At What Point...

[PapaG]

What is our record...15-10 (honestly, I don't pay attention). That's still pretty good. About a 50 win season if we keep that up. Not too shabby from 41-41 last year.

Nate's seat is about to be hot though. Just read this thread.

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

You think KP's plot is for him to be the coach? Not only do you advocate killing all Christians on the OT board, but you also know zero about the NBA.

Ed O, what is your take?

Every post you make has a negative impact on these forums. Me thinking KP is going to be the Blazers coach is the dumbest thing you've heard in a long time? Do you ever read what you write?

I'd still like to know what's so far fetched about KP coaching the Blazers.

 

[PapaG]

Every post you make has a negative impact on these forums. Me thinking KP is going to be the Blazers coach is the dumbest thing you've heard in a long time? Do you ever read what you write?

Pretty much.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Unlike the all-star game, I'm so glad fans don't get to vote on when coaches get fired and who replaces them. Nate isn't perfect, but some of the alternatives people have thrown out here are just priceless. Mark Jackson?! Wow.

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

or Avery? The ENTIRE Dallas Team went to Mark Cuban and said they refused to play for AJ any longer.

 

[alex42083]

Well, Nate's contract has got him here until next season and I think he'll last barring some tremendous unexpected breakdown.
The question might be whether he wants to still be here after turning down an extension this summer, and if he feels he's the right guy to lead us to a title.

I'd like to see Nate stay and don't see a reason to fire him. Sure, we point out flaws every game, but share the blame on the entire coaching staff as well. They all have a hand in this -- not just Nate.

 

[BrianFromWA]

LOL

A joke post, right?

Naw, that one was pretty serious. I've thought for a couple of years that he probably would have a pretty good shot to break the "college coaches can't go to the NBA" ceiling--if he gets a primo lead assistant job for a couple of years first. He's got a good fundamental pedigree -- both his father and Pete Carill have been huge influences on his coaching style. He's run the Princeton offense for years, but throws in little variants to make it his own. He's defensive-minded, smart, successful...but he just signed a 6-year extension. He's probably not going anywhere.

 

[barfo]

How about Brad Smith, the former coach at Oregon City?

I don't think Nate is in any danger this year unless the team flames out in a fairly spectacular way. Not getting wins isn't enough to get him fired this year.

barfo

 

[Drttimmy]

Each season, I become more and more reassured with Nate, so I'm a little surprised this thread is popping up so early in the season. Then again, maybe I'm not too surprised.

When is the last time anyone complained about the team's effort? I can't recall because it's been so long. So, the team isn't tuning him out and continues to play hard for him.

Does the team improve year-to-year? The winning% keeps improving. We get good teams best efforts and are respected league-wide. Do individual players continue to improve? I see improvements(sometimes marginal) in nearly every player.

Is Nate stubborn, inflexible, and unwilling to implement new systems/approaches? The team is running more this year. He has stated numerous times in interviews/quotes that he wants to push fastbreak opportunities when possible. He recognizes the value in easy baskets. Will he introduce anything beside a pick n' float offense? I guess he attempted to install motion, but the guys couldnt catch on. I think I heard this Friday from Jason Quick on the Fan...or maybe I read it in one of his articles? Sorry, hopefully others heard that too.

I think the only thing he can truly be criticized of is not experimenting enough. There are A LOT of combinations we still havent seen this year. At least in games. And the younger guys are given shorter leashes because of how deterimental mistakes are to winning. He values winning over everything, even at the expense of individual player development. Is it worth firing him over?

 

[Ghost Pepper]

I posted this on another thread. The Spurs have one more year to get a ring and then they are to old. We have the players and the general manager to get us Pop and Parker. Both of our problems are solved. PG that can get to the hoop and a coach the can bring a good bunch of kids together to win multiple championships.

 

[Public Defender]

I've been a Nate fan since he came down from Seattle. He's not perfect, but more often than not, I've thought he's helped the team team - especially in preparing them, but then occasionally in late-game adjustments. That said - Nate's insistence on playing Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge waaaay too many minutes in the Clippers' game plus his refusal to double-team Zach Randolph really got me wondering about his stubbornness. Is he just too hard-headed some times?

I agree, though, that without the Hedo desperation three, and Blake's inexcusable bricks at the foul line, there'd be more discussion of Nate as Coach of the Year than there would be as a possible pink slip victim.

 

[Денг Гордон]

I posted this on another thread. The Spurs have one more year to get a ring and then they are to old. We have the players and the general manager to get us Pop and Parker. Both of our problems are solved. PG that can get to the hoop and a coach the can bring a good bunch of kids together to win multiple championships.

Popovich will find a way to rebuild around Parker and aged Ginobili and Duncan to kick the league's ass a few more times.

 

[Ghost Pepper]

San Antonio is a city of the same type of size to Portland, we have a young bunch of good kids that are coachable and have mega talent. We are the Spurs 7 years ago, if Oden pans out this year it would be a no brainer for Pop to come here! Wealthiest owner, GM pop knows and respects, and you don't pick up B Roys and LA's and Rudy's and Gregs in drafts..... Takes to long and then Parker is to old. I think Tim and Manu will either retire or leave if they don't make a championship this year.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I can't stand all the doomsday on this board. No wonder I only read the OT section.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Interesting thread.

I am not advocating that Nate be fired, and as I said in the OP, I don't believe it will happen this season. Still, the difference between Nate (15-10) and Mo (fired at 9-14) is perilously thin. A few bad bounces, and the Blazers could have a losing record also.

 

[Ed O]

Interesting thread.

I am not advocating that Nate be fired, and as I said in the OP, I don't believe it will happen this season. Still, the difference between Nate (15-10) and Mo (fired at 9-14) is perilously thin. A few bad bounces, and the Blazers could have a losing record also.

I agree that the records could be very, very close... but even setting aside our very difficult schedule, there's still a matter of expectations and the difference between Philly and Portland this year.

Philadelphia made the playoffs and added a max-level FA to their mix. I bet there are a lot of fans that were hoping to challenge for the championship this year, and HCA did not seem to be too far-fetched.

Portland, on the other hand, had a few fans that expected 82-0, but I think that the more realistic expectation level was playoffs, 6 or 7 seed as a goal.

The Blazers are overachieving, while the Sixers are not, based on those expectations.

Ed O.

 

[Masbee]

...Does Nate's seat get hot?

I think it would take the team falling out of contention for a playoff spot for Nate to be on the hotseat. Even then, that probably wouldn't be enough.

I think this season it would take a player's revolt or McMillian obviously losing the team. Right now, it seems we are so far from that situation, I can't see it happening.

A few losses, even a losing streak of a few games, is not going to do it this season.

It is about expectations. So far - even after the recent bad stretch - the team is above pre-season expectations.

Prior to the start of the season - a 12 - 12 record to start the insanely brutal start of the year would have been considered ok.

This is the 2nd youngest team in the NBA. We start 2 rookies, and 3 rookies are big contributors. Youth simply doesn't win in the NBA.

I really doubt KP or Allen is going to panic and throw McMillan under the bus for failing to beat the NBA elite teams at this stage - essentially - an accomplishment never before done. If all the Hall-of-Fame coaches before him have never done it, why fire Nate now, to replace him with even the best coach in the NBA? What are they going to do? Make history?

I am not a huge Nate fan. He wasn't at the top of my list when they brought him in. But, I did much prefer him to Cheeks, who I never liked. Overall, I feel Nate has done a good job, and see no reason to make any change right now.

 

[BalancedMan]

I can't stand all the doomsday on this board. No wonder I only read the OT section.

For real. And yet when I try to calm down all the "haters" (damn people are too sensitive) down, they try to light my ass up too.

 

[MARIS61]

No way Nate will ever get you guys to be a championship team. He just isn't that good of a coach. I think Avery Johnson is probably the perfect coach for the Blazers. Oden should be more receptive to playing low post than Dirk was. Avery's of Popovich tutelage, and apparently that's what Pritchard is going for.

I simply cannot stand Avery's voice. I could never listen to another Blazer's pregame or postgame.

 

[MrJayremmie]

LOL at Avery Johnson. Come on...

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

Pretty much.

Well then who do you think would do a better job at coaching the Portland players to a Championship than Pritchard?

 

[WillG]

D'Antoni would be perfect for this team if we could get him somehow. . .

 

[Денг Гордон]

LOL at Avery Johnson. Come on...

Yes, lets all point and laugh at the coach with the highest win percentage in NBA history.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Pretty small sample size. He inherited a good team as well... Most of the players lost respect for him and didn't want him to be there. They choked in the finals and then got eliminated in the 1st round after he got SEVERELY outcoached by Nelson.

I would NEVER take Johnson over McMillan.

 

[BatumKaboom]

D'Antoni would make us win. Too bad he is gone.

 

[Kaydow]

Pretty small sample size. He inherited a good team as well... Most of the players lost respect for him and didn't want him to be there. They choked in the finals and then got eliminated in the 1st round after he got SEVERELY outcoached by Nelson.

I would NEVER take Johnson over McMillan.

Really? You thought Nelly outcoaching Avery had a big impact in that series? I just remember that everything Baron Davis, S. Jackson, and J-Rich put up went it. And Dirk was like 20 for 60 in the 4 losses (or something like that) Actually, I do remember being surprised that Avery/Dallas didn't try and slow the pace of the game down (especially in GS) That just never happened.

 

[mook]

Interesting article on the subject:
http://www.slate.com/id/2204834/

back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the average tenure of today's NBA coaches—the amount of time each coach has spent in his current job—is just more than three years, about a year shorter than the current figure for the NFL and MLB. (The figure is even smaller if you account for Jerry Sloan's tenure in Utah, which dates back to the Reagan administration.)

So Nate is already overdue for firing.

According to a new study co-authored by David Berri, an economist who runs the sports blog Wages of Wins, most NBA coaches are similar to company managers. In the study, Berri and his colleagues sought to investigate whether Adam Smith's theory that workers make up the value of an organization—and that managers are nothing more than "principal clerks"—applies to the NBA. The economists looked at a group of 19 longtime NBA coaches that had helmed multiple teams, using a Bill Jamesian statistic called Win Score to evaluate how players performed under their tutelage. Only eight of the 19 coaches had any statistically discernible effect on team performance. Seven had a positive impact, with Phil Jackson topping the chart. Next on the list: Rick Adelman, Rudy Tomjanovich, Rick Carlisle, Don Nelson, Flip Saunders, and Gregg Popovich. The only coach who had a demonstrably negative impact on his players: the historically inept Tim Floyd. (For what it's worth, Berri didn't study Isiah Thomas. The NBA coaches study hasn't been published yet; a version of it will be included in the 2009 book Stumbling on Wins, by Berri and Martin Schmidt.)More interesting than the names on Berri's list is his finding that the influence of even the best coaches was statistically very small and was distinguishable only from the worst-rated coaches, like Floyd. Even title-winning, Hall of Fame coaches like Pat Riley and Larry Brown were shown to have almost no impact on their teams. Players leaving Riley-led teams actually got better (except, it seems, for Antoine Walker).

So it really doesn't matter anyway.

Berri's contention is that an NBA coach's record is determined almost entirely by the quality of his players. The claim makes sense: In comparison with football and baseball, NBA statistics vary little from year to year. The job of an NBA coach, then, may be less about coaxing better performances out of athletes than about getting their skills and personalities to fit together. By the time a player has moved through the basketball machine to the NBA, he's a relatively finished product. Despite Mike D'Antoni's best efforts, the plodding center Eddy Curry is doomed to be himself. "Think about it," says Berri. "What is a coach going to say that will get Eddy Curry to rebound?"