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

The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 10
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 template Next
  • #91
    Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

    Leadership comes from respect. Respect can either be earned or demanded through intimidation. Some people never can gain the respect of others due to the inability to successfully implement either strategy. O'Brien falls significantly toward the intimidation side in my view, but doesn't quite get the job done, and because of that he fails to get majority buy-in for his concepts, which renders him less effective as a coach than he might be otherwise. That also is likely the reason that he will probably not end up getting another head coaching position in the NBA, as this method no longer is as viable as it once was.

    In the short term, respect can most easily be gained through intimidation, and that is why the military chooses to utilize the techniques it does to reign in the incoming recruits during bootcamp and early training. Then, once the recruits are broken down due to completely unfair treatment at times that dehumanizes them and makes them ready to receive and execute commands that under any other circumstances most certainly would never even consider, namely destroying property and ultimately killing people, the military changes tactics and gives some occasional positive reinforcement to actually motivate those who are now the most capable of destroying property and killing people without divergence of thought that would break down the required structure to continue effective operations.

    Are there similarities from the military that stretch to the basketball court? To a small extent, yes. Do not take the following to mean that I see O'Brien as being even close in quality to him because he is unequivocally not, but, Bob Knight was the supreme example of this exact mentality in action. Ultimately, it got him fired from his job at IU while still being revered by his fans and most of his players, due primarily to his success early in his career, coupled with his outstanding graduation rate and his stand against cheating in recruiting and other violations of NCAA rules. I am still one of those fans today who hates what was done to him at the end of his IU career.

    However, even Bob Knight himself recognized that his methods would never work at the professional level, and he likely would view it as being due to the fact that the players become soft due to the huge contracts that they receive, coupled with so few having been exposed to coaching with a similar mindset to his in high school and college. I believe that to be true to an extent as well, with the caveat being that there are also players who have a level of basketball IQ and professionalism that should be respected who would not respond well to intimidation.

    With respect to the Pacers and the intimidation method of keeping players off balance due to inconsistency of reinforcement and therefore assumedly more receptive to following orders that I believe is a good portion of the way that O'Brien operates, which players do the Pacers have who actually have the inherent mental toughness to deal with both the breaking down and the inconsistency of later reinforcement that has been provided, whether it be positive or negative?

    Hansbrough does, and he will probably do better than he might elsewhere as a result of this in my view. But, who else does? Posey? I don't know enough about him to even guess, other than to follow the observation that he apparently stood up to O'Brien, and O'Brien actually showed respect for Posey because they have had a player / coach relationship previously. Foster is probably tough enough to handle it, but he also doesn't require it to be motivated in my view.

    It may be easier to identify who does not, in my view. Rush is the prime example. I also don't think Granger responds well to it, at all. Dunleavy doesn't respond well to it because he has a very high basketball and overall IQ and he has to recognize the weaknesses of the "commander's" plan despite being professional enough to generally follow it. Roy has overcome it, to Roy's credit, but he definitely has shown degradation of performance at times after being benched following good performances, especially his rookie season. The verdict is still out on McRoberts ultimately, and I believe he also is another player with high basketball IQ who knew that he was better than he was being permitted to show. Now, I suspect there may even be a little bit of "I'll show both you, and the world, how wrong you have been about me" coming out of Josh, which is a backhanded form of motivation from O'Brien in and of itself. I suspect that Price is getting ready to show his own "professionalism" by enduring low playing time compared to what he can bring to the floor. Hopefully he will be ready to lead the team by christmas, and hopefully O'Brien will permit it, instead of just accepting his lot in life until the Pacers get a coach who values what he brings at the point. Ford plainly didn't respond well, at all, and apparently tuned O'B out to a level that they couldn't stand to be around each other, despite TJ having most characteristics that O'Brien demands of the pg position. Epic fail with respect to Dahntay Jones, also, and that is probably a least a factor in why he gets absolutely no consideration at this point, and may be why he almost appears to willfully disrupt the team when he gets in games at this point.

    Who knows about the rest of the roster? Collison seems to be a free thinker, and I am not sure how that might work. George is so young and raw that it is impossible to project. Same with Rolle, assuming he ends up with the franchise. Solomon Jones is such a non-factor that it is not even worth discussion. Stephenson, again, who knows? Obviously, he needs more structure and discipline in his life, and maybe O'Brien would get more out of him than others might, but I suspect that it would be just the opposite in reality. But ultimately it probably doesn't matter with Stephenson for quite some time, if ever, in that I still believe he will be cut due to both his utter lack of defense and the risk of either incarceration or possible future off court issues.

    So, for me, there is one significant player, Hansbrough, who will probably benefit from O'Brien. Roy may be well enough adjusted now that he can progress from here. McRoberts may do well from here on out, but for how long may be questionable if some positive reinforcements are not given as time goes on. The cornerstone of the franchise, Granger, needs a different coach. My guess is that Collison ultimately would be better off with a different coach, but it is too early to tell.

    Otherwise, will the rest of the players need to be replaced with others who have a different psychological makeup who are more likely to succeed under O'Brien, especially if Larry Bird, as I now suspect, advocates the exact same treatment of players, which was likely the very reason he no longer wanted to coach, and why he believes that players tune out their coaches after 3 years -- for the most part, who wouldn't?

    So, for me, this is yet another example of why O'Brien is still the wrong coach for this franchise, and a coaching change would immediately produce a better overall result due to player buy-in on whatever system another coach would implement, even if it were strategically similar to O'Brien's.

    Comment

    • #92
      Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      Do you really think these two comments were motivational?

      I mean, I guess what JOB said about AJ could have been seen as motivational. Trying to get AJ to prove him wrong. I don't know why he bothers though, because apparently no matter how well AJ plays, he can't earn a rotation spot, and other players just get awarded them without doing anything.

      But what about with Josh? Irrelevant? That's no motivational. I think Josh is a good energy player, but last season..he wasn't going to win or lose games for the team. And him growing as a player is something positive in itself.
      I don't think it was motivation, I just don't think Jimmy looks that far ahead.

      Do you know what was irrelevant at that point in time? Winning basketball games. Because no matter how many the Pacers won, they weren't making the playoffs. Josh's play wasn't irrelevant. Watson's was though.
      Really? I took both comments to be motivational if not for the players than for the team. Irrelevant can suggest that he doesn't care about player performances, it's about winning the basketball game. That's where we disagree- we are here to install a winning culture. That's Jim's job. To win the games- bottom line- no matter what. Winning is more important.

      Irrelevant can suggest that until he can do it consistently, one good performance means nothing.

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I agree for the most part, except your sentence about the top coaches and what they are.

      let me first say it isn't easy to put a label on a coach. If you have seen a lot of Phil Jackson, no one yells more at individual players (or gives mean looks to them) as they walk off the court. And he yells at young players a lot on the court in front of family and friends. He also takes shots at his own players in the media. so he is a mixed bag for sure.

      Larry Brown yells probably more than any other NBA coach - he yells the entire game - I've heard it first hand. His off the court demeanor is completely different

      Popovich is no softy - he'll read one of his players the riot act. he also also often highly critical in the media of his own players

      Sloan is one of the toughest coaches ever to coach. he is often times blunt in the media, he tends to not singlle individual players out too often though, but he will.

      Skiles is another very tough coach - he works his players extremely hard. he yells.

      And those are the top 5 coaches, and I don't think any of them are what you think they are. They are tough coaches extremely demanding, more so than Jim O'Brien IMO - so I don't think the problem with Jim is that he is too tough or not tough enough - I think he is pretty good in that area
      I agree completely one hundred percent- these are good coaches who are hardball if not more hardball than Jim.

      As for the whole "players don't like Jim, they hate that they were extended"- you do not let the prisoners run the asylum. No sir.

      Comment

      • #93
        Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

        Originally posted by flox View Post

        As for the whole "players don't like Jim, they hate that they were extended"- you do not let the prisoners run the asylum. No sir.
        What if both the jailor AND the warden are insane?
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment

        • #94
          Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

          I find it hard to compare managing and motivating an office of workers (or a group of students) to motivating a basketbal team in the NBA. In my job I don't have new workers coming in year after year that are hand picked by my managers, to see if they can out perform me and take my job. For the most part, I feel secure in my job and because of that security, I believe a positive work environment is more condusive to motivate an employee to better themselves.

          None of us really know what happens in the locker room. Maybe these young athlete's were getting full of themselves. Who knows? JOB could actually be doing these young players a favor. He sees their potential and is lighting a fire under them now so they don't squander it and find themselves out of the league in a year. Let's face it, it does appear that AJ, McBob and Hibbert are set for great seasons this year.

          Comment

          • #95
            Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            But I stand by my statements. If the players can't hack some public criticism then the most like can't hack much of the NBA.
            You're talking about two different things.

            Players getting criticism from writers or from fans doesn't mean much in the long term. They aren't making out lineup cards, or making substitutions. They aren't the ones who ask players to play certain roles. Their thoughts, ultimately, have zero influence on the game.

            That's not the case with the head coach.
            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment

            • #96
              Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              I'd separate the ideas of "could not stand Jim" and "hated that he was extended".

              A professional might not like a coach for many reasons and therefore be unhappy that he got extended, but one hopes this doesn't automatically extend to "the coach won't be effective". Considering that the name I heard most on this was Granger, it seems to me that by the end of the season he was working with Jim and that this season he's trying to work with him as well.

              While it isn't your best situation, it isn't a disaster to not like your coach and not be particularly happy he got an extension.

              Regarding the "could not stand Jim", what does that mean? Don't like how he coaches? Don't get along with him as a person? Don't want to hear him talk?

              Considering that we heard constant sniping about how players hated Rick's system, why haven't we heard the same from players about JOB and why aren't they breaking it every time they step on the floor?

              There is what I would call a "functional" dislike, in terms of "would prefer something else" and "don't like what we're doing" - something that you will never completely get rid of as long as you have different personalities involved. This is as opposed to a "dysfunctional" dislike, where the coach is tuned out, where players are whining and complaining, and where the coach punishes players for not following the guidelines. While we may be seeing some of the former, we aren't seeing the latter, so hatred from players and the permanent damage attributed to JOB are probably not there.

              I don't know why you go to the lengths you do to apologize or excuse Jim O'Brien. Can't it be just as true that we have a fairly professional group of players that just suck it up and mark the days on the calender until O'Brien is fired?

              Carlisle had the unenviable task of coaching a team with a broken down diva with an inflated ego that had little respect from his teammates. Plus he had Artest and his desire for attention. That team was devoid of leadership, particularly after Reggie left. Reggie might not have been a demonstrative leader but he was the glue of that team. Of course the team tired of Carlisle trying to pretend JO was a leader and a worthy player to run the vast majority of the offense through.

              Then you have Tinsley... Sjax... Sarunas... etc etc etc... Not exactly a team of professionals willing to quietly bring their lunch pail to practice and the games and allow JO to pretend to be dominant and a leader as his shots clanked off the side of the rim.

              But now we have players thought to be a little more in tune with being 'professional' on and off the court. But also, they are mainly players who have a background of solid coaching in their recent past. And then you have O'Brien trying to get them to play against what they've been taught over the years.

              And it's not working.

              It's not hard to think that what Peck said didn't need any further analysis and was anything but exactly what it is on it's face: These players don't believe in Jim O'Brien's system for them and can no longer commit to it.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment

              • #97
                Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                the coddling that a school teachers give her children.

                Comment

                • #98
                  Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the players feel about JOB's actions. Unless this is the most hermetically sealed locker room in history, and unless the Indianapolis media is no longer looking for ways to criticize the Pacers, and unless the energy on the court and attempts to fit into the system are just meant to give the FO a false sense of security, it seems to me like the players have not tuned JOB out, that his method isn't p**sing anyone off, that any frustrations are simply normal frustrations that occur during any working relationship.

                  Have we seen any evidence otherwise that isn't just a guess or an attempt to explain actions that could be just as well explained in other ways?

                  We were told that players weren't happy when Jim's option was picked up. Do we really need a Ron Artest in the lockerroom telling us all publicly about their differences?

                  I think we already have the opposite in Jim, and people aren't too keen on that idea. We don't want the coach saying stupid things in public, let alone the players.
                  “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment

                  • #99
                    Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                    Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                    Larry would've just said, "He hasn't got a clue what he is doing out there. It's a wonder he doesn't swallow his tongue."
                    Remember how brutal larry brown was in the media towards Scot Haskins - much worse than anything JOB has done

                    Comment

                    • #100
                      Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      long post
                      Wow- thats some good stuff there. How do you know so much about what the players think and what is going on in the locker room and what is going on inside the player's minds? Wow.

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      You're talking about two different things.

                      Players getting criticism from writers or from fans doesn't mean much in the long term. They aren't making out lineup cards, or making substitutions. They aren't the ones who ask players to play certain roles. Their thoughts, ultimately, have zero influence on the game.

                      That's not the case with the head coach.
                      So...a coach cannot or should not criticize his players? Or as coach pop once said to the media- "they played like dogs?"

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      I don't know why you go to the lengths you do to apologize or excuse Jim O'Brien. Can't it be just as true that we have a fairly professional group of players that just suck it up and mark the days on the calender until O'Brien is fired?

                      But now we have players thought to be a little more in tune with being 'professional' on and off the court. But also, they are mainly players who have a background of solid coaching in their recent past. And then you have O'Brien trying to get them to play against what they've been taught over the years.
                      Uh, what? I highly doubt that this is the case.

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      And it's not working.

                      It's not hard to think that what Peck said didn't need any further analysis and was anything but exactly what it is on it's face: These players don't believe in Jim O'Brien's system for them and can no longer commit to it.
                      I highly disagree with that. Why would the players work so hard then?

                      Comment

                      • #101
                        Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

                        Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.
                        I honestly don't remember any of that. The only thing I recall was after Mel Daniels was canned and some of his comments, I don't recall any of the players suggesting anything

                        Comment

                        • #102
                          Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post

                          Considering that we heard constant sniping about how players hated Rick's system, why haven't we heard the same from players about JOB and why aren't they breaking it every time they step on the floor?
                          That is an excellent point there were a lot more rumblings regarding Rick's system from current and former players.

                          I mean can anyone find a quote from a former player of Jim's that is negative. I don't recall any and there were many quotes negative towards Rick Carlisle and Isiah from "good guys" and bad.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-18-2010, 01:19 PM.

                          Comment

                          • #103
                            Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                            Originally posted by flox View Post
                            So...a coach cannot or should not criticize his players? Or as coach pop once said to the media- "they played like dogs?"
                            Yep, that's exactly what I said.
                            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment

                            • #104
                              Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              That is an excellent point there were a lot more rumblings regarding Rick's system from current and former players.
                              From whom? The grubblings about his system were on here, IIRC.

                              Am I the only one that remembers JO going off in the lockerroom 8 games into Rick's last season here, because Rick decided to change up the offense and it pissed JO off? I'm starting to think that I had a dream about it.
                              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              • #105
                                Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                                I think no one will convince anyone here of anything, as each person thinks his/her theory is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.

                                From what I see on the floor in preseason, the players are working together and are excited to be out there. At worst, the theorized hatred of O'Brien and complete lack of faith in his system isn't hurting their attitudes. At best, the players' feelings aren't as extreme as some would like to indicate.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 template Next
                                Working...
                                X