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

Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

    Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
    I'm not talking about matching minutes, I'm talking about Paul George being on the bench while the other teams All-Stars are taking over the game and changing momentum. If DeRozan was on the floor, PG needed to be on the floor. If Lowry was on the floor, George Hill needed to be on the floor. That didn't happen.
    I remember it happening more often than not.

    Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
    I get that you love Frank Vogel...thats great, I think he is a very good coach in many aspects of the game. His rotations are and always have been terrible though. You just will not be able to convince me that he is great with lineups and adjustments, I've seen too much evidence to the contrary to ever change my opinion on that. I love you as a poster and greatly respect your opinion, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree here.
    I'm not trying to convince you that Frank is great with lineups and adjustments. All I'm saying is that every NBA fan thinks that his coach is bad at lineups and adjustments. Yes, even Spurs fans. Go to Spurstalk and see for yourself. They even have a 17-page thread in their first page with the title "Pop is officially done" with comments like "Pop is beyond done. He's been eaten and shitted out.", "What sucks is that he's failed to make the most obvious adjustments time and time again.", "May be the worst coaching I've ever witnessed as far as competitive lineups go.", "Pop is like ankle weights to this team" and "Can't lose what he never had. Adjustments were never Pop's forte."

    I agree that we have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not going to blame any coach for not being 100% perfect. I don't expect them to be 100% perfect. I expect them to make mistakes like everyone else. The same goes for players and the FO. I only complain when their mistakes are truly big in my opinion. Frank's only truly big mistake was game 5, imo.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      The Rockets made the WCF last year. That is far tougher than the pathetically weak East teams the Pacers went through to reach their last two ECF.
      Good point. To be fair, though, they were facing the Clippers. One of the two had to advance
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Now let me address this.

        It has now been said as though it were gospel that if only Frank would have listened to Larry Bird and played faster and smaller we would have won X amount of games more.

        Well here is your chance. I will now sit back and wait for the explanation of how this team would have won it all if only (fill in the blank) player played more for us.

        Do NOT tell me that playing Paul George at the 4 would have changed anything btw. For one he refused so there is that. For another even if he didn't refuse who among our throng of backup wings was going to make one iota of difference?

        I'll patiently await your answer.
        The answer is CJ, Lavoy, Jordan and GRIII are our only options at the 4 spot.

        Whether they can do an adequate job of being a quality Stretch 4 is another question.

        If not, than we either live with having one of PG13, CJ, Lavoy, Jordan or GRIII as the Starting and Backup PFs or Bird should have done a better job of finding us a legit Stretch 4.

        Now, it could be argued that Vogel didn't try enough to slot in those options at the 4 spot or that he didn't do a good job of making it work. Perfectly valid. I will agree that SOME of the blame as to why we couldn't make one of our Wings or Big Men work out as a Stretch 4 lies with Vogel. Maybe he should have tried longer and maybe it would have worked out.

        But all of you can probably see as well as I can that none of them were legit options at the 4 spot as a Stretch 4 ( as opposed to just a traditional 4 ) for extended periods of time.
        Last edited by CableKC; 05-16-2016, 03:37 AM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          I remember it happening more often than not.
          Well, it definitely happened more often than not because they are All-Stars playing a lot of minutes. The problem is, it shouldn't have happened at all. Making a decision like that gives the other team a run that completely changes the momentum of the game.


          I'm not trying to convince you that Frank is great with lineups and adjustments. All I'm saying is that every NBA fan thinks that his coach is bad at lineups and adjustments. Yes, even Spurs fans. Go to Spurstalk and see for yourself. They even have a 17-page thread in their first page with the title "Pop is officially done" with comments like "Pop is beyond done. He's been eaten and shitted out.", "What sucks is that he's failed to make the most obvious adjustments time and time again.", "May be the worst coaching I've ever witnessed as far as competitive lineups go.", "Pop is like ankle weights to this team" and "Can't lose what he never had. Adjustments were never Pop's forte."

          I agree that we have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not going to blame any coach for not being 100% perfect. I don't expect them to be 100% perfect. I expect them to make mistakes like everyone else. The same goes for players and the FO. I only complain when their mistakes are truly big in my opinion. Frank's only truly big mistake was game 5, imo.
          I disagree that Game 5 was his only big mistake, but even so, that mistake cost us a playoff series. He made similar mistakes against the Heat that cost us there as well. You're right, no one is perfect, I didn't expect Vogel to be perfect. I did however expect Vogel to not make series changing bad decisions as often as he did. If you look through my past posts, you will find that I've gone to bat for Vogel numerous times and I think he is near an elite level at developing talent and getting the best out of certain players. That said, I do not think Vogel is good with rotations, regular season thats fine, but in the playoffs some decisions can cost you and his decisions cost us. I also do not think Vogel is very good with in-game adjustments. To be fair, I think he typically out-prepares other coaches, but once the other coach adjusts, Vogel is late to make a switch. Lastly, I don't think Vogel is good at developing basketball I.Q. The simple mistakes and poor shots that members of our team make on a frequent basis should have been coached out of them in HS. If that didn't happen, college. Since that didn't happen, Vogel needs to get through to them and it just hasn't seemed to happen. All in all, Vogel brings a lot to the table that I do very much value and I fear we will take a step back in letting him go. That said, he is stubborn, and I think that being stubborn is the worst trait a coach can have. It was just cringe worthy watching certain players shoot us out of games and nothing really being done about it.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            The answer is CJ, Lavoy, Jordan and GRIII are our only options at the 4 spot.

            Whether they can do an adequate job of being a quality Stretch 4 is another question.

            If not, than we either live with having one of PG13, CJ, Lavoy, Jordan or GRIII as the Starting and Backup PFs or Bird should have done a better job of finding us a legit Stretch 4.

            Now, it could be argued that Vogel didn't try enough to slot in those options at the 4 spot or that he didn't do a good job of making it work. Perfectly valid. I will agree that SOME of the blame as to why we couldn't make one of our Wings or Big Men work out as a Stretch 4 lies with Vogel. Maybe he should have tried longer and maybe it would have worked out.

            But all of you can probably see as well as I can that none of them were legit options at the 4 spot as a Stretch 4 ( as opposed to just a traditional 4 ) for extended periods of time.
            Don't forget Chase "28% from three" Budinger. Remember that was Larry's big off season trade that he brought in specifically to play the 4 because he had success with it in Minny. He shot 28% from the three point line, if you can imagine this part. It didn't actually work in drawing out defenders as they honestly just begged him to shoot the three.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              Well, it definitely happened more often than not because they are All-Stars playing a lot of minutes. The problem is, it shouldn't have happened at all. Making a decision like that gives the other team a run that completely changes the momentum of the game.
              Our only All-Star averaged more minutes than Toronto's two All-Stars. PG averaged 41.3 MPG. Lowry averaged 38.6 MPG while DeRozan averaged 36.2 MPG. The problem was that we had one All-Star while Toronto had two.

              George Hill is not an All-Star and even if he was he did average 33.6 MPG.

              41.3+33.6 = 74.9
              38.6+36.2 = 74.8

              How much the G2 zone played compared to Lowry and DeRozan wasn't the issue. The issue was that any time that the G2 zone wasn't in the game the Raptors would consistently make a run. The G2 zone cannot play 48 minutes for 7 games, though. You have to be able to trust your bench not to lose the lead everytime that your best players are resting. That didn't happen this season and the coach isn't to blame for who's on the bench.

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              I disagree that Game 5 was his only big mistake, but even so, that mistake cost us a playoff series. He made similar mistakes against the Heat that cost us there as well.
              No, I don't believe that this mistake cost us the playoff series. It would have costed us the series if the team collapsed after that and got humiliated in game 6. It didn't happen. We responded perfectly and won game 6 convincingly. We went to game 7 and we had a chance to win it until the end. We could have won if it wasn't for some late turnovers and being massively outrebounded.

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              You're right, no one is perfect, I didn't expect Vogel to be perfect. I did however expect Vogel to not make series changing bad decisions as often as he did. If you look through my past posts, you will find that I've gone to bat for Vogel numerous times and I think he is near an elite level at developing talent and getting the best out of certain players. That said, I do not think Vogel is good with rotations, regular season thats fine, but in the playoffs some decisions can cost you and his decisions cost us. I also do not think Vogel is very good with in-game adjustments. To be fair, I think he typically out-prepares other coaches, but once the other coach adjusts, Vogel is late to make a switch. Lastly, I don't think Vogel is good at developing basketball I.Q. The simple mistakes and poor shots that members of our team make on a frequent basis should have been coached out of them in HS. If that didn't happen, college. Since that didn't happen, Vogel needs to get through to them and it just hasn't seemed to happen. All in all, Vogel brings a lot to the table that I do very much value and I fear we will take a step back in letting him go. That said, he is stubborn, and I think that being stubborn is the worst trait a coach can have. It was just cringe worthy watching certain players shoot us out of games and nothing really being done about it.
              I know that you've gone to bat for Vogel numerous times in the past. I don't think that you have an irrational hatred for him like some other people on this forum seem to have developed ever since Bird let him go. I also know that you have complained about those very issues consistently. It's the same with your criticism of PG. You tend to be pretty consistent on what you like and what you don't like (again, unlike some other people on this forum).

              My point was that every fan complains about rotations and adjustments. It's the easiest thing that we can complain about because it's the part of coaching that we actually get to see. We cannot complain about the Xs and Os often since playbooks aren't public and we also cannot comment much on motivation and chemistry issues since we don't know what's going on behind closed doors. Is every fan correct when they complain about their coach's rotations and adjustments? I don't know. I don't think it's likely, though.
              Last edited by Nuntius; 05-16-2016, 04:19 AM.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                Don't forget Chase "28% from three" Budinger. Remember that was Larry's big off season trade that he brought in specifically to play the 4 because he had success with it in Minny. He shot 28% from the three point line, if you can imagine this part. It didn't actually work in drawing out defenders as they honestly just begged him to shoot the three.
                And the most infuriating part is that the guy who we traded Chase for shot 40.6% from 3 last year as a Pacer.

                Do people still consider that a good trade? I know that he barely played in Minnesota but they had zero reason to play him over their young core. Out of the 6 most used players in Minny only one was older than 25 years old and he only turned 26 on January. He's still on his rookie contract for crying out loud.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post


                  I will post this till I die. For all of you that are complaining about Frank never designing a play at the end of the game to win here is proof positive that he designed a picture perfect play that would have ended in a wide open shot if one player would have just followed the plan.

                  Did Frank always draw up game winners? No, obviously not. But the narrative around here now is that he was completely inept at designing plays. I won't even speculate why Monta didn't throw it to the rookie under the basket but I'll just say that this was a play that could have won this game and yes this was a designed play.
                  Unfortunately, the fact that Vogel called great plays yet the team couldn't execute is still a problem for the coach, especially considering all the reports saying Frank did not hold players accountable.

                  I actually think Vogel is above average at calling plays, but the team went 1-25 in those late game situations. Somethings gotta give, obviously we have players capable of doing better, that's a coaching problem.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Now let me address this.

                    It has now been said as though it were gospel that if only Frank would have listened to Larry Bird and played faster and smaller we would have won X amount of games more.

                    Well here is your chance. I will now sit back and wait for the explanation of how this team would have won it all if only (fill in the blank) player played more for us.

                    Do NOT tell me that playing Paul George at the 4 would have changed anything btw. For one he refused so there is that. For another even if he didn't refuse who among our throng of backup wings was going to make one iota of difference?

                    I'll patiently await your answer.
                    By the end of the year, Solomon Hill should have been the starting PF. I know you like Lavoy Allen, but he should have been benched well before game 4 vs Toronto. Frank was stubborn, and had to play his comfortable "2 bigs" lineup.
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Now let me address this.

                      It has now been said as though it were gospel that if only Frank would have listened to Larry Bird and played faster and smaller we would have won X amount of games more.

                      Well here is your chance. I will now sit back and wait for the explanation of how this team would have won it all if only (fill in the blank) player played more for us.

                      Do NOT tell me that playing Paul George at the 4 would have changed anything btw. For one he refused so there is that. For another even if he didn't refuse who among our throng of backup wings was going to make one iota of difference?

                      I'll patiently await your answer.
                      I don't think this is correct, it might have worked, but this wasn't the issue. Big or small, the team just lacked focus to execute games we should have won. In the season I blamed the players, and I wanted to keep Vogel, but looking at everything now I wouldn't be surprised if not holding players accountable was and has been a real issue.

                      Even Bird spoke with excitement saying "I knew Turner was going to be starting at the 4." Vogel just couldn't figure out the best combo of players to stick with. To be so close to 50 wins and a second round birth vs the 2 seed, IMO the players were there to be more successful.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Don't forget Chase "28% from three" Budinger. Remember that was Larry's big off season trade that he brought in specifically to play the 4 because he had success with it in Minny. He shot 28% from the three point line, if you can imagine this part. It didn't actually work in drawing out defenders as they honestly just begged him to shoot the three.
                        I read Chaz was brought in to play wing, but when PG didn't want to play the 4 it disrupted how Chaz would get his minutes. If Chaz was brought here to play the 4, his minutes should have spiked when PG said he wasn't doing it.

                        Solomon Hill should have been playing the 4. The team begged Vogel to play him, which to me might signal some frustrations players had with his lineups. Or maybe how CJ Miles gets to chuck all game no matter what, but Solo is being punished for something. I don't know what the situation was, but we had the perfect 4 on the bench all season. And when Vogel finally played Solo it wasn't even at the 4 at first.

                        And let's not forget Chaz playing a game even though he was already released. That was the most bizarre thing I've seen for a released player. Why would Vogel do that? I'm sure the team found it just as weird.
                        Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-16-2016, 06:41 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                          Kravitz on his sports segment last night was discussing the move and brought up that Bird has told him personally and other media members several times that Vogel doesn't hold players accountable. Then you have PG saying all season that the players lacked effort. The panel in the segment all were really excited to hear from the players. I can't wait for that either. If we hear anything about needing discipline in the locker room I think it cements the issue.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            I read Chaz was brought in to play wing, but when PG didn't want to play the 4 it disrupted how Chaz would get his minutes. If Chaz was brought here to play the 4, his minutes should have spiked when PG said he wasn't doing it.

                            Solomon Hill should have been playing the 4. The team begged Vogel to play him, which to me might signal some frustrations players had with his lineups. Or maybe how CJ Miles gets to chuck all game no matter what, but Solo is being punished for something. I don't know what the situation was, but we had the perfect 4 on the bench all season. And when Vogel finally played Solo it wasn't even at the 4 at first.

                            And let's not forget Chaz playing a game even though he was already released. That was the most bizarre thing I've seen for a released player. Why would Vogel do that? I'm sure the team found it just as weird.
                            Chaz was brought in to play stretch 4. I remember you had posted an article specifically talking about 20 some odd games at the end of the 2015 season where Chase did decently as a stretch 4 in Minnesota.

                            That trade was dumb then, and it seems even more dumb now. On a team that lacks good shooters, you don't trade away one of your better ones for some scrub that either can't stay healthy or can't produce even when he was healthy enough to play.

                            I'm not saying Damo was the end all, be all. But he could have been a nice stretch 4 option once CJ went into his season long shooting slump in December

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              Unfortunately, the fact that Vogel called great plays yet the team couldn't execute is still a problem for the coach, especially considering all the reports saying Frank did not hold players accountable.

                              I actually think Vogel is above average at calling plays, but the team went 1-25 in those late game situations. Somethings gotta give, obviously we have players capable of doing better, that's a coaching problem.
                              That's downright ridiculous.

                              "Yeah the coach drew up a great play, but the players were too dumb to execute the play because the coach didn't hold them accountable"

                              That doesn't make much sense. You guys are putting way too much blame on Vogel and not nearly as much blame on the players.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                Chaz was brought in to play stretch 4. I remember you had posted an article specifically talking about 20 some odd games at the end of the 2015 season where Chase did decently as a stretch 4 in Minnesota.
                                Right and wrong, I wanted him to play 4, some in the media discussed Chaz playing the 4, Vogel never did or planned playing him at the 4.

                                That trade was dumb then, and it seems even more dumb now. On a team that lacks good shooters, you don't trade away one of your better ones for some scrub that either can't stay healthy or can't produce even when he was healthy enough to play.

                                I'm not saying Damo was the end all, be all. But he could have been a nice stretch 4 option once CJ went into his season long shooting slump in December
                                Damo was almost out of the league, so I say it's a wash. Was tough watching Chaz brick so much and still get fed minutes over Solo. At least Solo gives you other things when bricking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X