Reggie Miller is on drugs!

[GrandeDavid]

What a chick.

[JamStone]

Reggie is obviously having objectivity issues. After picking the Pistons to win the East, Reggie reportedly received several text messages from Jermaine O'Neal giving him crap about the Detroit pick. Perhaps Reggie was over-compensating by showing a little too much love for the Pacers. It as to be tough being completely unbiased when your loyalty runs so deep with a team and organization.

I don't think it's a big deal.

[fdmf]

I'd have to go with the Spurs on this one....Rasho and Marks aside...the whole team is solid from top to bottom.

I'm looking at vets (with meaningful play) with a deep desire to win (NVE and Fin) added to the already serious group of vets with experience. Not to mention most of them have hit big shots in their past and can handle pressure. Beno and Nazr will have their moments and I think Oberto will play much more than Rasho before this season is over with.

As for Indy...I like Jasikevicus and Austin on some nights...but to look at Foster and Pollard and the rest of them (Harrison is alright but that's it...and Granger is probably better but not this year...or next) and face them up with the Spurs bench...you can't be serious.

[mando6599]

And enough of this "a ring makes you better than anyone else". Our IR fodder and end of the bench guys have gotten rings during out three championships but does that make them better than any other player in the NBA who doesn't have one?

You can't use "Rings" as a basis of comparision between two players or coaches, only two teams. Championships aren't won through individual play. Can one player have an extensive effect on the effort toward a championship? Yes. Can he win it by himself? No. A lot of factors come into play when it comes to winning a championship, any of which can derail the effort.

Sometimes you have great players or coaches who never got a ring because one or more of these factors didnt't fall into place. Team not talented enough, ill-timed injuries to key players, their team reached their peak at a time a more dominant team was also peaking, etc, etc, etc. Does that make them lesser players? What about someone like Reggie Miller who has been considered one of the most clutch shooters of recent memory? He probably didn't think they'll cross the championship hump this year or he may have stuck around one more year. Any because of loyalty to his franchise, he didn't bolt a couple of years ago in search of a ready made championship team like other players did. I consider that type of loyalty noble and don't think it makes him a lesser player because he didn't get a ring.

Well, I wasn't only using rings as a basis for being talented or untalented. I think players like Reggie and Barkley and Ewing had great careers, but not winning one championship places them lower on the totem pole. But flat out saying "our coach is better than your coach" just doesn't make sense to me. Our coach is also our GM, which means he gets to oversee not only the talented players, but also which ones have the character and integrity the Spurs are looking for. Which leads me to Carlisle. Great coach. Should be named alongside Pop as a great coach, but then you have to separate them due to Pop's 3 rings, you just have to. There's no getting around it. ALL TEAMS have injuries to franchise players throughout their history. But you can't start using that as an excuse to say that's why they didn't win that year or whatever. Artest. No one could foresee last year's brawl, but character comes to mind when you think, "how would've the Spurs handled that" if in the same situation. The Spurs would not put themselves in the position to create something like that. Artest and then the Pacers did. That's a year-long suspension for an all-star who brought it upon himself and his team, coached by Carlisle. It goes back to him, Bird, and even ownership. It's a trickle-down effect from the top. If they employ low character, high talent players, suspensions and such could be the norm for that or any team. I'm just rambling, but oh well, if you read this far, good for you.

mando

[kskonn]

I think saying that a top tier team can not run with another top tier team when they are both healthy is a bad statement. Because anyone can run with anyone on any given night.

Regardless, I do not think you can compare the Pacers Bench to the spurs, I do not feel they are even close. the starters? yea they are close and different people are going to give the edge to either team based on there personal opinion?

Coaching? I do not think it is even close between Pop and Carlisle, and I am basing that off of success, I do believe rings is a grading factor for head coaches. that is how coaches are remembere, Phil, red that is how they are remembered.

[benjirh]

Rings don't define quality of players but they do define quality of team. The spurs ring from last year shows how strong they are. As far as Indiana goes, I think they are the second best team. I think that they are deeper than Miami and have better team chemisty than Miami. Their bench is just as strong as SA's if not better. I would rate their first 5 off the bench(Harrison, Croshere, Granger, Jasikevicus, Jones) slightly behind of our first 5(Mohammed, Horry, Finley, Barry, Van Exel). But I think they are improving while our bench is at it's best. Our starting 5 is about even. But I think their bottom 5 definitely tops our bottom 3. So are they deeper on the bench, probably, but it is about dead even as far as the players who get major pt. My point is that Indiana, Detroit, Miami, and San Antonio are so close that is only logical to give the team your root for the nod. Now if a fan of the Clippers, Magic, or Blazers were to say that they had the deepest and best team, then I would have issue with that.

[benjirh]

Regardless, I do not think you can compare the Pacers Bench to the spurs, I do not feel they are even close.

You are saying the Spurs bench is by far the better bench? Why do you say that? Here is how I see it.

Harrison is just as good as Mohammed/Nesterovic (whoever you choose to bench)
Pollard is more proven than Oberto
Horry is slightly better than Croshere
Finley is better than Granger, but possibly only because of experience
Barry is more proven than Jasikevicus
Jones is better than Van Exel primarily because of age and athleticism
Johnson is better than Udrih becuase right now he runs the point better
Walker and Marks cancel each other out

Looks pretty even to me.

[JamStone]

Coaching? I do not think it is even close between Pop and Carlisle, and I am basing that off of success, I do believe rings is a grading factor for head coaches. that is how coaches are remembere, Phil, red that is how they are remembered.

Rings can factor in when evaluating how good a coach is, but I don't think it should be the main or determining factor. In fact, many people would argue that a coach who takes bad players and make them play better than their talent is a better barometer than taking a team of great players and coaching them to their potential.

Remember that Larry Brown was considered the best coach in the league for many years without having won a championship. So much so, he was a hall of famer before he had the ultimate success of NBA championship coach.

Rick Carlisle has only been in the league for 4 years, has made the playoffs every year with two different organizations. He made a better than average Detroit team into a top conference team. And, he took a decimated Pacers team to the second round of the playoffs.

Pop is probably the better coach, but it's tough to say that he's far and away the better coach. Pop has always had David Robinson and/or Tim Duncan. Rick Carlisle once fielded a Detroit team that started Chucky Atkins, Jerry Stackhouse, Michael Curry, Cliff Robinson, and Ben Wallace to the best record in the conference.

Just something to think about using a little perspective ...

[Notorious H.O.P.]

I agree with JamStone here. Some people in here act like Carlisle is a scrub that doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Pop. The fact is that Carlisle has done very well with what he has been given and has persevered in the face of adversity.

Coaches have to coach the team they are given, especially someone like Carlisle because he had Dumars making the personnel decisions in Detroit and Bird in Indiana. Pop gets to make the team in his own image which is a huge advantage.

Because talent is at a premium and because of coaching turnover in the NBA, a GM puts together a team he thinks can succeed. It is easier for him to get a new coach to implement a style that the team is best suited for than to have a coach with a specific style and reshape your roster to match it.

So some coaches are at a disadvantage because of this. If you let me coach a team with Robinson and Duncan on it, I could guide a team like that to 55 wins. Could I deliver a championship? Not likely but with that kind of talent you have a shot. There are a few coaches can take that kind of talent and win a championship.

Indy is good and they can use their athleticism to run people out of the building. They are quick and active and if they have their head in the game, they can run with anyone. Do they have championship level talent? Yes. Have they found a way to put it together? No. Even if they did, the Spurs still present a formidable enemy.

Which leads to the last issue that prevents a coach from slipping on a championship ring. Sometimes you are unfortunate in the fact that you can have a championship level team but another team has peaked at the time your team is peaking. Jerry Sloan is a great coach who should have a championship by now. The problem? The peak years of the Jazz franchise also coincided with the peak years of Jordan's Bulls. At any other time, the Jazz probably have a good chance to win. During this time, no one was going to unseat the Bulls.

Does this make Sloan less of a coach? I don't think so. Their window came and left and it was unfortunate for Sloan. It also didn't help that Malone choked away chances to win which is another pitfall coaches have in their quest for the le.

Pop is a great coach but there are other great coaches out there. But we are lucky that Pop runs the whole operation because instead of multiple minds that have to work toward compromise, a single mind can focus on success.

[romsey31]

Reggie is obviously having objectivity issues. After picking the Pistons to win the East, Reggie reportedly received several text messages from Jermaine O'Neal giving him crap about the Detroit pick. Perhaps Reggie was over-compensating by showing a little too much love for the Pacers. It as to be tough being completely unbiased when your loyalty runs so deep with a team and organization.

I don't think it's a big deal.

& You know this how?

[JamStone]

& You know this how?

Don't know first hand. Read it on one of those sports webpages ... either hoopshype or insidehoops.

[JoeChalupa]

Just his opinion.