Patrick O'bryant

[Andy Jick]

he's starting to make me miss blount...

He's starting to make me miss Rick Robey and Greg Kite.

You do realize he's barely played 10 minutes this whole season right?

...and you do realize that the coaches are making assessments based upon his effort in practice and individual workouts and whether or not he stays late and arrives early.

they're not grading him based upon games played...he can't get into the games because doc has called him out on his lack of effort.

[MVP]

I think there's a little too much overreacting with O'Bryant. In the first few preseason games when he played well, some were penciling him as the starter above Perk. Now, some are saying he should be waived. The reality is that he is a project and Danny knew that. The hope is that he can contribute a little later in the season and next season. Everybody who's in the rotation right now was on the team last year as well and there hasn't been enough practice time for new players to learn the schemes and earn playing time. Right now hopefully Clifford is working hard with POB to develop his game and make him work harder...Clifford is a very good motivator. During the course of the year, there will be an opportunity for POB to prove himself and hopefully he seizes it like Powe did last year.

[CoachBo]

These accusations that he's just plain lazy are ridiculous. In preseason games it looked like he was trying hard to get up and down the court, but the problem was just that his first step getting there wasn't fast enough, meaning he's a step or two behind still in terms of raw speed. If you do a raw speed comparison between him and Perk you'd see that they're pretty much about the same getting down the court - and Perk has been working on his body for how many years now? So he's still got upside there.

Two other things: as some other people have mentioned in past threads, he hasn't been trying enough in games to keep his place on the block, something which is obviously against the C's defensive philosophy/scheme (probably partially due to a lack of conditioning), and he hasn't really learned the system yet (or at least didn't show that he did during preseason when he was getting all that burn). That said I don't see why it would be the greatest idea to put him on the floor, especially during games like yesterday's when he could be more of a liability than help.

Even so I don't think that we should be totally down on him. There's always the possibility that he might be able to contribute, but it's not going to be a "solid" (i.e. somewhere between Pollard and PJ.. leaning towards the Pollard side) contribution until he gets more burn during the season and gets called out for missing his defensive assignments during games, IMO. 50% chance he pans out at this point, NOT 10% or less like some here would suggest.

First off, albert, this isn't meant specifically towards you but in people who make claims that players need more playing time in order for coaches to determine their ability to perform.

I've coached a couple of sports at the 10-14 year old age group. It was fairly easy for a neophyte coach like myself to see in practice and team scrimages who deserved the most playing time(remember that everyone gets PT at that level). Well, if I can do it so can professional coaches.

Doc, Coach T, and Clifford Ray can judge just what they think Patrick O'Bryant will contribute to this team on the cort in a game without putting him in a game by viewing and observing him in practices and scrimages. I'm sure of it.

I was never in a decade of coaching surprised but what I got on the field and court from my players after seeing what they gave me in practice. Not once. If POB isn't playing, it's because Doc and the rest of the coaches are convinced that, judging but what they have seen of him in pratice and team scrimages, the players in front of him are better equipped to positively affect the team than he is.

Players need to earn playing time at the high school level and above. They should never, ever be given playing time. It sends the wrong message.

I just hope if POB ever does see the floor it's because he has convinced Doc and the coaching staff that he deserved to be played and contribute.

Really vacant argument I expect from my parents - "How can my kid improve if you don't play him with the varsity?" - but not on an NBA roster.

Paddy's been lazy dating back to college, as I tried to explain here last summer when this little piece of dumpster diving took place. And you cannot coach effort.

[zerophase]

doc has been known to always go with his known and proven vets. remember when he didn't play rondo until half way through the season? gabe looks good in the preseason but has gotten no playing time either.

[ManUp]

he's starting to make me miss blount...

He's starting to make me miss Rick Robey and Greg Kite.

You do realize he's barely played 10 minutes this whole season right?

...and you do realize that the coaches are making assessments based upon his effort in practice and individual workouts and whether or not he stays late and arrives early.

they're not grading him based upon games played...he can't get into the games because doc has called him out on his lack of effort.

...and you do realize the two posters I quoted probably aren't those two coaches. judging a 22 year old as worst then Mark Blount or Richard Robey off little news snippets, and barely ten minutes of play seems a bit excessive.

[albert]

...

Even so I don't think that we should be totally down on him. There's always the possibility that he might be able to contribute, but it's not going to be a "solid" (i.e. somewhere between Pollard and PJ.. leaning towards the Pollard side) contribution until he gets more burn during the season and gets called out for missing his defensive assignments during games, IMO. 50% chance he pans out at this point, NOT 10% or less like some here would suggest.

First off, albert, this isn't meant specifically towards you but in people who make claims that players need more playing time in order for coaches to determine their ability to perform.

I've coached a couple of sports at the 10-14 year old age group. It was fairly easy for a neophyte coach like myself to see in practice and team scrimages who deserved the most playing time(remember that everyone gets PT at that level). Well, if I can do it so can professional coaches.

Doc, Coach T, and Clifford Ray can judge just what they think Patrick O'Bryant will contribute to this team on the cort in a game without putting him in a game by viewing and observing him in practices and scrimages. I'm sure of it.

I was never in a decade of coaching surprised but what I got on the field and court from my players after seeing what they gave me in practice. Not once. If POB isn't playing, it's because Doc and the rest of the coaches are convinced that, judging but what they have seen of him in pratice and team scrimages, the players in front of him are better equipped to positively affect the team than he is.

Players need to earn playing time at the high school level and above. They should never, ever be given playing time. It sends the wrong message.

I just hope if POB ever does see the floor it's because he has convinced Doc and the coaching staff that he deserved to be played and contribute.

Sorry for being misleading. My argument wasn't that playing time was needed to determine his ability to perform, but that meaningful playing time would be conducive to his motivation. I'm arguing this particularly because the way the defensive/offensive schemes are set up: there's a sense of accountability there. If you don't help you'll get called out for it, and if you're totally lost you'll get yanked. Not to marginalize your or CoachBo's experiences with coaching, but there's a level of player-to-player responsibility there that might be missing from your ways of coaching vs. the C's.

Second point I think the "POB=Blount" crowd misses is his team experience in Golden State. He wasn't a part of the team, he was the team's goat. There's this one video where his car was filled up with popcorn and he was visibly upset by this, bu the NBA.com crowd and his teammates treated it like it was just some schoolyard prank. How's it going to be good for his development if he's summarily dismissed in the media by the coach again? Those tactics are just stupid and short-sighted.

This is why the whole idea of "earning" playing time is overrated. Players need to be treated on a case-by-case basis just like people needed to be treated on a case-by-case basis in real life. I say give Pat the chance to learn the schemes effectively (in practice and then in games) and have the players do the job of putting him in the right assignments if he misses them. Hopefully Doc picks up on this when he starts putting him in.

[albert]

he's starting to make me miss blount...

He's starting to make me miss Rick Robey and Greg Kite.

You do realize he's barely played 10 minutes this whole season right?

...and you do realize that the coaches are making assessments based upon his effort in practice and individual workouts and whether or not he stays late and arrives early.

they're not grading him based upon games played...he can't get into the games because doc has called him out on his lack of effort.

...and you do realize the two posters I quoted probably aren't those two coaches. judging a 22 year old as worst then Mark Blount or Richard Robey off little news snippets, and barely ten minutes of play seems a bit excessive.

Agreed. TP.

Ultimately we can't determine for sure what kind of coaching tactics they're using. Are they willing to stop practice because Pat is out of place and doesn't know the schemes entirely? Is he even getting PT with a group that knows the schemes? These questions just aren't being answered. Factor in his treatment at Golden State and you see why he would be less motivated to "show up early and stay until late." What's the use of doing so if he's not even getting meaningful minutes in at practice?

The measuring stick for him right now should be the preseason. If he doesn't pan out I'll blame it on the coaching staff, not O'Bryant.

[Roy Hobbs]

The measuring stick for him right now should be the preseason. If he doesn't pan out I'll blame it on the coaching staff, not O'Bryant.

How so?  Just because a guy looks okay in a couple of preseason games doesn't mean he'll be able to play at regular season intensity.  Why is it Doc's / Clifford Ray's problem if O'Bryant continues to look like the bust he is? 

Excusing POB for not working hard is just enabling his bad behavior, which he has now demonstrated in three NBA seasons.

[albert]

The measuring stick for him right now should be the preseason. If he doesn't pan out I'll blame it on the coaching staff, not O'Bryant.

How so?  Just because a guy looks okay in a couple of preseason games doesn't mean he'll be able to play at regular season intensity.  Why is it Doc's / Clifford Ray's problem if O'Bryant continues to look like the bust he is? 

Excusing POB for not working hard is just enabling his bad behavior, which he has now demonstrated in three NBA seasons.

Take, for example, his outlet passing and athleticism. Top-tier talent there, miles above Perk with no work put in. Blocked shots were great too. Regarding the issue of his raw running speed - like I said a couple posts earlier, O'Bryant demonstrated a speed that was as fast as Perk (if not faster) when hitting his stride, but the problem was that his first step just wasn't fast enough, which means that his ability to cover in our help-D is probably suspect. So do you dismiss him because he's "not fast enough" or do you have Bryan Doo work with him on his explosiveness? I think it's the latter.

Dismissing him as a "bust" just demonstrates a superficial understanding of his past experiences with Golden State, not to mention what he can already do. Like MVP had said earlier, he's a project and ultimately it's up to the coaching staff to figure out how to work with that project. Giving him a sense of responsibility in meaningful minutes will allow the team to play a role in developing him as well.

[Roy Hobbs]

Dismissing him as a "bust" just demonstrates a superficial understanding of his past experiences with Golden State, not to mention what he can already do. Like MVP had said earlier, he's a project and ultimately it's up to the coaching staff to figure out how to work with that project. Giving him a sense of responsibility in meaningful minutes will allow the team to play a role in developing him as well.

I think blaming the coaching staff for every athletic project who doesn't work out is really unfair.  Some players just don't get it.

I mean, whose fault is it that Mark Blount doesn't make the most of his talent?  Or any number of other players?  When is it the player's responsibility to put the work in to get better, and to show a little hustle?

[gkiteisscal]

Refering to POB a bust and insinuating that he should be waived is short sighted.  He is not presently taking a roster spot away from anyone.  I firmly believe that if a veteran big man or a shooting foward become available Danny would cut POB in a heart beat if his roster spot is needed.  

second, he has been playing with the team for 2 months now.  i would not get down on the kid that he hasn't figured it out yet. he is coming from college where being 7ft and athletic is usually enough, then he played out in GS for Nellie who has never coached a team that knew what defense was, and now he plays w/the C's who live defense.  the schemes are more complicated than schemes that he has ever played with and that is going to take time; it could possibly possibly require more time than usual considering his "work ethic."  again lets be honest if it is febuary & he's wearing a suit to games the C's gotta call the experiment a failure and go at a vet big. also to call him a bust and waive him might not be in the best interest of team.  if he puts in a couple games but behind the scenes he doesn't still seem to get it he could be a useful trade piece.  someone might want a cost controlled athletic 7footer.

also if POB isn't playing on practice teams that are using the same rotations then that is a failure on the coaching staff.  this kid has the potential to AT LEAST be a league average center and not giving him burn in practice is a mistake.  how else is he going to learn, and besides dice no one worth while is available.  the man isn't ready to get burn in games yet though.  if he knew the rotations and what he was doing in practice then i'm sure doc might give him some time, but if he's missing them in practice he's not going to figure out how to do it in the game.  the teams success is more important than the success of any one player or the growth of any player.  to that extent if your going to play a guy you have no faith in, please don't!

[albert]

Dismissing him as a "bust" just demonstrates a superficial understanding of his past experiences with Golden State, not to mention what he can already do. Like MVP had said earlier, he's a project and ultimately it's up to the coaching staff to figure out how to work with that project. Giving him a sense of responsibility in meaningful minutes will allow the team to play a role in developing him as well.

I think blaming the coaching staff for every athletic project who doesn't work out is really unfair.  Some players just don't get it.

I mean, whose fault is it that Mark Blount doesn't make the most of his talent?  Or any number of other players?  When is it the player's responsibility to put the work in to get better, and to show a little hustle?

Where did I mention Mark Blount or Gerald Green?

Like I said before, players need to be treated on a case-by-case basis just like people needed to be treated on a case-by-case basis in real life. Again, if the coaching staff is just going to be inflexible on dealing with this, then most of the blame goes on them (Doc in particular).

[Roy Hobbs]

Dismissing him as a "bust" just demonstrates a superficial understanding of his past experiences with Golden State, not to mention what he can already do. Like MVP had said earlier, he's a project and ultimately it's up to the coaching staff to figure out how to work with that project. Giving him a sense of responsibility in meaningful minutes will allow the team to play a role in developing him as well.

I think blaming the coaching staff for every athletic project who doesn't work out is really unfair.  Some players just don't get it.

I mean, whose fault is it that Mark Blount doesn't make the most of his talent?  Or any number of other players?  When is it the player's responsibility to put the work in to get better, and to show a little hustle?

Where did I mention Mark Blount or Gerald Green?

Like I said before, players need to be treated on a case-by-case basis just like people needed to be treated on a case-by-case basis in real life. Again, if the coaching staff is just going to be inflexible on dealing with this, then most of the blame goes on them (Doc in particular).

What makes you think Doc is being inflexible?  I'm far from a Doc defender, but blaming him for a player who showed no work ethic in Golden State, and who has showed an inferior work ethic in Boston, just isn't fair.

It seems as though you're going out of your way looking for a reason to criticize Doc, and again, I don't think that's fair.

(Also, I don't see why POB is any different than Blount or Gerald.  Why not blame the coaching staff for them, too?  Or for Starbury?  Or for Derek Coleman, or for any other extremely talented player who just didn't put the work in?  What's so special about POB that he should be judged differently, other than the fact that he's shown much less than any of the aforementioned players?)

[gkiteisscal]

albert, i disagree with you there.  the C's are not currently in the business of developing players.  they are in the business of winning.  to put POB out there w/no faith in him is to the detriment of the team.  if he can't play in practice then why would it be any different in a game?  and why would you do that if his mistakes could lead to a loss?  he needs to develop his game, improve his defense and grow up and that is not the responsibility of THIS C's coaching staff.  They were hired to win games not play scrubs in the hope that they'll improve.  lets be honest, the C's are a champioship caliber team w/o him and there are vet bigs out there that will either be bought out or traded once playoff races begin to for and most of them would love to join the C's. It'd be nice to see POB succeed but this is not 2005-2006.

[albert]

Dismissing him as a "bust" just demonstrates a superficial understanding of his past experiences with Golden State, not to mention what he can already do. Like MVP had said earlier, he's a project and ultimately it's up to the coaching staff to figure out how to work with that project. Giving him a sense of responsibility in meaningful minutes will allow the team to play a role in developing him as well.

I think blaming the coaching staff for every athletic project who doesn't work out is really unfair.  Some players just don't get it.

I mean, whose fault is it that Mark Blount doesn't make the most of his talent?  Or any number of other players?  When is it the player's responsibility to put the work in to get better, and to show a little hustle?

Where did I mention Mark Blount or Gerald Green?

Like I said before, players need to be treated on a case-by-case basis just like people needed to be treated on a case-by-case basis in real life. Again, if the coaching staff is just going to be inflexible on dealing with this, then most of the blame goes on them (Doc in particular).

What makes you think Doc is being inflexible?  I'm far from a Doc defender, but blaming him for a player who showed no work ethic in Golden State, and who has showed an inferior work ethic in Boston, just isn't fair.

It seems as though you're going out of your way looking for a reason to criticize Doc, and again, I don't think that's fair.

(Also, I don't see why POB is any different than Blount or Gerald.  Why not blame the coaching staff for them, too?  Or for Starbury?  Or for Derek Coleman, or for any other extremely talented player who just didn't put the work in?  What's so special about POB that he should be judged differently, other than the fact that he's shown much less than any of the aforementioned players?)

It's hard to determine whether or not Doc is really being inflexible because we don't have all the data available. But I think we can draw some conclusions from his "assessments" in the media. The situation may be 1) Doc is still working with Pat 2) Doc is not giving him meaningful minutes in practice lately (given that the team hasn't been practicing at all due to the schedule) 3) "working" means telling him to work without giving him specifics e.g. defensive sets or working on endurance, explosiveness, defensive/offensive sets etc. 4) Pat doesn't get the D because Doc is not giving him enough time to. 5) Pat isn't trying hard enough on his own end 6) the team (i.e. KG Pierce et. al) is missing some of the fire from last season which is taking away some potential ubuntu and togetherness, which is also hampering O'Bryant's motivation.

Obviously, it's not a simple situation. But the whole reason why I say we can blame the staff more than the player is because it seems that Pat has the BBIQ to do it. If their assessment of him is off then they're not going to help him work on what's necessary to get him in games, which isn't going to help him with understanding the C's team concept, which will most likely encourage isolationist behavior ("me myself and I"). I'm not saying Doc & Co should be fully blamed but that IF he doesn't pan out they're MORE to blame... not going out of my way.

---

edit:
And regarding why "Pat is special" goes back to my "case-by-case" basis philosophy. If you get past some of his baggage with Golden State then you might solve his motivation issue, you might not. He was obviously dominant in college, then he learned that he had to work at GS, then he learned that he couldn't regardless.. now he's got the opportunity to work w/ KG. Who knows, maybe KG isn't spending enough time with him or motivating him properly. Either way, the situation laid out as such wouldn't suggest a blanket judgment is adequate for accounting for his failures to succeed on the court.