RealGM

Sorry guys been really busy. I know this has been talked about before but i just don't get the IKE. He is a good player and seems to produce when given the opportunity. However, he wasn't really getting much of an opportunity at GS and now even with JO gone, he hasn't really been getting an opportunity. I just don't get it. I have heard some explanations, lack of understanding the defense/ offense, sleeping with obie's wife. But to me I just have a huge problem with not playing the dude. I know everyone seems frustrated about it, but I had not had a chance to vent. Thanks for listening, and GOOOOOOOOOOOOO PACERS!!!

I haven't heard anything about him sleeping with Obie's wife...do you have a link? Seriously, though, if that wasn't a joke please don't post a link...she has to be like 80.

FreeRon wrote:I haven't heard anything about him sleeping with Obie's wife...do you have a link? Seriously, though, if that wasn't a joke please don't post a link...she has to be like 80.

Someone joked about it earlier in the season...

FreeRon wrote:I haven't heard anything about him sleeping with Obie's wife...do you have a link? Seriously, though, if that wasn't a joke please don't post a link...she has to be like 80.

Yeah... and the my name is Reggie Miller.

Dude, Ike is 24 and shes like in her 80s....

Ahhh the old Ike for playing time campaign. I have been on this one all season, but have come to face the fact he is has graduated from the doghouse to the kennel and won't be getting out soon.

Another DNP-CD last night while short handed against the Raptors... It seems more like he not only slept with Obie's wife, but maybe had a large "party" with the wives of the entire FO...

Occam's razor
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Ike is probably just not good enough to play. It's likely that O'Brien's comments about him not picking up either the offense or the defense well enough mean that, well, he doesn't know what he's doing on either end of the floor and that other players on the team have earned playing time ahead of him.

Add to this the fact that he's really only capable of playing one position: power forward, and those 48 minutes go away in a hurry with Troy, Jeff, Danny, and Shawne taking bites.

I'm still mildly intrigued by Ike, and I can't say unequivocally that he won't turn out to be a good player. However, this is the fourth different coach for whom he couldn't earn consistent playing time. This is the second coach (along with Nelson) who's assigned him the sole task of keeping his chair from flying into the ceiling.

I'm more than a little concerned that he's simply never going to amount to anything.

It really doesn't make much sense. With Jermaine out and this season seemingly lost in terms of doing anything significant winning wise, you'd think the Pacers would take this time to see what they have in Ike. I really don't buy the fact that he's "not that good". He's played really well when given the opportunity at least offensively. His defense must be absolutely abysmal or he's loafing in practice. I think having around 4 coaches in 4 seasons or whatever is has really messed up his development, but the kid was taken #9 overall and was Pac-10 player of the year, so there's got to be some talent there.

Sometimes, I just question what exactly our front office's plans are. I mean this season is lost, yet we sign Flip Murray so maybe, just maybe we'll get swept in the first round by the Celtics and lose draft ground in the lottery? Yet, we don't even play someone like Ike to see what we have with him and hopefully quicken his development in the process?

The "not good enough" comment was probably too strong, but I find this type of conversation somewhat tedious.

I think it would more accurately characterize my point of view to say that I think Ike, either through poor practice habits or inability to play within the Offense or Defense, has not earned playing time. Or, others have done more to earn it.

We can't see inside the team, and I tend to balk at the idea that a guy should just be given playing time.

I think he should at least be given a few minutes consistently in the rotation like 10 minutes of play per game at least to show what he can do. Otherwise, we'll never know exactly what we have. I'm not saying Ike is ultra-talented, but there is some talent there...there always is to be taken that high. Olowakandi was one of the biggest busts ever, yet he had some talent....he was just lazy and unmotivated to utilize all of it.

I agree with you Pacersfan07. I think Ike, Andre Owens and Stephen Graham warrant more minutes than what they get. I have seen about enough of Diener and I wouldn't mind seeing less Marquis and less Harrison to compensate.

I really do not expect Rush or Harrison to return to the Pacers next year. Everyone with half a brain would agree the Pacers are not championship contenders this year. With those two seemingly obvious facts glaring O'Brien and management in the face, I don't see what the harm is in seeing what we have in players like Owens, Graham and Diogu. Worst case scenario is that we give them consistent minutes, they bust and we get a high pick. Best case scenario is the get consistent time, play well and we find a few pieces for the future.

I know there are those on this board that strongly disagree with me about Owens and Diener especially, which is fine.