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

How much blame does Nate McMillan deserve for the Pacers game 1 performance?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    How much blame does Nate McMillan deserve for the Pacers game 1 performance?

    How much of the Pacers Game 1 dud falls on the shoulders of Nate McMillan?


    In their most important game of the season thus far, Nate McMillan’s Indiana Pacers played what may be their worst half in a long time. Worse than the 24-0 run in Oklahoma City, worse than the second half against Philadelphia.

    In this second half, Indiana scored eight third-quarter points and 29 in the entire half. Their 74 points are the lowest in a playoff game since the Grizzlies sputtered against the Spurs for 68 points about a half-decade ago. It was a forgettable showing from Indiana.

    When catastrophe strikes, the angry mob seeks someone to blame. It’s one of the consistent phenomena of the human race throughout time and it held true today. Inevitably, one of the names that come up consistently when the Pacers play poorly is Nate McMillan. The “fire Nate” takes come and go, but they were out in full force after the bludgeoning Boston dealt Indy this afternoon.

    So, how much blame does Nate McMillan deserve? Not only for the 24 minutes of misery in Boston today but for the Pacers’ shortcomings as a whole? McMillan is far from a perfect coach. He has many flaws and the Celtics today were in an ideal position to expose those flaws.

    In contrast to the Golden State Warriors, third quarter collapses have become somewhat of a theme for this Pacer team late in this season. After the All-Star break, the Pacers’ third-quarter net rating of -9.1 is the fourth worst in the league. During 14 games in the month of March, that net rating plummets to -17.2, only trailing the dumpster fire that is the New York Knicks.

    The “turd quarter” was in full effect today, only scoring eight in 12 minutes. Though part of this was the players missing shots they hit in the first half, McMillan deserves some blame for failing to adjust in the second half. Brad Stevens, a master of after-half tinkering, shut down Indiana’s offense. Granted, Kyrie Irving took over in the third. When he’s on, there’s nothing anyone can do:

    Domantas Sabonis struggled mightily, only mustering seven points in this game. Part of this is his own limitations: his right hand is ineffectual and the Celtics have the big men to sit on his right shoulder and make his usual post wizardry near impossible to consistently execute.

    However, Sabonis is too skilled for his only use to be stagnant post-ups and dribble handoffs. His passing and handling craft are waiting to be taken advantage of and McMillan hasn’t shown any willingness to do that thus far.

    Myles Turner only took six shots. The Celtics set up their pick and roll coverage in a way where Turner was in a position to get a lot of good looks, but the Pacers didn’t attack that. McMillan repeatedly called reversal dribble handoffs for Bogdanovic or someone else, which the Celtics were ready for and blew up over and over.

    His offense is always bad. This is nothing new, really. But in the playoffs, it would be nice to see him make some adjustments based on his opponent. One more qualm: playing TJ Leaf at all is inexcusable to me. He is not a rotation player; if Nate wants to go 10 deep, play Kyle O’Quinn or Aaron Holiday (who played well in very limited action) over Leaf. As the underdog, there’s plenty of room to get funky.

    Lost in the garbage of the second half was, as usual, McMillan coached a fantastic defensive game. Boston scored an anemic 84 in their own right, bolstered by Marcus Morris hitting shots he normally doesn’t and a Terry Rozier contested buzzer beater three. Al Horford and Gordon Hayward scored 10 apiece, Jayson Tatum scored 15 and Irving only scored 20, shooting 35.3% from the field.

    In the first half especially, the Pacers’ rotations were crisp and disciplined. The Pacers did an excellent job forcing Boston into tough shots and their effort was superb. Pinpointing defensive coaching is harder than offensive coaching because of the lack of sets to diagnose, but it’s easy to discern the positive impact McMillan’s coaching has on stymieing opponent offenses.

    This is the conundrum: what does a team do with a 99th percentile defensive coach and 0th percentile offensive coach. The answer is unequivocally not firing him. Even if Victor Oladipo was healthy, I could imagine the offense struggling against elite defenses.

    However, the Pacers aren’t winning a title with their roster in its current form. They crave another true offensive creator. The nature of great primary initiators supersedes incompetent offensive coaching. Victor Oladipo’s shot creation combined with the services of, I don’t know, a Kemba Walker and/or Nikola Mirotic would make McMillan’s offense look a lot less egregious on most nights. It is fair to argue McMillan caps the ceiling of Indiana’s offense. He isn’t getting the most out of Sabonis’ unique skill set — and Turner has more offensive potential waiting to be unlocked.

    A realistic fix the Pacers can employ now is hiring an offensive coordinator type to completely take the offensive responsibilities from McMillan. Allow Nate to hone in on making the defense as staunch as it can be and find a creative mind to improve offensive flow. Firing McMillan is a gamble not worth taking. Even if you truly believe the Pacers are doomed with him at the helm, who is coming to save them? Not Ty Lue, not Monty Williams and certainly not Jason Kidd.

    The Pacers are not going to win this series. Without Victor Oladipo, they never were. Outmatched against a superior opponent, it is important to glean not only the bad but the good. This is not the true Indiana Pacers. That team is the one who (hopefully) will add a piece or two this offseason and contend in the East for many years to come, under the coaching direction of Nate McMillan.
    How much blame does Nate McMillan for the Pacers game 1 performance?
    https://8points9seconds.com
    The Indiana Pacers came out for game 1 of the playoffs and flat out stunk. How much blame does Nate McMillan deserve for the performance?
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
    • 1 like
  • #2
    This article is nonsense. There are always up-and-coming coaches waiting for promotions. I just think Nate is outdated. He has been coaching since the early 00's. I would prefer a more innovative coach.
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel
    • 2 likes

    Comment

    • #3
      I would actually blame Pritchard more than Nate. Not really sure how a better coach could win with this roster. The off-season of 2018 has to be viewed as a complete bust. Washed up Evans and Doug McDermott were terrible signings. Where the hell were our scouts when Spencer Dinwiddie was available? Instead of trying to find a diamond in the rough, we are wasting time watching tape on washed up big named FA's. Do your damned job scouts
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel
      • 5 likes

      Comment

      • #4
        I think you have to put the majority of the blame on Nate and some on the players. We missed open shots, but Nate had to know that Brad Stevens and the Celtics would adjust at halftime One of Nate's flaws is that he cannot make on the fly adjustments and we seen that first hand last game.
        • 3 likes

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post
          I think you have to put the majority of the blame on Nate and some on the players. We missed open shots, but Nate had to know that Brad Stevens and the Celtics would adjust at halftime One of Nate's flaws is that he cannot make on the fly adjustments and we seen that first hand last game.
          Seriously - if Nate's offense got us open shots and his defense held Boston to a significantly lower score than usual, then how was he supposed to adjust? If the players had been hitting the openb shots and FTs and missing contested shots and that caused the loss there would be more of a case here, but the fact of the matter is that Boston doesn't go on that crushing 3rd Q run if the players could put the ball in the hole.

          Now, I have a problem with the idea that the proper open shot is the longest open shot, but that has nothing to do with in-game adjustment.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
          • 3 likes

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            I would actually blame Pritchard more than Nate. Not really sure how a better coach could win with this roster. The off-season of 2018 has to be viewed as a complete bust. Washed up Evans and Doug McDermott were terrible signings. Where the hell were our scouts when Spencer Dinwiddie was available? Instead of trying to find a diamond in the rough, we are wasting time watching tape on washed up big named FA's. Do your damned job scouts
            Evans was coming off a season where he averaged 19 point and 5 assists per game, shot 45% from the field and 40% from 3. Signing him did not look bad at the time.

            McDermott is a 40% three point shooter. Signing him did not look like a bad move either, signing him for 3 years is questionable.

            Pritchard has been the Pacers GM for 2 summers. The first summer he hit a grand slam with Vic and Sabonis. The second summer his moves flopped. It happens. I think he will have another pretty good summer this year...not Vic and Sabonis good, but I think he will do okay. Word on the street is that he wants to get a star to put beside Vic. Let's see what he comes up with.
            • 3 likes

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by BillS View Post

              Seriously - if Nate's offense got us open shots and his defense held Boston to a significantly lower score than usual, then how was he supposed to adjust? If the players had been hitting the openb shots and FTs and missing contested shots and that caused the loss there would be more of a case here, but the fact of the matter is that Boston doesn't go on that crushing 3rd Q run if the players could put the ball in the hole.

              Now, I have a problem with the idea that the proper open shot is the longest open shot, but that has nothing to do with in-game adjustment.
              you are very correct about this. I'm not sure what Nate is supposed to do when the Players are missing wide open shots like that they got in the 3rd. I mean it wasn't like Boston was playing lock down defense. They got more physical with us, but we still got a ton of open looks from 3. I thought it looked like we tried to throw some haymakers at the beginning of the 3rd to try and put them away early when we probably should have passed out of those open 3's and went to the rim. This Pacer team more than ever needs to establish a rhythm before they start jacking early 3's.

              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
              • 3 likes

              Comment

              • #8
                At this point I'm on board with firing Nate:

                1. Myles Turner took only 6 shots, 1 on the first play of the game. So only 5 shots for the next 47+ minutes. In contrast, Budenholzer doesn't mind if Brook Lopez takes 6 threes in a half. I blame coaching for this.
                2. We need a real play-maker on offense and he continues to trot out Tyreke and Cory over Holiday. How much worse could Holiday really do? I blame coaching for this.
                3. Sabonis has regressed as the season went on. He is not being put position to maximize his strengths and at this point he should be getting more minutes than Thad on a nightly basis. I blame coaching for this.

                It's becoming apparent that Nate's old school approach is not going to cut it in 2019. He has shown no ability to adapt to the new game. It's time to move on.
                • 7 likes

                Comment

                • #9
                  Fire Nate? That is absurd. This Pacers team has greatly overachieved for two years now. Talent wise Pacers are middle of the pack at best. Probably the worst offensive team currently in the playoffs. Fire Nate if you really want, but when he comes in probably 3rd for coach of the year you might feel a little silly.

                  Pacers have been extremely well coached for two years now.
                  • 6 likes

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Can you give me an example of what exactly makes Nate a good coach? Our defense has been great, but we all know Dan Burke is a part of that. Our locker room has been great, but you don't exactly win games there. I'm really struggling to see what everyone in the national media is seeing.

                    Our offense is cringe worthy. We constantly have 3 players standing in place while running a two-man game. This works when you have a great facilitator, which we do not. He never makes adjustments. He won't play the young talent. We lose against every team with a good coach.

                    When I look at Nate I see Marvin Lewis. If you are okay with mediocrity while getting bounced in the first round every year, he is your guy. Maybe he is perfect for Indiana /shrug
                    • 4 likes

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                      Can you give me an example of what exactly makes Nate a good coach? Our defense has been great, but we all know Dan Burke is a part of that. Our locker room has been great, but you don't exactly win games there. I'm really struggling to see what everyone in the national media is seeing.

                      Our offense is cringe worthy. We constantly have 3 players standing in place while running a two-man game. This works when you have a great facilitator, which we do not. He never makes adjustments. He won't play the young talent. We lose against every team with a good coach.

                      When I look at Nate I see Marvin Lewis. If you are okay with mediocrity while getting bounced in the first round every year, he is your guy. Maybe he is perfect for Indiana /shrug
                      Example: 48-34 record the past two seasons with rosters that should not have won that many games. Even with Victor only playing 36 games this year we still went over our projected win total. We've also been a top defensive team the past two seasons.

                      The better question is, can you give a tangible example of how he is a bad coach? Not liking his rotations isn't really evidence.
                      Lifelong pacers fan
                      • 1 like

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Our offense is cringe worthy against really good defense because our offensive talent is the worst of any team in the playoffs. We have all role players on this team right now (obviously I am talking about without Vic), they play well together, are extremely well coach, they play hard, they play the right way, but they are not very talented.especially offensively. Although probably the Pistons without Blake are worse offensively and they got blown out - at least Nate helped keep the Pacers in the game.

                        What makes Nate a good coach. He is consistent, fair, hard working - just a few of his personal traits. His teams play hard, play together, focus on defense.

                        Did we lose every game to the heat this season? No. Did we lose every game to the Spurs this season? No. Did we lose every game to the Celtics this season? No. The Bucks? Not, the Nuggets? No, Clipper? No. The coaches of those teams are some of the best in the NBA so no we don't lose to every team with a good coach, like you suggest.

                        I don't even know who Marvin Lewis is, so I can't address that.

                        Bottom line the national media looks at our talent and besides having an allstar in Vic we don't have a lot of top tier talent, so to win 48 games two years in a row is remarkable. Our second best player is a weak second best for any of the top playoff teams. And Vic is a not a strong top player on a team that has finished 5th in the east.

                        Look at the top 4 seeds in east - each of the teams have a top player better than Vic and a second best player better than Bogey - or whowever you want to claim is the second best player. -The West is even stronger.

                        I mean look at the current Celtics team vs the current pacers team. OK we are the captains and we pick players - how many Celtics players are we taking before we take a pacers player? 5? 6?. I mean Rozier who doesn't play much would be our best backcourt player right now if he were on the Pacers and he is the Celtics 8th man


                        After the breakup of the 2014 team and PG asking to be traded, most expected a rebuilding team - I predicted last season 28 wins. The vegas over/under last season was 31.50. This season
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-15-2019, 03:09 PM.
                        • 7 likes

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          I don’t necessarily want to fire Nate, but he doesn’t get a pass for our ****** offense just because of Vic not being here half the year. There’s really no good reason for teams like the Clippers, Wizards, and Pelicans to have a better offense than ours.

                          We really need to scrap our whole offensive philosophy and get players or coaches in here that can run a modern offense. Something’s bad wrong when you finish 4th in FG% but only 18th in overall efficiency.
                          • 1 like

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                            Can you give me an example of what exactly makes Nate a good coach? Our defense has been great, but we all know Dan Burke is a part of that. Our locker room has been great, but you don't exactly win games there. I'm really struggling to see what everyone in the national media is seeing.

                            Our offense is cringe worthy. We constantly have 3 players standing in place while running a two-man game. This works when you have a great facilitator, which we do not. He never makes adjustments. He won't play the young talent. We lose against every team with a good coach.

                            When I look at Nate I see Marvin Lewis. If you are okay with mediocrity while getting bounced in the first round every year, he is your guy. Maybe he is perfect for Indiana /shrug
                            Bengal fan here and yea, Nate reminds me quite a bit of Marv. Good comparison.
                            • 2 likes

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BillS View Post

                              Seriously - if Nate's offense got us open shots and his defense held Boston to a significantly lower score than usual, then how was he supposed to adjust? If the players had been hitting the openb shots and FTs and missing contested shots and that caused the loss there would be more of a case here, but the fact of the matter is that Boston doesn't go on that crushing 3rd Q run if the players could put the ball in the hole.

                              Now, I have a problem with the idea that the proper open shot is the longest open shot, but that has nothing to do with in-game adjustment.
                              I put part of the blame on the players for missing shots, and I understand we don't have much offensive talent, but for the talent that we do have nate does not utilize it well. Yes I blame nate for having Tyreke Evans out there playing 17 minutes and not being able to produce. I blame Nate for not playing Holiday. I blame Nate for Myles turner only getting 6 shots. Nate is a solid coach, he gets his team to play hard on every possession, but he is just not strong at coaching a modern offense which results in 3rd quarters like the one we had on Sunday.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X