[Fwd: An Angry View from Section 20]

[W <wwfjericho@iprimus.com.au>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: An Angry View from Section 20
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:15:06 -0500
From: "Orr, Robert H" <rhorr@iupui.edu>
To: "'pacers@storm.cadcam.iupui.edu'" <pacers@storm.cadcam.iupui.edu>



When Bob Knight was justifiably fired, it took me one day's worth of
watching interviews to realize that Mike Davis was the right replacement to
follow a legend.  Quiet, unassuming, humble - perfect contrast to the
egocentric predecessor.  Wonderful choice!  But Mike is no more ready for
the NBA than was Tom Pinder.

When Larry Bird announced he would not seek a fourth year as Pacers coach,
my mind flashed to Byron Scott - quiet, unassuming, humble - the ideal way
to replace a legend.  Didn't particularly want Isiah Thomas and have spent a
year and a half defending his hiring.  After yesterday's outbursts on this
list, I paid very close attention to him last night.  What I saw disturbed
me because I saw a coach who is doing his ever-loving best to keep the
Pacers from making the playoffs this year.  Yes, the Pacers are frightfully
young - mostly boys playing a man's game, and yes, the youngsters make
stupid mistakes at the wrong times - but they seem to be making the same
mistakes night after night.  And the failure to correct such wayward
behavior rests squarely on the shoulders of Isiah Thomas.  

At the start of the fourth quarter last night, the Pacers led Boston by
eleven points yet turned the ball over on five consecutive occasions in a
sequence of plays that featured everything from illegal screens, to Jamaal
Tinsley's full court pass to Jermaine O'Neal that went directly into double
coverage, to Ron Artest going one-on-four.  The Pacers survived that debacle
by playing solid defense so that Boston was only able to draw within nine
points.  But had the Pacers played intelligently, had Isiah called a quick
20-second timeout to remind them to pass the ball and work for nothing but
layups, things might have panned out differently.  Certainly three
conversions at that point might have taken the wind out of Boston's sails.
Instead, it gave Boston a chance to start a 3-point barrage that overtook
the lead the Pacers had enjoyed for virtually the entire game.

A second point to ponder is the mysterious disappearance of Brad Miller in
the fourth quarter.  Jermaine was being double teamed so tightly that he had
no place to go without grabbing a defender around the neck and tossing him
aside.  Miller would have made Boston pay dearly for stopping O'Neal.  Brad
would have rebounded and likely put back several Pacer bricks.  Again, game
likely over.  Instead, an ineffective Jonathan Bender remains on the court.
True, Miller has been nursing a bad hip.  If he couldn't go, there are
Brezec and Sundov.  Primoz can rebound and Bruno can shoot.  Neither would
need to defend the likes of Tony Battie who doesn't strike fear into
anybody's hearts as a scoring threat.  Washington, Miami, Charlotte and
Milwaukee all lost last night.  Coach Thomas, plain and simple, YOU BLEW IT.
Not your players.  I don't want to hear this bull that you can't call
timeouts.  Atlanta's Mike Fratella would call second half timeouts every
time the Pacers strung 4-6 points together in order to stop a run before it
really got started.  He used to kill our momentum and his Hawk teams never
ever got into deep holes against us.  

Finally, ball movement not dribbling, is the key to a three point attack.
Boston has it and Detroit has it.  No secret that they attempt and make so
many threes.  The 3-point shot is not a spot-up shot.  It is a rhythmic
catch-and-shoot shot that must be largely uncontested.  to make them
requires swift ball movement.  Rick Carlisle understood this, Jimmy O'Brien
understands this.  What is the big mystery here.  Sam Perkins was one of the
few spot-up three point shooters around.  He is retired.  

Isiah was a great on-the-court leader.  That does not translate
automatically to being a good leader as a coach.  Are the players still
responding to him?  I don't know.  As recently as last month, Donnie Walsh
explained why he chose Isiah over Rick Carlisle as follows:

                 I knew that there was a good chance we weren't going to
have the same
                 players coming back and that this team would have to go
young. If we had a bad
                 season, it could've killed his career. I just didn't think
it was the right spot for him
                 at that point in his career. It's worked out very well
because Isiah was able to
                 withstand the negativity you get when things aren't going
at a high level, and also
                 people have given him the chance to develop this team. I'm
not sure that would've
                 been true of a guy that's coming out of the assistant
coaching ranks. Rick was
                 fortunate to go to a team that had a lot of veterans on it
and he's doing a very good job with those players. It's
                 a group of players that wants to win right now and he's
done a terrific job. But I don't think this would've been
                 a good job for him.

Will Isiah be fired if the Pacers fail to make the playoffs this year?
Donnie further stated as part of the same interview:

                 Now that we've filled out our roster, so to speak, and
gotten the key positions in place, we have a really
                 good chance in the next four years to do some great things.
I like the team as it's structured right now. It's
                 important that a team gets to play together for a while in
order to become a very good team. There may be
                 one or two things we have to correct but I think we have
enough talent, and more importantly enough talent in
                 the right positions, that we can start becoming the kind of
team that can contend. And I would look for that to
                 happen starting next year.  

Is this a veiled attempt to exonerate Isiah if the team fails this year?
Perhaps.  But Donnie has always been the kind of executive who is quick to
admit when he makes a mistake.  Donnie is right. He has assembled a roster
that with  the usual addition of a veteran role player or two and the
infusion of slowly developing draft picks, creates a ball club that can
dominate.  But is Thomas the right coach for the squad being built?  I truly
don't know.  What I do know is that I'm tired of hearing about Jeff foster
being like Dennis Rodman.  He isn't.  Brad Miller isn't Bill Laimbeer and
Jamaal Tinsley isn't Isiah Thomas.  Ron Artest isn't anybody's worst
nightmare yet.  He shows flashes of brilliant defense.  He played a first
quarter last night in which he almost had a quadruple double: 7 points, 4
rebounds, 3 assists and what could/should have been four steals.  But he
spent himself setting the tone.  He should have been rested at quarter's
end.  Instead, he continues in the game, slows down and gets so tired that
he picks up three fouls in thirty seconds.  

As much as I hate to change coaches - that is very disruptive to whatever it
is you are trying to build - but if I felt Jeff van Gundy could take these
charges and teach them how to win quickly, I'd pull the trigger in a
heartbeat.  Isiah may have been able to take the heat and fend off a
non-critical and supportive media, but if he doesn't start accepting
responsibility for Pacer losses while giving the players credit when they
win.  THAT is the mark of a good leader.  Excuses are for losers and I am
frankly tired of Isiah's excuses.

Bob