Boob: Is part of your thesis that players get you to the playoffs, but coaches put you over the top and get you to the finals?
Sort of. Let me put it another way. Talent will get you far, but only so far. Basketball is still a team sport and teams win titles. Sure, you need top individual talent to just advance in the playoffs, but once you get down to the final four teams (conference finalists), all the remaining teams have lots of individual talent. So, what determines who eventually wins the championship?
This is where coaching comes into play. You need a coach that has a system that takes advantage of the individual talent of your superstars, but also maximizes the contributions of your role players and bench. You also need everyone to buy into the system. I think Larry Brown got that out of those Pistons teams. Phil Jackson definitely got it out of the Bulls teams and later the Lakers. Remember, Michael Jordan did not reach the finals until his 7th season, Pippin's 4th. They had the talent prior to that first title in 1990-91, but they didn't have the right coach with the right system. Once they did, they were truly dominant - a true dynasty (intrupted only by Jordan's ridiculous baseball "career").
I think the best example I remember of a coach maximizing the talent of his roster was Chuck Daly with those Pistoms teams back in the late 80s/early 90s. Sure, he had some very good players, but if you compare those Pistons teams to the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls of that time period, there's no way the Pistons win two titles on raw talent alone. But Daly had a real knack for getting the most out of role players, with limited talent and huge deficiencies, on his roster. He managed to exploit the one and two dimensional talent of players like Vinny Johnson, James Edwards, John Salley, Dennis Rodman, etc. while hiding their weaknesses. He knew how to use his players to maximum advantage and what combinations worked well together.
I don't mean to bash Nate too much. After all, comparing most coaches to the all-time greats that have multiple rings, isn't really that fair of a comparison. But, I think he was too rigid in his offensive and defensive sets and his substitution patterns. I think that made the Blazers too predictable and easy to game plan for in the post season. Of course, in the end, he had clearly lost his team and had to go, but even before that, I don't think this team ever reached their full potential (in terms of post season success) under Nate.
BNM
