Better now than before the talent dump?

[e_blazer]

So, the Blazers were assumed by most sportswriters to be in full tank mode when they dumped Gerald Wallace and Marcus Camby for peanuts, but I'm thinking that the team may actually be better from a talent standpoint now than before the trade deadline. Getting Hickson off waivers after the deadline was a key in this, but I think the current roster and rotation would definitely beat the pre-trade roster.

Joel getting in shape and taking over the starting center position is pretty much a wash over what Camby brought. Moving Nic back to the starting SF spot brought more outside scoring punch, while Hickson taking Wallace's position in the small-ball unit actually is a significant upgrade since he has better size. Matthews going to the starting SG spot seems to have revitalized his game. Felton seems like a new player now that McMillan is gone. I don't know if that was due to a personality clash or if Ray is just finally getting in shape, but either way it's a significant improvement. Flynn seems to me to be an upgrade as the backup PG over what Nolan Smith was bringing, but Smith is still around if that proves not to be the case. I like the fact that Canales is letting a backup PG play instead of using Crawford at that spot. Letting Luke Babbitt play the backup SF spot seems to be working out well.

I guess we'll see tonight when they play the Jazz, but I think the Blazers are the best team of those on the outside looking in on the playoffs. I think the Rockets are going to lose a few games here with the next several on the road including the next two against the Bulls and Lakers. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Blazers back in contention for the last playoff spot by the end of the week. I get a few chuckles thinking how much that's going to piss some of you off.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm 100% with u on this. I actually think this team is better. I think it took a few practices to get the team on the same page. A couple more practices and this team could be really scary if we actually make the playoffs.

 

[Natebishop3]

The team fired Nate McMillan and they're playing better without him... how can this be?!? Nate McMillan is the greatest coach in the history of the world. This must all be a clever rouse.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

...not TOO scary!

 

[LameR]

Chemistry is underrated!

 

[Eastoff]

I think Hickson is playing like crazy!

 

[Nikolokolus]

They look like they aren't playing with the weight of the world on the shoulders anymore and chemistry looks better, but no, this team isn't "better" they're just playing harder.

 

[PapaG]

The team fired Nate McMillan and they're playing better without him... how can this be?!? Nate McMillan is the greatest coach in the history of the world. This must all be a clever rouse.

Hyperbole is fun.

 

[tlongII]

Uh, no.

 

[MARIS61]

Trying as hard as they can, this team is nowhere near as dangerous as the one that started the season. That team was expected to be a threat to go deep in the playoffs. The best this team can do is threaten to win a game against the Jazz.

Turns out they dumped the wrong people. It's become a yearly ritual.

 

[jlprk]

Allen's money gives us good depth. We need a coach who believes in exploiting that advantage. McMillan was the opposite kind of coach. These guys have been freed from prison and are showing they can win more with no coach at all than with McMillan.

 

[Tince]

The team fired Nate McMillan and they're playing better without him... how can this be?!? Nate McMillan is the greatest coach in the history of the world. This must all be a clever rouse.

They are 5-6 and ripping up the league!

 

[PapaG]

They are 5-6 and ripping up the league!

They've scored over 100 points two times in that span, and their Pace factor has dropped from 9th to 18th!

Fun team to watch! Great thread!! They've also played 4 road games and 7 home games over that great stretch!!! 5-6 is awesome with 7 home games during that time frame!

 

[Tince]

They've scored over 100 points two times in that span, and their Pace factor has dropped from 9th to 18th!

Fun team to watch! Great thread!! They've also played 4 road games and 7 home games over that great stretch!!! 5-6 is awesome with 7 home games during that time frame!

Yep, you nailed it; it's all about having a team that plays a fun style.

I think you'd find a lot of people who would rather see D'Antoni coach the Blazers over Popovich because that up and down tempo is so entertaining!

 

[jlprk]

Will you guys follow Nate to his new team? How rude to keep him only 7 years here, when all the other teams give coaches lifetime contracts.

 

[Tince]

Will you guys follow Nate to his new team? How rude to keep him only 7 years here, when all the other teams give coaches lifetime contracts.

Nah, I'll stick around here just to make sure you complain about the next coach, since it's always the coaches fault...

I'm sure Nate won't get another NBA job anyone because he's such a horrible coach, right?

 

[e_blazer]

They are 5-6 and ripping up the league!

Okay, okay. This thread was a massive mistake. I neglected to consider that Ray Felton has the ability to single-handedly grasp defeat from the gaping jaws of victory.

 

[jlprk]

Nah, I'll stick around here just to make sure you complain about the next coach, since it's always the coaches fault...

I'm sure Nate won't get another NBA job anyone because he's such a horrible coach, right?

If you want to see complaining about the new coach, see post #13 above. PapaG has written many such posts already and maybe you will next year. I expect to view next year's coach as a breath of fresh air.

McMillan's limitations will be exposed at his next job in a less worshipful city than Portland. I give him 3 years at the next stop. Then 2 years at the next. That's all, folks.

 

[LameR]

Trying as hard as they can, this team is nowhere near as dangerous as the one that started the season. That team was expected to be a threat to go deep in the playoffs. The best this team can do is threaten to win a game against the Jazz.

Turns out they dumped the wrong people. It's become a yearly ritual.

McMillan? Eh? Eh?

 

[maxiep]

Okay, okay. This thread was a massive mistake. I neglected to consider that Ray Felton has the ability to single-handedly grasp defeat from the gaping jaws of victory.

Ray got the "tanking" memo. His problem was he made it too obvious.

 

[Tince]

Ray got the "tanking" memo. His problem was he made it too obvious.

And he started in Decemeber

 

[Tince]

If you want to see complaining about the new coach, see post #13 above. PapaG has written many such posts already and maybe you will next year. I expect to view next year's coach as a breath of fresh air.

McMillan's limitations will be exposed at his next job in a less worshipful city than Portland. I give him 3 years at the next stop. Then 2 years at the next. That's all, folks.

You could be right about Nate's future. I expect he'll get out of the first round with the next team he coaches before he gets fired, but unless he takes his team to the finals, the people around here who I feel have been overly critical of him will say he's still been a failure. And I'm not even going to say that if Nate is successful somewhere else that it's proof he's a great coach, because there are so many factors that go into a team having success and I do not feel coaching is near the top of the list.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

You could be right about Nate's future. I expect he'll get out of the first round with the next team he coaches before he gets fired, but unless he takes his team to the finals, the people around here who I feel have been overly critical of him will say he's still been a failure. And I'm not even going to say that if Nate is successful somewhere else that it's proof he's a great coach, because there are so many factors that go into a team having success and I do not feel coaching is near the top of the list.

Nate better not take the Charlotte job then! In fact, what team will have an opening that has a core solid enough to get past the first round within the next three years?

Possible jobs for Nate =

Orlando (but Howard will leave or be traded this summer);
Sacramento
Clippers
Charlotte
Golden State, once Mark Jackson gets canned

I don't see Nate coaching the Knicks, Bulls, Celtics, San Antonio, LA Lakers, OKC or any other contender any time soon.

 

[Tince]

Nate better not take the Charlotte job then! In fact, what team will have an opening that has a core solid enough to get past the first round within the next three years?

Possible jobs for Nate =

Orlando (but Howard will leave or be traded this summer);
Sacramento
Clippers
Charlotte
Golden State, once Mark Jackson gets canned

I don't see Nate coaching the Knicks, Bulls, Celtics, San Antonio, LA Lakers, OKC or any other contender any time soon.

Outside of the Clippers, I agree that Nate probably wouldn't get any of those teams out of the first round. Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that those are any of the teams that would be hiring him and if they one of those teams did hire him, they would only keep him around for 3 years. Again, I don't think coaching tops of the list of criteria of reasons teams advance in the playoffs or not.

 

[PapaG]

Outside of the Clippers, I agree that Nate probably wouldn't get any of those teams out of the first round. Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that those are any of the teams that would be hiring him and if they one of those teams did hire him, they would only keep him around for 3 years. Again, I don't think coaching tops of the list of criteria of reasons teams advance in the playoffs or not.

Depending on what Miami does this, I could see Nate being asked to coach the Heat should they fall short again. He knows James/Wade/Bosh from Team USA, and he'd give those guys at least a bit of structure to go with their talent.

 

[BBert]

Nate McMillan, like Phil Jackson before him, will win a title only once he coaches a team with two in-their-prime future hall of famers, and a deep bench of role players. I wouldn't be surprised to see him land in La La Land with Kome or one of the other plum coaching cities. I can't describe how relieved I am that he's gone, and I still can't believe how long he was here.

 

[PapaG]

Nate McMillan, like Phil Jackson before him, will win a title only once he coaches a team with two in-their-prime future hall of famers, and a deep bench of role players. I wouldn't be surprised to see him land in La La Land with Kome or one of the other plum coaching cities. I can't describe how relieved I am that he's gone, and I still can't believe how long he was here.

That can be said about almost any coach.

It's the players, not the coach, at least in terms of contending for a title.

 

[Boob-No-More]

That can be said about almost any coach.

It's the players, not the coach, at least in terms of contending for a title.

Sure, you have to have the players to win, but coaching does make a difference. Otherwise, the team with the most talented roster would always win the title. Shaq and Kobe were together for three years in LA and couldn't even make the finals. Phil Jackson takes over and they immediately win three champsionships in a row. And, in terms of talent, the 1998-99 Lakers roster was better and deeper than the one that won the title the following year under Phil Jackson.

I also think the 2004 Pistons are another example of a coach helping elevate his team to a title. That Pistons team didn't have any superstars. Not a single player on the roster had a PER => 20 in either the regular season, or the post season. The players definitely bought into Larry Brown's team concept, on boith offense and especially defense and it made a huge difference. Ironically, the Lakers had a stacked roster with, four future Hall of Famers, that year, but due to outside distractions (Kobe's rape trial) and internal feuding (Shaq vs. Kobe, Kobe vs. Malone) Phil could not keep them focused and playing like a team. Even great coaches have their limits.

Dave Collins, a very good, but not great coach, could not win a title in Chicago, but Phil Jackson took over and they won 6 rings. Would the Spurs have as many titles without Greg Popovich? No way to know for sure, but I doubt it. Sure, they've had talent, but other teams had more at various times. Yet the Spurs have four titles.

Will the Heat, with their three superstars win the title this season? Who knows. They didn't win it last year, in spite of having two of the top players in the league and a third 7-time all-star with a career PER > 20.

Yes, you need talent to win, but having that talent does not guarantee a title. That's where coaching comes in.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Sure, you have to have the players to win, but coaching does make a difference. Otherwise, the team with the most talented roster would always win the title. Shaq and Kobe were together for three years in LA and couldn't even make the finals. Phil Jackson takes over and they immediately win three champsionships in a row. And, in terms of talent, the 1998-99 Lakers roster was better and deeper than the one that won the title the following year under Phil Jackson.

I also think the 2004 Pistons are another example of a coach helping elevate his team to a title. That Pistons team didn't have any superstars. Not a single player on the roster had a PER => 20 in either the regular season, or the post season. The players definitely bought into Larry Brown's team concept, on boith offense and especially defense and it made a huge difference. Ironically, the Lakers had a stacked roster with, four future Hall of Famers, that year, but due to outside distractions (Kobe's rape trial) and internal feuding (Shaq vs. Kobe, Kobe vs. Malone) Phil could not keep them focused and playing like a team. Even great coaches have their limits.

Dave Collins, a very good, but not great coach, could not win a title in Chicago, but Phil Jackson took over and they won 6 rings. Would the Spurs have as many titles without Greg Popovich? No way to know for sure, but I doubt it. Sure, they've had talent, but other teams had more at various times. Yet the Spurs have four titles.

Will the Heat, with their three superstars win the title this season? Who knows. They didn't win it last year, in spite of having two of the top players in the league and a third 7-time all-star with a career PER > 20.

Yes, you need talent to win, but having that talent does not guarantee a title. That's where coaching comes in.

BNM

Yet after the 2004 Pistons, Larry Brown got fired from his next two jobs. Did he become a terrible coach, or did he not have the players to put himself in the mix for a title? Hey, if you overrate coaching, that's OK with me. Plus, the Pistons had two straight 50-win seasons prior to Brown, went to two Finals with Brown, but then continued to be competitive under Flip Saunders, making three more conference finals.

Also, I assume you meant Doug Collins, and not from Cincinnati Red/Toronto Blue Jay great Dave Collins.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Yet after the 2004 Pistons, Larry Brown got fired from his next two jobs. Did he become a terrible coach, or did he not have the players to put himself in the mix for a title? Hey, if you overrate coaching, that's OK with me. Plus, the Pistons had two straight 50-win seasons prior to Brown, went to two Finals with Brown, but then continued to be competitive under Flip Saunders, making three more conference finals.

Point being, the Pistons never even made the finals under Rick Carlisle or Flip Saunders. Brown took them there twice, winning once. So, doesn't that indicate that coaching, at least as far as winning titles (the ultimate goal), makes a difference. If it doesn't, why didn't Carlisle (a very good coach), or Saunders, win any titles in Detroit.

As far as Brown getting fired from his next two jobs, that Knicks situation was a total cluster fuck. I've never seen any organization that messed up in my life. Everything from the unbalanced roster full of grossly overpaid has beens and never wases, to the ownership and the undercutting GM who was being charged with sexual harassment. Brown was LUCKY to get fired from that mess. I still don't know why Charlotte fired him. He took them to the post season the one, and only time, in franchise hostory. He seems to have been a victim of his own success. Perhaps after making the playoffs the expectaions of ownership became unrealistic. Who knows, but that franchise isn't exactly a model of smart ownership. In any case, Brown also has success with the Clippers, Pacer and 76ers before the Pistons. All of those teams improved greatly under him and then fell off rapidly after he left.

That said, a hard driving coach like Larry Brown definitely has a finite shelf life. He gets players to buy in, play hard and put the team first, but eventually, he starts to drive his players crazy. How long that takes varies, but you can usually get about 3 seasons, give or take, of overachieving, inspired team play from a Larry Brown coached team before either he's had enough, or his players have. But, he definitely has an impact on how his teams perform.

BNM