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

    I'm far from pessimistic. My optimism and hope for the Pacers is even confused for some sort of Bird fandom.

    I look at almost every move as "How could this help the Pacers," so when Vogel was swapped for Nate, I immediately looked into what Nate does differently and where Vogel might have been lacking.

    The biggest differences, and it appears the front office feels the same way, player accountability, offense efficiency and rotations. As Pacer fans, IMO we should all be hoping PG was right, effort kept us from winning 50+ games last year, and Vogel was the issue and Nate is the fix. We should hope that play calling and rotation issues held us back in the playoffs, and now that will change. So I just look into facts that might back that scenario.
    Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-16-2016, 09:40 AM.

    Comment


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

      Has there been any announcement of a press conference for Nate yet?

      Also, has anyone got any clues or insight as to new assistants?

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        That Monta wouldn't run the play as called is a fail on someone in the accountability/control bracket. Whether than means the next game he doesn't see the floor and is out with a mystery injury... or "conduct detrimental to the team"... Or things had been handled differently long before that play so that he makes the play as called when it opened up... Or else he's not in the game to be inbounding the ball in the first place at that point.
        This is the stupidest thing I've read on this board ever. An internal suspension for failing to run a play correctly, for one of the more talented players on the team. That's some div III college thinking, where all your players are equally **** and winning literally doesn't matter.

        That's how you use accountability to foster an environment of hostility and bad attitudes. That's how you minimize your FA market and how you chase off star players already on your team.

        That's not accountability that's a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Jesus.

        I understand why you would think that's the right way to handle that. It is the exact opposite of what good NBA coach would do, but they're all soft now anyways.

        Comment


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

          There's been a lot of people complaining about pessimism or negative feelings lately. People telling others that they aren't a real fan because they voice their displeasure with the decisions that the franchise has made, etc.

          This is a message board guys. We aren't all going to agree. The funny thing is that a lot of the pessimism has come from posters that are known for the outright optimism about the team (Nun, Tyler, Sandman to name a few).

          Edit: Bottom line - we are all some crazy *** fans. If we weren't we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't argue as passionately as we do. We wouldn't look up stats covering various seasons. We are all grown men who spend WAYYYYY too much time discussing this stuff lol. But we do it because we are such passionate fans.

          If the bickering gets to you, don't read it. But if you do read it, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of information that's being disseminated back and forth.
          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 05-16-2016, 10:23 AM.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            There's been a lot of people complaining about pessimism or negative feelings lately. People telling others that they aren't a real fan because they voice their displeasure with the decisions that the franchise has made, etc.

            This is a message board guys. We aren't all going to agree. The funny thing is that a lot of the pessimism has come from posters that are known for the outright optimism about the team (Nun, Tyler, Sandman to name a few).
            Completely agree. Everyone is different, the way someone roots and feels is no better than the other.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              There's been a lot of people complaining about pessimism or negative feelings lately. People telling others that they aren't a real fan because they voice their displeasure with the decisions that the franchise has made, etc.

              This is a message board guys. We aren't all going to agree. The funny thing is that a lot of the pessimism has come from posters that are known for the outright optimism about the team (Nun, Tyler, Sandman to name a few).
              I assume this is directed at me in particular because my post on negativity is the most recent one?

              I just want to point out that I said nothing about people being real fans or not or whether or not the different (original) points were right or wrong. I'm voicing my displeasure on the nature of the arguments themselves. I don't think it's necessary to rip on Paul George to say Frank Vogel is a good coach, for example. In a discussion on Paul George, I don't think the things said about him in this thread would take the same shape. I also don't think it's fair to reduce Frank's 5 year career to 3 minutes of the worst Stuckey ball you'll ever see. (And luckily, he was better in games 6 & 7).
              Time for a new sig.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                I assume this is directed at me in particular because my post on negativity is the most recent one?

                I just want to point out that I said nothing about people being real fans or not or whether or not the different (original) points were right or wrong. I'm voicing my displeasure on the nature of the arguments themselves. I don't think it's necessary to rip on Paul George to say Frank Vogel is a good coach, for example. In a discussion on Paul George, I don't think the things said about him in this thread would take the same shape. I also don't think it's fair to reduce Frank's 5 year career to 3 minutes of the worst Stuckey ball you'll ever see. (And luckily, he was better in games 6 & 7).
                Not completely. Your post sparked my response, but there have been more than a few posts over the last few weeks that have questioned or belittled the fandom of others, etc.

                I do appreciate the clarity however

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I mean Monta looked at Myles come wide open on the play and still didn't pass him the ball lol. Idk how that can fall on the coach.
                  I think that's the place where the coach is supposed to hold his player accountable.

                  It falls on the coach when Monta just keeps making those same plays, and he's allowed to do that without recourse.

                  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.
                    The fact that you can look at that video and somehow turn it against Frank just tells me you are in full spin Doctor mode and if you aren't being paid by Bird you should be.

                    This simply put is on one player and one player only, Monta Ellis. Everybody else was doing their jobs there. Paul is being a decoy (working like a charm btw as both Wade & Winslow are there with him). George Hill not only has his man on him not looking at Myles he has set a pick on Whiteside to open up Turner for the wide open layup.

                    He threw that ball in just so he could get it back for the last second shot, watch him as he comes in bounds begging to get the ball right back.

                    But yes, let's blame Frank Vogel since that now is your narrative for everything.

                    So there is 1 of your 1-25 number that you now are stating as gospel. I have a real solid belief that if we went over game by game those 25 games you cherish so much now that we would find many missed shots that just didn't go in or some stupid turnover (like Paul dribbling it off of his ankle) but yet you would still find some way to implicate Vogel and not the players making (or in most cases not making) the plays.


                    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 docpaul View Post
                      I think that's the place where the coach is supposed to hold his player accountable.

                      It falls on the coach when Monta just keeps making those same plays, and he's allowed to do that without recourse.
                      I'll agree 100% with this. However I will just add that the coach can only hold players accountable if management backs him up and that is all I can say on the issue.


                      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 TinManJoshua View Post
                        This is the stupidest thing I've read on this board ever. An internal suspension for failing to run a play correctly, for one of the more talented players on the team. That's some div III college thinking, where all your players are equally **** and winning literally doesn't matter.

                        That's how you use accountability to foster an environment of hostility and bad attitudes. That's how you minimize your FA market and how you chase off star players already on your team.

                        That's not accountability that's a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Jesus.

                        I understand why you would think that's the right way to handle that. It is the exact opposite of what good NBA coach would do, but they're all soft now anyways.
                        That depends on whether you think the play was just an honest mistake or a refusal to run the play as called and pass to Turner. Insubordination gets punished. Signs of insubordination get put under control before it reaches that point. That's a coaching problem in one form or the other (or a player with no concern for the coach's wishes or worry about the coach after the fact).

                        I'm not even going to address the problem as a player mistake because look at the video.... He wasn't going to pass the ball to Turner and run the called play.
                        Last edited by Bball; 05-16-2016, 11:26 AM.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          The fact that you can look at that video and somehow turn it against Frank just tells me you are in full spin Doctor mode and if you aren't being paid by Bird you should be.
                          I wasn't talking about that one play.

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          This simply put is on one player and one player only, Monta Ellis. Everybody else was doing their jobs there. Paul is being a decoy (working like a charm btw as both Wade & Winslow are there with him). George Hill not only has his man on him not looking at Myles he has set a pick on Whiteside to open up Turner for the wide open layup.

                          He threw that ball in just so he could get it back for the last second shot, watch him as he comes in bounds begging to get the ball right back.

                          But yes, let's blame Frank Vogel since that now is your narrative for everything.

                          So there is 1 of your 1-25 number that you now are stating as gospel. I have a real solid belief that if we went over game by game those 25 games you cherish so much now that we would find many missed shots that just didn't go in or some stupid turnover (like Paul dribbling it off of his ankle) but yet you would still find some way to implicate Vogel and not the players making (or in most cases not making) the plays.
                          I'll repeat it even louder. The players are to blame. The players missed shots, lacked effort and focus down the stretch of so many games, even final possessions. Absurd mental mistakes that included throwing the ball out of bounds, on an inbounds, in the last seconds.

                          I'll repeat this louder. I wanted to keep Vogel. I thought all regular season despite the flaws, the Pacers were lucky to have Vogel and Bird. It's absurd that you're dubbing me thinking we should blame Frank for everything. I do not believe that. Just because switching coaches may fix most of our problems, doesn't mean most of the problems were mostly Vogel's fault.

                          But Vogel HAS to takes some blame for bad play down the stretch. Whether it's preparation, holding players accountable, being to nice, not punishing mistakes, letting players play that should have been benched for Solo or anybody, Vogel was not getting maximum effort out of the team.

                          You know PG thinks the team lacks effort and focus. You know Vogel doesn't hold players accountable. How you can't connect those two things and just give Vogel a pass because the players messed up is beyond me. Vogel is a great coach, but he isn't perfect and had several flaws. Sucks I'm labeled someone who blames Vogel for everything when that's not what I think at all.
                          Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-16-2016, 11:34 AM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            I wasn't talking about that one play.



                            I'll repeat it even louder. The players are to blame. The players missed shots, lacked effort and focus down the stretch of so many games, even final possessions. Absurd mental mistakes that included throwing the ball out of bounds, on an inbounds, in the last seconds.

                            I'll repeat this louder. I wanted to keep Vogel. I thought all regular season despite the flaws, the Pacers were lucky to have Vogel and Bird. It's absurd that you're dubbing me thinking we should blame Frank for everything. I do not believe that. Just because switching coaches may fix most of our problems, doesn't mean most of the problems were mostly Vogel's fault.

                            But Vogel HAS to takes some blame for bad play down the stretch. Whether it's preparation, holding players accountable, being to nice, not punishing mistakes, letting players play that should have been benched for Solo or anybody, Vogel was not getting maximum effort out of the team.

                            You know PG thinks the team lacks effort and focus. You know Vogel doesn't hold players accountable. How you can't connect those two things and just give Vogel a pass because the players messed up is beyond me. Vogel is a great coach, but he isn't perfect and had several flaws. Sucks I'm labeled someone who blames Vogel for everything when that's not what I think at all.
                            I do? How do I know this?


                            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 Peck View Post
                              I'll agree 100% with this. However I will just add that the coach can only hold players accountable if management backs him up and that is all I can say on the issue.
                              Yeah, if they're not on the same page about roles and responsibilities, as well as philosophy... then we have a bigger problem.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                I do? How do I know this?
                                It's been reported several times. Kravitz said has told him this personally several times over the years. Vogel has spoke about his positive approach and not getting down on guys. But you could see it watching the team...

                                While Bird didn't think Vogel lost the locker room, he did feel players were tuning him out at times, which was evident in the uneven level of play throughout the season.
                                Bird indicated that part of the voice losing impact is in motivating players to play at a higher level and holding them accountable. Essentially, Bird is tired of the soft tendencies his team shows at times.
                                Vogel’s downfall, according to one NBA insider with knowledge of the team’s locker room dynamics, was that he always bent over backwards to be nice to his players and never demanded accountability when they messed up.

                                “Frank never wanted to hurt anyone’s feelings,’’ the person said. “But Larry knows, and some of the players also know, that there should be consequences to your actions when you do something wrong. When you take a bad shot or don’t do what’s expected of you, then there has to be a consequence. Like getting pulled out of the game. But with Frank there were never any consequences when you did something wrong. He never had those because he felt it would hurt guys’ confidence. He always was looking to keep guys happy.’’

                                Vogel got away with that style of coaching when he had David West controlling the locker room and the Pacers went to the Eastern Conference finals. But once West left for San Antonio and the Pacers revamped their roster, the lack of accountability was telling.
                                https://8points9seconds.com/2016/05/...ch-larry-bird/

                                But again, you could see it. "That's okay CJ, keep shooting your heart out." Or any of the other players that would make bonehead mistakes. I mean, bless Frank for never yelling at Lavoy, but how could you not grab Lavoy and yell at him all season just to wake him up from sleepwalking on the court.

                                Vogel was good at most things as a coach, late game decision making and rotations were a problem, but we lived with it.

                                But Bird wanted offensive efficiency, and a coach that would be a disciplinarian. Which makes sense considering how stagnant the offense has always been and the lack of effort. Vogel lacked offensive efficiency, and didn't hold players accountable. Nate seems to possess the two things that have been our biggest weakness, so the coaching change makes sense to me.
                                Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-16-2016, 12:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X