RealGM

?s=21

?s=21

I’ll be honest....if Nate can’t last a full season, then I’m not sure Pritchard survives either.

?s=21

Few other details here. Nate only got a 3 year deal with 2 guaranteed to begin with, which is surprisingly short. Usually 4 year deals.

Some important details in here from a couple days ago.

?s=21

?s=21

Bad move if they sack a Nick Nurse disciple in Nate Bjorkgren. Give him more than a year FFS.

?s=21

More info in here, but mostly, Nate is reported to be controlling and micro-managing everything, with players, coaches, and overall staff.

radeonboy wrote:Bad move if they sack a Nick Nurse disciple in Nate Bjorkgren. Give him more than a year FFS.

I would bet they do, as Simon/Pacers have never given a coach less than 2 years. But, the fact there are these rumors tells you that Nate is inordinately abrasive, controlling, and micro-managing to the point that it’s even coming up in a franchise that normally gives coaches all the latitude and leeway they need. He’s also apparently having major trouble communicating with the roster overall.

If he’s willing to soul search and adjust, he’ll likely get a 2nd season.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

radeonboy wrote:Bad move if they sack a Nick Nurse disciple in Nate Bjorkgren. Give him more than a year FFS.

I would bet they do, as Simon/Pacers have never given a coach less than 2 years. But, the fact there are these rumors tells you that Nate is inordinately abrasive, controlling, and micro-managing to the point that it’s even coming up in a franchise that normally gives coaches all the latitude and leeway they need. He’s also apparently having major trouble communicating with the roster overall.

If he’s willing to soul search and adjust, he’ll likely get a 2nd season.

But didn't the players rave about Bjorkgren at the beginning?

I remember them all saying great things about Bjorkgren before the season began

I posted in another thread before I saw this one. I'll repeat that we wouldn't be happy if we thought the players were happy as this disappointing season draws to a close.

Topofthekey wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

radeonboy wrote:Bad move if they sack a Nick Nurse disciple in Nate Bjorkgren. Give him more than a year FFS.

I would bet they do, as Simon/Pacers have never given a coach less than 2 years. But, the fact there are these rumors tells you that Nate is inordinately abrasive, controlling, and micro-managing to the point that it’s even coming up in a franchise that normally gives coaches all the latitude and leeway they need. He’s also apparently having major trouble communicating with the roster overall.

If he’s willing to soul search and adjust, he’ll likely get a 2nd season.

But didn't the players rave about Bjorkgren at the beginning?

I remember them all saying great things about Bjorkgren before the season began

They did, but things like micro-managing don’t really stand out until they’ve happened a long while.

But otherwise, the losing really makes things worse, in many ways.

Wizop wrote:I posted in another thread before I saw this one. I'll repeat that we wouldn't be happy if we thought the players were happy as this disappointing season draws to a close.

This is also very true.

I read that Athletic article as well. I also recall that early in the season the players seemed to be raving about new Nate vs old Nate. There was also a lot of talk about how in Toronto nobody was a specialist and everybody did a little of everything and Bjorkgren would run his staff that way as well. This seems counter to all of that. Perhaps some of the issue is those expectations not getting met so it seems worse than it is? I was happy that they went outside of the usual cast-off coaches hire list. I guess this is the potential risk of that strategy is that you get somebody that flounders in the new role. As a fan of the team, I'm fine running it back with a full season and camp. However, I don't have to work for/with the guy which sounds like the issue.

granger05 wrote:I read that Athletic article as well. I also recall that early in the season the players seemed to be raving about new Nate vs old Nate. There was also a lot of talk about how in Toronto nobody was a specialist and everybody did a little of everything and Bjorkgren would run his staff that way as well. This seems counter to all of that. Perhaps some of the issue is those expectations not getting met so it seems worse than it is? I was happy that they went outside of the usual cast-off coaches hire list. I guess this is the potential risk of that strategy is that you get somebody that flounders in the new role. As a fan of the team, I'm fine running it back with a full season and camp. However, I don't have to work for/with the guy which sounds like the issue.

My gut take is that this is a guy who worked his way from nothing and sacrificed all he had and really visualized what he would do when he made it. Then, he made it, and the team won, so everything fell into place for awhile. However, then injuries hit and the losing struck, and as it got much harder, his inclination was likely to isolate, dig within, and see others around him as a weakness, so he tried to do everything himself. And over time, that grated on people all around, and he has to come back to the basics, and start over, and trust in his system and commit to his goals (playing many of the players, letting coaches handle a ton, etc).

?s=21

?s=21

Lot more details here from JMichael.

?s=21

I don't have time right now to read all the articles, but it appears that things have been bad behind the scenes for some time now and the recent games with poor defensive play have irked management to bring this out into the public press. I wouldn't be happy as an owner either with a losing home season, poor playoff scenario, the coaching, and the up and down play this season by the team.

Are we playing badly because we're unhappy, or are we unhappy because we're playing badly?

Sent from my phone.

Wizop wrote:Are we playing badly because we're unhappy, or are we unhappy because we're playing badly?

Sent from my phone.

To me it looks like they're playing badly because in the first half they couldn't box out Bagley and just more poor defense. Third quarter careless passes limiting offensive opportunities and still can't stop Sacramento by pressuring them into turnovers or bad shots. Too many easy baskets for them.