Page 6 of 22 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 530

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

  1. #126
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    7,796

    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
    Actually, the first time I quoted your post in this thread was before that. My reply to you was post #44 and it was the following:



    This was a reply to the following post:



    That post was post #38. Both of these posts are in the second page of the thread. BnG called Nate below average in the third page, post #55.

    But it's possible that you weren't talking about when we first interacted in this thread. You could be talking about when we started discussing the whole "Nate is a bad or a below average coach" point.

    This discussion essentially started with post #75. I'll quote it:



    But where was this post directed at? It was a reply to this post:



    This post was post #53. Yes, this was before BnG called Nate below average. This post was part of your conversation with cdash. It wasn't directed specifically at him but it was between two posts that were so it's easy to infer that it was a part of the same conversation. Up until that point no one had called Nate bad or below average. I had called him average, cdash had called him not very good and BnG hadn't even posted yet.

    So, no. I don't think I missed a sequence. I just think that you were trying to make it seem like the "other side" was calling Nate bad and BnG's post gave you the perfect opportunity.
    When someone says below average and not very good, I don't see a problem with calling that bad. If you have a bunch of below average and not very good players and staff, you have a bad team.

    Why can't you just agree to disagree? In my opinion if some says I'm not very good at my job, that's bad. If someone working for me is not very good and/or below average they get fired.

  2. #127
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    7,796

    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 cannot talk for everyone else but there are two main reasons why I consider Nate to be an average coaching and nothing more. His teams have tended to have poor defensive ratings and his playoff average is awful (36.8%).
    Goodness, as a coach of the Sonics he went to semis and as a Blazer coach he constantly had injury issues. Brandon Roy only had one season where he was healthy in the playoffs, one.

    For someone who claims to pay so much attention to detail I don't see why you would omit that when talking about Nate's playoff record.

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


  4. #128
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Evansville
    Posts
    1,310

    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
    Goodness, as a coach of the Sonics he went to semis and as a Blazer coach he constantly had injury issues. Brandon Roy only had one season where he was healthy in the playoffs, one.

    For someone who claims to pay so much attention to detail I don't see why you would omit that when talking about Nate's playoff record.
    Remember Roy and Oden were injured because Nate didn't condition them enough, lol

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to kent beckley For This Useful Post:


  6. #129
    Member Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    26,830

    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
    When someone says below average and not very good, I don't see a problem with calling that bad. If you have a bunch of below average and not very good players and staff, you have a bad team.

    Why can't you just agree to disagree? In my opinion if some says I'm not very good at my job, that's bad. If someone working for me is not very good and/or below average they get fired.
    Do you feel that there's a difference between last year's Nets and last year's Pacers? If the answer to this is yes then you can recognize the difference between bad and average. If you don't then well, I'm not sure what to tell you.

    Quote Originally Posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Goodness, as a coach of the Sonics he went to semis and as a Blazer coach he constantly had injury issues. Brandon Roy only had one season where he was healthy in the playoffs, one.

    For someone who claims to pay so much attention to detail I don't see why you would omit that when talking about Nate's playoff record.
    This is true for the 09-10 and 10-11 Blazers. Yes, I'm aware that those teams were infamously plagued with injuries. At one point it was so bad that Nate had to fill in for a practice match and then he got injured. I know all that. It's just that injuries do not explain the rest of Nate's post-season runs.
    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.

  7. #130
    Member pacers_heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,768
    Mood

    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
    Context matters.
    Numbers don't care about context. What you call context is basically just your opinion and we are all entitled to our own.
    Lifelong pacers fan

  8. #131
    Member pacers_heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,768
    Mood

    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 cannot talk for everyone else but there are two main reasons why I consider Nate to be an average coaching and nothing more. His teams have tended to have poor defensive ratings and his playoff average is awful (36.8%).
    Yeah, but you have to be on a decent team to make the playoffs. 36% in the playoffs is better than not making them, which nearly half the teams in the league don't
    Lifelong pacers fan

  9. #132
    Your New Starting PG BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,617

    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
    When someone says below average and not very good, I don't see a problem with calling that bad. If you have a bunch of below average and not very good players and staff, you have a bad team.

    Why can't you just agree to disagree? In my opinion if some says I'm not very good at my job, that's bad. If someone working for me is not very good and/or below average they get fired.
    Are you serious? If someone working for you is below average on your team, they are fired? Does that mean you just keep firing people until you have 1 employee who is the only one never deemed to be below the mean?

    I think the issue here is that you have a different definition than everyone else has for "below average". I guess "below average" includes bad and terrible but I can assure you that if I really meant to say he was a bad coach, I just would have said that. Personally, when I say "below average" I mean in the realm of respectability. He might be OK to run the team through a rebuilding period. When I say "bad coach", I basically think he needs fired.
    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

  10. #133
    Your New Starting PG BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,617

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, but you have to be on a decent team to make the playoffs. 36% in the playoffs is better than not making them, which nearly half the teams in the league don't
    I consider Nate to be at-best average because he's had a lot of talent over the years but has not performed well in the playoffs. 1st round exit 5 out of 6 years. Swept by the Cavs this last year. Sorry, but he has to do better than that to get any better rating.

    Now I'm probably in trouble for using the phrase "at-best average". Freddie probably has a special meaning for that phrase we don't understand.
    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

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


  12. #134
    Member pacers_heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,768
    Mood

    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
    I consider Nate to be at-best average because he's had a lot of talent over the years but has not performed well in the playoffs. 1st round exit 5 out of 6 years. Swept by the Cavs this last year. Sorry, but he has to do better than that to get any better rating.

    Now I'm probably in trouble for using the phrase "at-best average". Freddie probably has a special meaning for that phrase we don't understand.
    Yeah, but that really dismisses the fact that he consistently got teams to the playoffs. He's a decent coach - most of his teams have had winning records and he's coached a lot of teams in a lot of different situations. Do Steve Kerr's championships not count because he had all that talent?
    Lifelong pacers fan

  13. #135
    Your New Starting PG BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,617

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, but that really dismisses the fact that he consistently got teams to the playoffs. He's a decent coach - most of his teams have had winning records and he's coached a lot of teams in a lot of different situations. Do Steve Kerr's championships not count because he had all that talent?
    He did NOT consistently get teams to the playoffs. Just look at his last stint in Portland. Terry Stotts took over for Nate and has gotten the TBlazers to the playoffs 4 out of 5 times. That's pretty consistent. Prior to being fired midseason in 2012, Nate got them to the playoffs 3 of 6 years and lost in the first round each year he made it. Not real impressive.
    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

  14. #136
    Member Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,934

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Wait, context is just opinion? Yikes....

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:

    pta

  16. #137
    Member Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,934

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    As to Nate's time in Portland, I didn't pay close attention, but my recollection was that they were chewed up by the grinder of a conference loaded with good teams (in other words, his teams probably went at least one round further if they played in the east; kind of the opposite of giving a low east team extra credit for 'being a playoff team' versus a western team that didn't, when the west team was probably a notch or two better but there were more than 8 good teams out west, and less than 8 good teams in the east) while also dealing with major injuries. I recall him having a good reputation back then as a good coach, but again I didn't pay close attention....

  17. #138
    Your New Starting PG BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,617

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As to Nate's time in Portland, I didn't pay close attention, but my recollection was that they were chewed up by the grinder of a conference loaded with good teams (in other words, his teams probably went at least one round further if they played in the east; kind of the opposite of giving a low east team extra credit for 'being a playoff team' versus a western team that didn't, when the west team was probably a notch or two better but there were more than 8 good teams out west, and less than 8 good teams in the east) while also dealing with major injuries. I recall him having a good reputation back then as a good coach, but again I didn't pay close attention....
    Nate presided over the worst Blazers regular season since 1972 and has had the worst playoff performance since Lenny Wilkens was coach in 1975-76. Of the 6 other coaches since Jack Ramsey in 1976, only Mo Cheeks has performed close to as bad in the playoffs coaching for 3.5 seasons making the playoffs 2 times. Nate made it 3 times over 6.5 seasons, losing in the first round each time. Prior to Nate and Mo, the Blazers made it to the playoffs over 20 times STRAIGHT and went to the finals 3 times, winning it once.

    The reality is, the Blazers have always had excellent talent. They have not always had the best coaches to lead the team. Nate is the best example of that.
    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

  18. #139
    Member pacers_heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,768
    Mood

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

    All of the wins mcmillian has had over his career were just because of the good players he had. However, the losses are all directly his fault. He's that horrible of a coach!
    Lifelong pacers fan

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to pacers_heath For This Useful Post:


  20. #140

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

    This whole conversation is just - average.

  21. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to PacerDude For This Useful Post:


  22. #141
    Member pacers_heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,768
    Mood

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerDude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This whole conversation is just - average.
    No way. It's definitely below average and in essence, horrible. Because those two mean the exact same thing and there is no middle ground between the two. Have you learned nothing????
    Lifelong pacers fan

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to pacers_heath For This Useful Post:


  24. #142
    --------- freddielewis14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    7,796

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No way. It's definitely below average and in essence, horrible. Because those two mean the exact same thing and there is no middle ground between the two. Have you learned nothing????
    Well, I certainly never said anything like that. I said having a below average coach is bad, because it is.

  25. #143
    Your New Starting PG BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    23,617

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All of the wins mcmillian has had over his career were just because of the good players he had. However, the losses are all directly his fault. He's that horrible of a coach!
    I honestly believe Nate has held back guys like Gary Payton, Ray Allen and LaMarcus Aldridge/Brandon Roy. Nate has had excellent talent most of his tenure in the NBA while delivering average results.

    Man, this is almost as much fun as tearing into George Hill...
    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

  26. #144
    Member Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    26,830

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, but you have to be on a decent team to make the playoffs. 36% in the playoffs is better than not making them, which nearly half the teams in the league don't
    Obviously. Which is why Nate isn't a bad coach. He can still take his teams to the playoffs. He just cannot take them far enough. Which makes him average.
    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 User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  28. #145
    Member pta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    59
    Posts
    129
    Mood

    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 pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No way. It's definitely below average and in essence, horrible. Because those two mean the exact same thing and there is no middle ground between the two. Have you learned nothing????
    They just want to add to off season interest.

  29. #146
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,905

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

    This is for certain: Nate is excellent at being average.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  31. #147
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    29
    Posts
    39,840

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    What evidence do we have that Nate is better at being firm with players than Frank other than some fluff PR pieces calling him Sarge?



  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  33. #148
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    29
    Posts
    39,840

    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 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?
    Yeah you often talk about teams emulating their best player well if your best player thinks "Game 60 feels like Game 100" you kind of have to wonder what kind of attitude PG was projecting in the locker room during any random regular season game.



  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  35. #149
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    29
    Posts
    39,840

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Whatever Nate is as a coach is kind of irrelevant.

    The reality is his hiring had a perception of settling to just about everyone in the NBA and certainly probably to Paul George. Nate is probably the lowest or close to lowest paid coaches in the NBA while Vogel got a very nice contract from the Magic, so ultimately right there it suggests that the NBA market saw the Pacers essentially take a downgrade, it's not like we were giving a young coach his first chance at a head coaching job.

    It was very hard to listen to Bird sell how the team would play faster, play differently, be more flexible and then turn around and hire a guy like Nate who was Vogel's assistant coach for a reason. This was not a case of JOB being replaced by his assistant who was younger, motivated and needed a shot to lead. Nate is 8 years older than Vogel. So the message just ultimately fell flat on its face and it came off like it was actually about a money (which spoiler alert...it was about money)

    I am one of the staunchest Vogel fans here, but even I could have bought into a "new voice, new direction" pitch if the new coach had actually been....NEW. Not a retread that had sat on our bench for the past several years. You expect a guy like PG to suddenly buy into this dude now being the head guy? Get real and it got proven OVER AND OVER again this season. Hell it was proven in the closing minutes of game 1 of 82 against the Dallas Mavericks. A story Peck and I have told several times, but Paul George had the ball late against Dallas and the Mavs were threatening to make a run to close the gap, Nate tried to call something from the bench and Paul looked over at him like "What kind of **** is that?" waved off the call and ran a high pick and pop with Myles Turner that resulted in a bucket. That moment, literally 44 minutes into our season basically, was the moment you knew Nate didn't really have the chops to get it done with this team.



  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


  37. #150
    DIET COKE! Trader Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Troll Hunting
    Age
    29
    Posts
    39,840

    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 pacers_heath View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not sure what Nate has done for anyone to say he is a below average coach. He's got a lot of years under his belt and over a .500 record. Based on that he's closer to being above average than below average. It doesn't matter if you don't like him or think he is boring.
    Nate's got a career winning percentage of 51% over 13 seasons. He's 28 games over .500 for his career. Essentially he's finished 2 games over .500 on average over his career as a head coach.

    What was the Pacers record last year? 42-40. Down 3 games from a year before with a roster that had more talent. Fit was maybe slightly worse, but not enough in the East that it should have mattered IMHO.

    Good, bad, average, above average, the Pope...I don't care what you want to label Nate Mcmillan, but he's exactly what most of us thought he was last summer. A dude who can get you to .500 or slightly above it but not much further.

    Vogel may prove to be the same sort of guy over the long haul, but if the discussion is "Could we have, should we have done a better job replacing Frank?" then the answer is a resounding Yes.



  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Trader Joe For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

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