Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 530

Thread: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

  1. #76
    Member Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    26,877

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Then why is Nate still the coach?
    Because he was just hired last year. Have you ever seen a coach fired so quickly? I haven't. Not in the NBA, at least.

    Plus, I don't think that KP is in any hurry to fire him. And it's not just that he knows the guy from his Portland days. He isn't in a hurry to fire him because we don't plan to contend this season. KP can have Nate coach this season while he takes a look at the coaching market and sees who's going to be available.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishPacer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

  2. #77
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,925

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Frank is a better motivator. He probably has better ability than Nate to get players to perform better than they should.

    But Frank was really bad as a floor coach. Made some terrible decisions. He also apparently had a harder time being firm with players.

    So...Nate is better at being firm with players. He's not a bad tactician like Frank, but neither is he a particularly good one.

    Regarding substitutions, I would give the edge to Nate. I think he has a better sense.

    Nate is not terrible. Not great. Given their plusses and minuses, Nate and Frank are probably about even.
    Last edited by McKeyFan; 07-15-2017 at 10:12 PM.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  4. #78
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,925

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Given that Frank was really the voice of the Franchise (and also Paul and Bird), everyone can thank TPTB that Lance will probably be the most vocal and veteran voice next year. lol
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  5. #79
    Member BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,857

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sigh. Who exactly called him a bad coach? It certainly wasn't me or cdash. Heck, it wasn't even BlueNGold. No one's saying that Nate's a bad coach. Well, some of the more knee-jerky posters on the forum may say stuff like that but like always we can ignore that. Nate isn't JOB. He's just an average coach. There's nothing wrong with that but it's just not something you really want around young players. You want coaches that can help them improve and reach new heights.
    Good points. Early on, Nate was a bit of a darling around the NBA. But like you say he's probably average. I will give him that although I did say below average in a prior post.

    I still think Vogel is better. Not a lot better But IMO Vogel is slightly above average.

    Really, getting a head coach gig in the NBA involves a lot of luck. Nate really was lucky to get back into it. He hung around and was a good soldier and got rewarded. Like you say, he's not a bad coach or a bad guy. He's fairly smart. He's kind of boring IMO. But he is what we have right now and we could be worse off...and we have been worse off. I would say he will be fine nursing this team back to contention but keep in mind average is not what we want. A team in the playoffs is really above average. We need our coach to also be above average. If we can get a guy like Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle down the road, we have to do that. Nate isn't likely to lead a team to the finals. JMHO.
    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

  6. #80
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,662

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So again I ask, how many games do you think that roster should have won?
    No less than the year before. We didn't make a coaching change to stay the same or be slightly worse. Bird made the change to get the team to the next step, a goal he stated as the Conference Finals. We failed that.

    More than the very vague and far-reaching, "how many games should we have won?" question, I look at the signs of good/bad coaching. A lot of guys on the team looked badly conditioned to start the year. We didn't take advantage of a very favorable schedule in the early months, which put us in the desperate position of having to scramble just to sneak into the playoffs on the final day of the season. The team was listless and unmotivated the entire season until the final 10 or so games (not all Nate's fault to be sure, but part of the responsibilities of the head coach are to motivate the team and get them competing hard each night). The defensive scheme was a freaking trainwreck all season. The players were lost on that end of the floor most of the year, they were confused on assignments and switches and some of the guys came out and said that to the media. Myles was our most efficient offensive player most of the season, he was clearly a guy we were/are building around, and Nate ran almost nothing to get Myles more looks offensively. Myles is tentative, and Nate and the staff could have ran a few sets to get him involved earlier in games so he wouldn't have just been floating around struggling with confidence.

    Keep one thing in mind: This is not a, "we should have never fired Vogel and all this stuff would have been fixed had we kept him" post. The roster wasn't well put together and the players shoulder a large part of the blame for our struggles as well. But it is my opinion that Nate did not do all he could to put them in the best position to succeed.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  8. #81
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because he was just hired last year. Have you ever seen a coach fired so quickly? I haven't. Not in the NBA, at least.

    Plus, I don't think that KP is in any hurry to fire him. And it's not just that he knows the guy from his Portland days. He isn't in a hurry to fire him because we don't plan to contend this season. KP can have Nate coach this season while he takes a look at the coaching market and sees who's going to be available.
    Besides the fact that it's absurd to think KP didn't have a hand in the Nate hire when you look at Bano and Chad, if Simon is keeping a coach the current GM doesn't support then we have a **** owner.

  9. #82
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by cdash View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No less than the year before. We didn't make a coaching change to stay the same or be slightly worse. Bird made the change to get the team to the next step, a goal he stated as the Conference Finals. We failed that.

    More than the very vague and far-reaching, "how many games should we have won?" question, I look at the signs of good/bad coaching. A lot of guys on the team looked badly conditioned to start the year. We didn't take advantage of a very favorable schedule in the early months, which put us in the desperate position of having to scramble just to sneak into the playoffs on the final day of the season. The team was listless and unmotivated the entire season until the final 10 or so games (not all Nate's fault to be sure, but part of the responsibilities of the head coach are to motivate the team and get them competing hard each night). The defensive scheme was a freaking trainwreck all season. The players were lost on that end of the floor most of the year, they were confused on assignments and switches and some of the guys came out and said that to the media. Myles was our most efficient offensive player most of the season, he was clearly a guy we were/are building around, and Nate ran almost nothing to get Myles more looks offensively. Myles is tentative, and Nate and the staff could have ran a few sets to get him involved earlier in games so he wouldn't have just been floating around struggling with confidence.

    Keep one thing in mind: This is not a, "we should have never fired Vogel and all this stuff would have been fixed had we kept him" post. The roster wasn't well put together and the players shoulder a large part of the blame for our struggles as well. But it is my opinion that Nate did not do all he could to put them in the best position to succeed.
    So you don't think we should have won any more games than we would have won before? Then we agree. I think Vogel underachieved as well.

  10. #83
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sigh. Who exactly called him a bad coach? It certainly wasn't me or cdash. Heck, it wasn't even BlueNGold. No one's saying that Nate's a bad coach. Well, some of the more knee-jerky posters on the forum may say stuff like that but like always we can ignore that. Nate isn't JOB. He's just an average coach. There's nothing wrong with that but it's just not something you really want around young players. You want coaches that can help them improve and reach new heights.



    As cdash said, it was both. Last year's roster wasn't build to win anything and Nate didn't help either.
    Sigh. I guess go back and read the thread. Unless you think below average isn't bad.

  11. #84
    Member BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,857

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Asking if we would have won more or less games with Nate vs Frank Vogel is kind of a pointless exercise. I don't think we had a team capable of playing that much better. That's not to say Nate is as good of a coach as Frank. It just means that both the coach and the team was very average and nothing is going to change that. Vogel might have been able to squeek a bit more from the team but when your best player is mailing it in, there's so much you can do.

    Let's wrap this up. Look at the bright side. The team is being turned around and if people don't see that they aren't paying attention.
    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  13. #85
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Asking if we would have won more or less games with Nate vs Frank Vogel is kind of a pointless exercise. I don't think we had a team capable of playing that much better. That's not to say Nate is as good of a coach as Frank. It just means that both the coach and the team was very average and nothing is going to change that. Vogel might have been able to squeek a bit more from the team but when your best player is mailing it in, there's so much you can do.

    Let's wrap this up. Look at the bright side. The team is being turned around and if people don't see that they aren't paying attention.
    So for the record, nobody asked if we would win more games with Frank or Nate besides you right now.

  14. #86
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,662

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you don't think we should have won any more games than we would have won before? Then we agree. I think Vogel underachieved as well.
    That's what you took from that? I also think we should have won at least as many games as we won the year before. That's what that first sentence meant.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  16. #87
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,662

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sigh. I guess go back and read the thread. Unless you think below average isn't bad.
    Mediocre is the word I've most often seen used with Nate. Mediocre and bad aren't the same thing.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  18. #88
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by cdash View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's what you took from that? I also think we should have won at least as many games as we won the year before. That's what that first sentence meant.
    So Nate with that roster should have won 3 more games? Fair enough. I don't disagree. But again that's not my litmus test for a bad coach. I'll ask again, does Vogel not winning as many games as he should have make him a bad coach?

  19. #89
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,662

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So Nate with that roster should have won 3 more games? Fair enough. I don't disagree. But again that's not my litmus test for a bad coach. I'll ask again, does Vogel not winning as many games as he should have make him a bad coach?
    I'm not saying he is a bad coach. I don't know how many different ways I have to tell you that. Why won't you just get it please just get it

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  21. #90
    Member BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,857

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sigh. I guess go back and read the thread. Unless you think below average isn't bad.
    It depends on your standards. In any event, Frank is a B-. Many people are fine with getting a B. Nate is a C or C-. He passed. Zeke is a D. JOb is an F.
    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

  22. #91
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by cdash View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not saying he is a bad coach. I don't know how many different ways I have to tell you that. Why won't you just get it please just get it
    I never said YOU said he was a bad coach. I asked what you think of Vogel.

  23. #92
    DONCIC 2018 PacersHomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,937

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    There are only like 10 current coaches who are any good because good coaches are weird people, just like NBA superstars. You have to be a basketball savant and not be attached to guys or routines but at the same time be able to adjust for anyone. Only guys like Pop, Spoelstra, Stevens, Malone, Kerr, Thibs, and Kidd are guys who I really like as coaches and they are all weirdos.

  24. #93
    let's do better Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    23,945

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by PacersHomer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There are only like 10 current coaches who are any good because good coaches are weird people, just like NBA superstars. You have to be a basketball savant and not be attached to guys or routines but at the same time be able to adjust for anyone. Only guys like Pop, Spoelstra, Stevens, Malone, Kerr, Thibs, and Kidd are guys who I really like as coaches and they are all weirdos.
    Quin Snyder's a better coach than Malone and Kidd. he's definitely a maniac that fits the weirdo criteria though.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  26. #94
    Member Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    26,877

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Besides the fact that it's absurd to think KP didn't have a hand in the Nate hire when you look at Bano and Chad, if Simon is keeping a coach the current GM doesn't support then we have a **** owner.
    I said that KP wasn't the one making the decisions when Nate was hired. It was mainly a Bird hire. Was KP involved? Sure. We know that Bird and KP always discussed with each other and asked each other's opinions on the moves. But the one who made the final decision was Bird.

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sigh. I guess go back and read the thread. Unless you think below average isn't bad.
    Actually, below average and bad aren't the same thing. Below average is better than bad. That's pretty much a fact.

    Also, BlueNGold (the only person in this thread that called Nate below average) even said that average is probably more accurate for Nate. I have no idea why you're fixating on this whole "bad coach" narrative. No one in this thread called Nate a bad coach

    Quote Originally Posted by cdash View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mediocre is the word I've most often seen used with Nate. Mediocre and bad aren't the same thing.
    This x1000.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishPacer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  28. #95
    Member BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,857

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I said that KP wasn't the one making the decisions when Nate was hired. It was mainly a Bird hire. Was KP involved? Sure. We know that Bird and KP always discussed with each other and asked each other's opinions on the moves. But the one who made the final decision was Bird.

    Actually, below average and bad aren't the same thing. Below average is better than bad. That's pretty much a fact.

    Also, BlueNGold (the only person in this thread that called Nate below average) even said that average is probably more accurate for Nate. I have no idea why you're fixating on this whole "bad coach" narrative. No one in this thread called Nate a bad coach

    This x1000.
    Nate's ranking does probably fit into the "average" range...as low as a C-. That doesn't make him a bad or terrible coach. But IMO it does make him lucky to have a team in the playoffs. He fits as a coach on a team that doesn't make the playoffs. Keep in mind that most average teams don't make the playoffs so this isn't a slap in the face. It's just reality. Average isn't bad. It just isn't good enough for the Indiana Pacers.

    BTW, it has been a long, long time since the Indiana Pacers has had an excellent coach. I hope that day comes again soon.
    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

  29. #96
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    22,741

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Now I wonder just how much the "mentally drained by it all" superstar's attitude had a poor impact on the team?

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  31. #97
    Certified Fresh funnyguy1105's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne
    Age
    28
    Posts
    384
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Nate is the Dominos Pizza of coaches. Can you say it's pizza? Yes. Does it have any one trait that is negative? Not really. Does any aspect hold up next to truly good pizza? No.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to funnyguy1105 For This Useful Post:


  33. #98
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I said that KP wasn't the one making the decisions when Nate was hired. It was mainly a Bird hire. Was KP involved? Sure. We know that Bird and KP always discussed with each other and asked each other's opinions on the moves. But the one who made the final decision was Bird.



    Actually, below average and bad aren't the same thing. Below average is better than bad. That's pretty much a fact.

    Also, BlueNGold (the only person in this thread that called Nate below average) even said that average is probably more accurate for Nate. I have no idea why you're fixating on this whole "bad coach" narrative. No one in this thread called Nate a bad coach



    This x1000.
    Agree to disagree. I think KP has brought in his Blazer guys and being below average is a bad thing. Honestly I think it's absurd to argue otherwise.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to freddielewis14 For This Useful Post:


  35. #99
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    8,030

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    My only point was I'm giving Nate more than one year before I judge. A coach with a winning record almost 10 years ago who has done a lot of stuff in between probably has learned some things. It's fine if you think Nate was and will always be an average coach, I just don't think that's a fact.

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to freddielewis14 For This Useful Post:


  37. #100

    Default Re: Don't look now, but Pacers aren't all that bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Now I wonder just how much the "mentally drained by it all" superstar's attitude had a poor impact on the team?
    I've thought that for a few years myself. Can being 'mentally drained by it all' come from being a 'selfish dude' ?? Or does said mental drain come from having knocked up a pole dancer ?? Or is it simply the pressure of anointing yourself as 'THE MAN' and then not being able to live up to those expectations ?? Or it could be other things. I suppose if one is a mental midget, their mind can be jumbled up by pretty much anything.

    I'm really looking forward to how it plays out in OKC. I think he was slightly exposed as - I don't want to use the word FRAUD - maybe under-achiever ??? - anyway - let's see how he handles being a distant #2 to Russ. You think he's ever going to see the ball for a last shot there ?? Let's see how he deals with it when Russ says - “In situations like that, I've got to get the last shot.”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •