to push the ball to gain more scoring opportunities. We need more oportunities to score if we are trying to play to our offensive advantage. It also is more likely that we can offset a poor shooting night with more FG attempts. As you mentioned Brad, we have also been deficient in offensive rebounding so pushing the ball up the court will give us more shots than relying on our offensive rebounding to help create shots. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have tended to be good offensive rebounding teams. This takes some of the burden off of the number of trips up and down the court they need to make. Those teams cater to their bigs more which is where their advantage lies. Just like the Lakers and Magic. You play to your strengths. Our strength is to not get into a 50 possession half court battle in toughness because we will lose that damn near every time.

        Our roster has changed and will continue to morph into something where we don't have to adapt our system to something more "gimmicky". We will continue to see improvement in the players on our roster dictating their game against more difficult opponents. I would love for us to slow down the tempo, and I finally think we are starting to have the players to do that. We need to be able to better compete against teams in the half court.
        "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


        • #79
          Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          On your general point of nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation.

          I reject that notion out of hand on so many levels. First let me say I think Jim has done a nice job developing the young guys, I would give him a solid B in that regard. I've stated that over and over again and won't get into the specifics of that in this post.

          But to the more general point of nothing being at stake. What about winning games. Isn't that why you play the game. (I know, I know the argument well they would have won the same or more games if the young guys played, who knows that before the fact though)

          Plus it is really easy to look back after the fact and decide that nothing was at stake. is anything at stake this season besides developing the young guys. And so if Jim does that to your liking and for sake of discussion the pacers win 28 games - then you want him back next season then right?
          Difficult to not respond here...

          Oops, I already am, so here goes...

          There is no looking back required. Some of us haven't liked what has been going on since the first half of his first season here.

          To make a previously much longer post somewhat shorter (actually I tried, but failed to shorten it), had O'Brien done the following 4 things in combination, he would deserve all of the patience in the world because he would have done what he could to further the interests of the franchise in both the long term (player development) and the short term (winning as many games as possible given the available resources he had to work with). Under the following conditions, without question, O'B would deserve to stay even if it meant 28 (or fewer) wins (which it would not have in my view).

          1. Made development of young players the top priority of the franchise

          2. Used a sound strategy that maximized the talents of the players available and then altered the basic strategy according to the strengths of the healthy players during the course of the season instead of simply attempting to plug players into positions they were not comfortable playing

          3. Shown the desire and ability to adjust strategies and tempo, during the course of the season and during individual games when things weren't working

          4. Managed the momentum and flow of games using strategic timeouts and substitutions near the beginning of opposing team's runs when the action on the floor got out of control from both an offensive and defensive standpoint

          He has frequently failed to varying degrees at each of these aspects of coaching in the views of his detractors, and that is why the chorus of "Fire the Coach" reached the heights it did last year. It also explains the current skepticism with respect to the upcoming season despite so many things apparently changing fot the better.

          I believe there is a glimmer of hope at this point regarding change due to O'Brien's preferred MVP player no longer being with the franchise and no one being able to shoot trailing threes to allow them to have anyone except Granger playing as a "stretch 4" to "space the court", which will necessitate the change to an offense that runs through a hi-lo post game in an effort to maintain a primary scoring threat at the arc, a side effect of which will be more scoring and involvement for Roy. I look forward to seeing that, but I actually hope that Dunleavy is up to the task, in conjunction with McRoberts, of running a true motion offense. I don't think that Collison has that in his nature, and I believe he will be utilized as all other point guards have been, as dribble penetrators who either finish at the rim, kick out for 3's, or simply take the first available 3 if they have no driving lane and are "feeling it". I just hope he can figure out how to somehow reduce the turnovers from that position by exercising better judgement than JT and TJ, and that his defense rises to a level more like JJack.

          Notice that I haven't addressed defensive change, either. That is because O'Brien himself has come out and said that all that will change is that the perimeter defense will attempt to cover ground a little further from the basket than it has in the past, meaning that we will probably see the same effectiveness there that we have in the past because teams will have even more options to penetrate our perimeter "team defense" through passing into the midrange and then having more options for quality looks when our defense is slow to read and accurately react. Roy had better be far quicker than he has been in the past or both he and anyone beside him for interior defensive purposes will be on the bench with foul trouble frequently, and the goal of 35 minutes a game for Roy will be a pipedream.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            On your general point of nothing of value was at stake other than improving the young foundation.

            I reject that notion out of hand on so many levels. First let me say I think Jim has done a nice job developing the young guys, I would give him a solid B in that regard. I've stated that over and over again and won't get into the specifics of that in this post.

            But to the more general point of nothing being at stake. What about winning games. Isn't that why you play the game. (I know, I know the argument well they would have won the same or more games if the young guys played, who knows that before the fact though)

            Plus it is really easy to look back after the fact and decide that nothing was at stake. is anything at stake this season besides developing the young guys. And so if Jim does that to your liking and for sake of discussion the pacers win 28 games - then you want him back next season then right?
            "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME" lol herm edwards classic

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              I like your content.

              But I thought you might like to know that last Friday was National Punctuation Day.

              http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/index.html
              lol

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                Good stuff Brad. I think in interpreting this discussion, we really have to take into consideration transition offense and defense. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have had the foundation of solid half-court defense predicating the tempo of the game. They get into transition on long outlet passes from their bigs where Tony Parker and Manu Ginolbili and Rajon Rondo can push the ball to beat the other teams defenders down the court. They base everything they do on their half court defense and rebounding the basketball. Many coaches' philosophy on basketball lay this as their foundation to their systems (and it is the opposite of what we have done over the last several years).

                With regard to the Pacers, I have been really really surprised that we haven't seen more on ball pressure from our PGs over the last couple of years, to take a few more seconds off the shot clock in helping our defensive rotations prevent a scoring opportunity. I completely disagree with the sentiment that we have been a better defensive team than offensive team. When looking at our tempo, we have wanted to push the ball to gain more scoring opportunities. We need more oportunities to score if we are trying to play to our offensive advantage. It also is more likely that we can offset a poor shooting night with more FG attempts. As you mentioned Brad, we have also been deficient in offensive rebounding so pushing the ball up the court will give us more shots than relying on our offensive rebounding to help create shots. Teams like Boston and San Antonio have tended to be good offensive rebounding teams. This takes some of the burden off of the number of trips up and down the court they need to make. Those teams cater to their bigs more which is where their advantage lies. Just like the Lakers and Magic. You play to your strengths. Our strength is to not get into a 50 possession half court battle in toughness because we will lose that damn near every time.

                Our roster has changed and will continue to morph into something where we don't have to adapt our system to something more "gimmicky". We will continue to see improvement in the players on our roster dictating their game against more difficult opponents. I would love for us to slow down the tempo, and I finally think we are starting to have the players to do that. We need to be able to better compete against teams in the half court.
                Another excellent, thought provoking post, pacergod2.

                With the current philosophy, putting pressure on the opposition with defense at the point that slows the opponents offense is counter to the goal of playing at a fast tempo and having more scoring opportunities each game, isn't it? I am guessing that this is as much of a factor in the decision not to pressure the ball as anything, and it is a wrong decision in my opinion as well.

                Also, slowing the game would benefit our defensive play by doing two things. It would shift the balance of available energy expenditure to having more energy available for playing the type of perimeter based defense that the Pacers play, and increase the likelihood of our defense getting set up in a timely fashion. Then, the opposition would also tend to slow down itself subconciously in bringing the ball into the frontcourt, thereby having a couple less seconds each possession to actually run their offense and likely lead to poorer overall shot selection and more turnover producing mistakes than has been the case. The toughness discrepancy factor on the interior, which I agree we will still lose at this point, would be mitigated to an extent also due to having fewer overall possesions for the opposition to exploit that advantage in my view.

                The transition offense and defense aspects are harder to quantify, but, at a slower pace, wouldn't transition offense and defense lessen as a factor due to transition opportunities being reduced if everything else were equal, thereby reducing the deficit that has been seen there as well when compared to other teams who have had better defense, and if the defense actually improves as I believe it would, potentially leading to the Pacers actually being able to use transition to their advantage on occasion?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                  Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                  i agree i think Mike Brown could be a good coach he played to his strong points in cleveland(lebron LOL). I like Mike Browns style better than JOB's. I just want JOB to play to our strong points, which is PnR with DC and getting roy involved and gettin DG33 open looks. Not the motion and get the pf a wide open look normally a 3 . The last part is so true he needs to devolpe the young guys PG24 and magnum & lance & price but of couarse this season duns and jones will PG24 's mintues. ugg JOB makes me mad.
                  Mike Brown would be an awful hire. we would immediately have the worst offense in the the league

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                    Originally posted by IUfan4life View Post
                    Mike Brown would be an awful hire. we would immediately have the worst offense in the the league
                    Sounds like a lateral move to me.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                      Originally posted by IUfan4life View Post
                      Mike Brown would be an awful hire. we would immediately have the worst offense in the the league
                      no the reason there O was bad wasnt because of Mik. But hey i guess 66 wins is a bad thing with only having LBJ and an old group of underachivers

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                        no the reason there O was bad wasnt because of Mik. But hey i guess 66 wins is a bad thing with only having LBJ and an old group of underachivers
                        The notion that Lebron had no help is an absolute joke. The Cavs went out every year and got the best player available. The offense was Mike Browns' fault. How are you going to play half court offense with the most athletic player in the league.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                          To be fair our offense was already AWFUL last year, as in one of the worst in the league. Ironically, given the sentiment of some of the members of the board we were actually a decent (average) defensive team (rated 15th)

                          The converse was true the year before, and I personally believe alot of it was due to dunleavey. If we can put both JOB's together we might actually be an average basketball team YAY!!!
                          Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            Another excellent, thought provoking post, pacergod2.
                            Thank you... you as well.

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            With the current philosophy, putting pressure on the opposition with defense at the point that slows the opponents offense is counter to the goal of playing at a fast tempo and having more scoring opportunities each game, isn't it? I am guessing that this is as much of a factor in the decision not to pressure the ball as anything, and it is a wrong decision in my opinion as well.
                            It is counter to increasing the tempo. I am just surprised that we haven't seen it from the standpoint, that it reduces the actual time we are defending in the half court. It would slow the tempo, but might also open more steal opportunities in the passing lanes to create more transition opportunities.

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            Also, slowing the game would benefit our defensive play by doing two things. It would shift the balance of available energy expenditure to having more energy available for playing the type of perimeter based defense that the Pacers play, and increase the likelihood of our defense getting set up in a timely fashion. Then, the opposition would also tend to slow down itself subconciously in bringing the ball into the frontcourt, thereby having a couple less seconds each possession to actually run their offense and likely lead to poorer overall shot selection and more turnover producing mistakes than has been the case. The toughness discrepancy factor on the interior, which I agree we will still lose at this point, would be mitigated to an extent also due to having fewer overall possesions for the opposition to exploit that advantage in my view.
                            The problem with slowing the tempo too much is that as we get into fewer possessions overall, we are more proficient in scoring from the perimeter. Other teams would get a much higher percentage of makes because they would be exploiting us down low. With Hibbert's development I might feel comfortable with this. Especially if it reduces his foul rate more. However, over the last couple of years we haven't had any sort of advantage in the front court. So we are basically relegated to winning games only if we shoot well from three. That is an over simplification, obviously. I still think our team should be looking to slow things down now that our front court will be more physical and competitive, IMO.

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            The transition offense and defense aspects are harder to quantify, but, at a slower pace, wouldn't transition offense and defense lessen as a factor due to transition opportunities being reduced if everything else were equal, thereby reducing the deficit that has been seen there as well when compared to other teams who have had better defense, and if the defense actually improves as I believe it would, potentially leading to the Pacers actually being able to use transition to their advantage on occasion?
                            Yes. Agreed. I think that the point I was trying to make with regard to transition opportunities is that if we can utilize that time spent in transition to offset defensive possessions then that is what we were hoping for. We should have been taking WAY more defensive risk by going for steals and turnovers, which I think we did, just not enough to win more. We saw a glimpse of this with all of the double and recover defense JOB had us running 2-3 years ago. He didn't even trust our front court to body anybody up. Would you with Troy Murphy?
                            "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


                            • #89
                              Re: Jim O'Brien, another chance?

                              Originally posted by IUfan4life View Post
                              The notion that Lebron had no help is an absolute joke. The Cavs went out every year and got the best player available. The offense was Mike Browns' fault. How are you going to play half court offense with the most athletic player in the league.
                              they did get him some decent players but they couldve problly got Paul Gasol when he was with the grizz (kwame lol and rights to marc gasol who is good now but was over seas playing). My thing was they didnt have a 2nd scorer . Also no one in the post besides shaq and big Z who was more a shooter than a big banger. If Jordan had a bad game Pippen was there to pick up the slack who was that for the cavs?
                              Last edited by pacer4ever; 09-29-2010, 07:18 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X