If we had POP as our coach we would be in what place?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
ODENISGOD said:
I say 2nd in the west. Nate is a tool!!!!
Click to expand...

I think he'll be our next head coach.

If Portland doesn't win a playoff series by next season we'll be looking for a new head coach.

Perfect timing.

(cue abuse)
 
Man, I would trade pus our 1st round pick and Freeland for the rights to Pop. He would make us a title contender.
 
AmirIcon said:
Man, I would trade pus our 1st round pick and Freeland for the rights to Pop. He would make us a title contender.
Click to expand...

I'm the furthest thing from a doom monger and I think what Nate has done is more than impressive...

But a week or so into this season I bet a friend of mine $40 that we'd never win a playoff series with NM as our head coach.

Him my brother everyone in the room was crushing me, telling me I was giving away money...

I followed that up with the prediction that POP would be our next head coach... the entire room came down on me

:grin:

I do hope I'm wrong though... :sigh:

I want Nate to lead this team to great things....
 
Nate is just....average....imo.

I see coaches like Pop, Sloan, and Adelman run complex offensive and defensive schemes, and wonder why we can't do something similar. Are our players just dumb, or is Nate not doing a good job of teaching them?

Sometimes I see Nate mentioned with the likes of these coaches and it just seems ridiculous.
 
Rozza5 said:
I'm the furthest thing from a doom monger and I think what Nate has done is more than impressive...

But a week or so into this season I bet a friend of mine $40 that we'd never win a playoff series with NM as our head coach.

Him my brother everyone in the room was crushing me, telling me I was giving away money...

I followed that up with the prediction that POP would be our next head coach... the entire room came down on me

:grin:

I do hope I'm wrong though... :sigh:

I want Nate to lead this team to great things....
Click to expand...


I think Nate will get us to the playoffs but not so much from his coaching, but more from Pritchard's acquisitions. Pop is a Spur for life imo, he ain't going anywhere. Adelman is a realistic guy to go after, hopefully things go terribly wrong in Houston. If Pritchard offers enough money to a guy like Phil Jax or Pop, maybe he can pull them away from their domains, I doubt it though.
 
He would be the perfect coach for the blazers, IMO. Give him a bunch of young guys with 0 ego, and he will mold them into title contenders.
 
B-Roy said:
Nate is just....average....imo.

I see coaches like Pop, Sloan, and Adelman run complex offensive and defensive schemes, and wonder why we can't do something similar. Are our players just dumb, or is Nate not doing a good job of teaching them?

Sometimes I see Nate mentioned with the likes of these coaches and it just seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nate is getting by because of our players, not because of his coaching imo. Everyone likes to point at our record but look at the players we have, we have basically the most talented group of prospects in the league right now, though inexperienced. The record goes to Pritchard, not Nate.
 
I love the idea of Pop. and we would be title contenders with him. My opinion the whole time was Nate was brought in to develop the youth, once they were that is when a proven coach was going to be brought in. I know PA will pay through the roof for a guy like Pop or Jackson.
 
AmirIcon said:
Nate is getting by because of our players, not because of his coaching imo.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened in Seattle. He got the credit for the achievements of Ray Allen and a young Rashard Lewis.

The bottom line is that he's a coach with a sub .500 career winning percentage. I'm not impressed.
 
I read a study on wagesofwins.com that said that no coach, aside from Phil Jackson, was really worth any wins or losses in the long run. I agree. McMillan is hamstrung by our lack of experience. He's not bad coach (as evidenced by our solid winning percentage with one of, if not THE, youngest playing rotation in the league.) The fact that we're actually talking about home court advantage at this point in the season is pretty amazing. Frankly, I think he's done a good to very good job this season and anybody who complains is not really being realistic.
 
AmirIcon said:
Nate is getting by because of our players, not because of his coaching imo. Everyone likes to point at our record but look at the players we have, we have basically the most talented group of prospects in the league right now, though inexperienced. The record goes to Pritchard, not Nate.
Click to expand...

Oh, but Popovich isn't getting by on the skills of Duncan, Ginobili and Parker? Whatever you say.

You said it yourself...we have PROSPECTS...not players (aside from Aldridge and Roy). McMillan has done a good job so far in getting us to this point.
 
Right, Nate is a moron. That's why he was picked to coach the Olympic team by Jerry Colangelo and Coach K.

I must say, for a bunch of guys who know a lot about basketball, the coaching IQ here is very low.
 
Okay so all of our players are dumb and lazy or Nate can't coach D? What do you think it is? Coach K would go crazy if even one of his least talented teams EVER played defense the way our guys do nightly. That's a fact! Could you imagine a Duke team allowing a PG to drive the basket uncontested 15 times a game on them? HA!!!!

Nate has no offense either. What is it? Roy one on another team and if he gets to tied up he prays Travis, Rudy or Blake are in some kind of position to huck up a shot? Hardly an offensive set!

I wont even get into the fact that Nate can't figure out when to keep hot players playing and when to pull a player that is being torched! Want to talk about his substitutions? No I don't think so!

Maybe he could just get them to shoot free throws in practice, is that asking to much? WOW!
 
Last edited:
If we had Pop we would be about 5th in the West...
 
Stevenson said:
Right, Nate is a moron. That's why he was picked to coach the Olympic team by Jerry Colangelo and Coach K.

I must say, for a bunch of guys who know a lot about basketball, the coaching IQ here is very low.
Click to expand...
You are so spot on with the post. I'm shocked at how little people seem to know when it comes to coaching. I suppose if you've never coached at the high school or college level, it might seems easier than it really is...
 
Yeah telling your players to box out so non athletic guys like Bonner don't get easy second chance points seems to escape the greatest coaching minds!
 
Yardape said:
Yeah telling your players to box out so non athletic guys like Bonner don't get easy second chance points seems to escape the greatest coaching minds!
Click to expand...
I think I heard Nate during a timeout specifically tell his players to not block out, make bad passes, and miss the open jumpers. Apparently you heard the same thing...
 
I distinctly remember last night that after one of the timeouts Harlow talked about what Nate said in the timeout. He said to attack the paint and ratchet up the weak side defense. The Blazers did neither, and got their teeth kicked in. While I do question some of his rotations, I do think he is telling the team the right things.
 
Cake said:
I read a study on wagesofwins.com that said that no coach, aside from Phil Jackson, was really worth any wins or losses in the long run. I agree.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have no idea how the study was conducted, but off the top of my head, it seems that Larry Brown has worked some pretty significant changes in records without significant changes in players.
 
hasoos said:
I distinctly remember last night that after one of the timeouts Harlow talked about what Nate said in the timeout. He said to attack the paint and ratchet up the weak side defense. The Blazers did neither, and got their teeth kicked in. While I do question some of his rotations, I do think he is telling the team the right things.
Click to expand...

HA HA!

Last night when we cut the lead to I believe it was 6 and we called a timeout. I text a couple friends "If we come out of this time out and shoot a 21 foot jump shot I'm going to piss all over my computer"

Sure enough Iso up top a bunch of 6 inch passes and Outlaw launches.... Of course he made it this time :grin:

Watch when we come out of time outs. They're useless.

I think Nate is a very good coach. But, I do see his team playing ZERO defense for him and game after game giving up 29 points in the first quarter on 61% shooting.

I'm not advocating firing him at all... I just don't think he's the long term answer.

Yes he may be telling these players the correct things... But if he can't get through to them... It's not the 12 players that will be moving on.
 
hasoos said:
I distinctly remember last night that after one of the timeouts Harlow talked about what Nate said in the timeout. He said to attack the paint and ratchet up the weak side defense. The Blazers did neither, and got their teeth kicked in. While I do question some of his rotations, I do think he is telling the team the right things.
Click to expand...

It's just one of the drawbacks of having a team mostly devoid of veterans or long experience playing together. I believe this is one of the reasons James Jones was so effective last year; he wasn't some amazing talent or a lockdown man-to-man defender, but he talked to people on defense and directed traffic to a certain extent, showing people what to do which is usually a lot more effective as a teaching tool than telling people what to do -- especially in a complex physical exercise like coordinated team defense.
 
Pop relies heavily on vets, and is quite slow at developing talent, so I'd say lottery for 2 more years.

Bayless, for example, would not have even played yet.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Interesting. I have no idea how the study was conducted, but off the top of my head, it seems that Larry Brown has worked some pretty significant changes in records without significant changes in players.
Click to expand...

I agree. Larry Brown, Popovich, and Jackson all know how to get the most out of their teams, and control their teams.

Look at what has happened with Detroit since Brown left. The downward spiral continues.

Phil Jackson may have architected one of the biggest defensive adjustments to impact the game when he put Scottie Pippen on John Stockton. Later to be copied when Bruce Bowen guarded Steve Nash in multiple series later, effecting the outcome of each one.

I think that While Brown, is good with teams that are on the edge of being elite, Phil Jackson and Popovich both are stupendous in developing young talent, and giving them a winners mindset.
 
Sorry, Maris...Parker (as a 28th pick who didn't exactly blow away Popovich in the beginning) started 72 of the 77 games he played his rookie year.

His second year, they won the championship.
 
Let's see... maybe, just maybe good defense is something that veteran teams are better at? Y'know - just maybe? Popovich is extremely conservative - he's built a system over YEARS, with Duncan at the core, slowly rebuilding from the Robinson-Duncan-Elliot-Avery Johnson teams to the Duncan-Manu-Parker team, and just plugging in spare parts along the way. I'm almost certain he would be doing exactly what McMillan is doing. Except, as GM, he probably would've traded for a few vets out of sheer frustration.

Parker is not a good counterexample. For one thing, he's Tony Fucking Parker. The only reason this guy isn't held up there with Chris Paul is because he's a consummate team player (the same reason Ginobili and Duncan are undervalued). For another, he's French. Euro players expect their coaches to treat them like shit and don't have a sense of entitlement. Look at what's happening to Brandon Jennings right now. If he was on some campus over here he'd be God Allmighty. And as Batum has shown us, they tend to come in with more complete games. Finally, he was a tiny part of the big picture. It's okay to start a rookie when you have hall-of-fame players around him (remember Michael Finley in Phoenix, for example). And he still got yanked regularly.

I like Popovich. But the time to wish we had had him was the Sheed-Sabas-Pippen-Smith team. I was wearing my Sabonis T-Shirt ("He's not myVydas, he's not YourVydas...") down the gym the other day and somebody commented, and I got to listing the players on that team (and I even forgot Detlef Schrempf). It was some RIDICULOUS talent. And looking at how shitty Dunleavy is now, I tend to think that the biggest mistake Whitsitt made (even more than the Alvin Williams for Mighty Mouse or the Kemp trades) was not getting a better coach for that team. Imagine them with Larry Brown or Popovich. Or even maybe Phil Jackson. Wasn't he still unemployed when we got Pippen?

Popovich would go insane coaching a team this young. It's almost certainly driving McMillan insane. I really wish they'd bring in the odd Cassell or Andre Miller or Shane Battier, just to help out. It's no wonder Nate started Udoka and then James Jones when he had them. But then Pritchard keeps letting them get away, forcing Nate (whether by design or not) to get ever younger.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Let's see... maybe, just maybe good defense is something that veteran teams are better at? Y'know - just maybe? Popovich is extremely conservative - he's built a system over YEARS, with Duncan at the core, slowly rebuilding from the Robinson-Duncan-Elliot-Avery Johnson teams to the Duncan-Manu-Parker team, and just plugging in spare parts along the way. I'm almost certain he would be doing exactly what McMillan is doing. Except, as GM, he probably would've traded for a few vets out of sheer frustration.

Parker is not a good counterexample. For one thing, he's Tony Fucking Parker. The only reason this guy isn't held up there with Chris Paul is because he's a consummate team player (the same reason Ginobili and Duncan are undervalued). For another, he's French. Euro players expect their coaches to treat them like shit and don't have a sense of entitlement. Look at what's happening to Brandon Jennings right now. If he was on some campus over here he'd be God Allmighty. And as Batum has shown us, they tend to come in with more complete games. Finally, he was a tiny part of the big picture. It's okay to start a rookie when you have hall-of-fame players around him (remember Michael Finley in Phoenix, for example). And he still got yanked regularly.

I like Popovich. But the time to wish we had had him was the Sheed-Sabas-Pippen-Smith team. I was wearing my Sabonis T-Shirt ("He's not myVydas, he's not YourVydas...") down the gym the other day and somebody commented, and I got to listing the players on that team (and I even forgot Detlef Schrempf). It was some RIDICULOUS talent. And looking at how shitty Dunleavy is now, I tend to think that the biggest mistake Whitsitt made (even more than the Alvin Williams for Mighty Mouse or the Kemp trades) was not getting a better coach for that team. Imagine them with Larry Brown or Popovich. Or even maybe Phil Jackson. Wasn't he still unemployed when we got Pippen?

Popovich would go insane coaching a team this young. It's almost certainly driving McMillan insane. I really wish they'd bring in the odd Cassell or Andre Miller or Shane Battier, just to help out. It's no wonder Nate started Udoka and then James Jones when he had them. But then Pritchard keeps letting them get away, forcing Nate (whether by design or not) to get ever younger.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this a little bit ... However, I'm not sure if there's a philosophical divide between Nate and KP.

Whatever the case, I wouldn't cry if the team rounds out their deep bench next year with older vets who don't have to so much come in and extend a lead, but rather come in and protect it (or at the very least don't worsen a deficit).
 
Nikolokolus said:
I tend to agree with this a little bit ... However, I'm not sure if there's a philosophical divide between Nate and KP.

Whatever the case, I wouldn't cry if the team rounds out their deep bench next year with older vets who don't have to so much come in and extend a lead, but rather come in and protect it (or at the very least don't worsen a deficit).
Click to expand...

Somewhat, but there have been plenty of young teams good at defense over the years. The Sonics with GP and Nate come to mind. They were good defensivly by their 3rd year in the league. IMO it all comes down to the level of talent you have out on the floor, and their basketball IQ level. Portland has so many players which I consider poor defenders, it is no wonder they have problems. There are just some skills which some players will never pick up.

This team is too happy go lucky. Players need to get pissed off and bring some fire into the lineup. I think that is a problem with having so many players that are "friends" on the team. They are not hard enough on each other. There is no vocal leadership on the floor. The D doesn't communicate, or if it does, players are not paying attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top