Is Terry Porter our next coach?

[RoyIsClutch07]

Here is another future prospect I'm intrigued by.

Bill Laimbeer

 

[Idog1976]

Because I think you are leaving a big portion of his game untapped by not developing him not only on the defensive end but offensive end.

I would be surprised if I was the only one who felt that way. He has a lot more to give. Atleast, I think so. And by not tapping into his game on the offensive end. You are not only do yourself a disservice. But you are doing a disservice to him.

My greatest fear is that McMillan or our local media alienates Greg Oden and he leaves in 2 years. Short of something happening to my wife or son this is my biggest fear.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, you can not really do this experiment in real life with the ability to go back to the old coach if the replacement one sucks - so that takes it out of "logic" in real-world situations, as far as I am concerned.

It takes the "science" out of it, but I don't think anyone suggested we could study this scientifically. One can still employ logic when speaking conceptually/theoretically.

What you can do - is look at other variables and look at identical teams in history. I believe BEdge ran a statistical analysis last year about success based on age - and this team is an anomaly. It is an awful lot better than any other young teams in the NBA's history.

Identical teams? There have been other teams in NBA history with Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden, Rudy Fernandez, etc? Clearly not. You can look at other "young teams" but that introduces a new question: is this team unique (in terms of record versus team age) due to unique coaching or unique talent? It's entirely possible that no other franchise has assembled this much good, young talent. In fact, that would be my default assumption, though I'm open to the possibility that it's so good due to the coaching of McMillan and his staff. That isn't clear to me, though.

Add the fact that Nate, as a coach, had a lot more success than one would expect from a team of misfits like what he had in Seattle - A team with Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis and a whole lot of garbage winning 52 games and making it to the 2nd round of the playoffs

That is certainly a point in his favour, but also such a small sample that it's hard to know the reason for the success. There have been many teams that had things click for them for one season.

My own position on this is that the vast majority of NBA coaches have very little effect on their teams' success. There are a very few difference-makers, mostly at the top end...making a positive difference. There are the rare negative difference-makers, but they likely get weeded out so quickly that it's probably unusual that one has a coaching job any given season. I think Phil Jackson, for example, is one of the unique coaches that is a difference-maker in a good way. I think PJ Carlisimo is one of the even rarer coaches that is a difference-maker in a bad way. I think Nate McMillan is in that "vast majority" that don't make an appreciable difference.

To be clear, I'm not saying that you can plug anyone off the street in as NBA coach and see no difference. My comments about the vast majority of coaches having no major effect applies to the NBA coaching population which is already a picked population of coaches who have shown the leadership and basketball knowledge to join that exclusive group. Between most of them, I don't think there's a lot of difference.

So, I'm certainly not agitating to get rid of McMillan. If a difference-making coach comes along (I have non-authoritative opinions on who are difference-makers), then sure...replace McMillan. Otherwise, I may occasionally disagree with how McMillan uses personnel, but I think the record and playoff success is largely dictated by the talent level.

 

[Idog1976]

Here is another future prospect I'm intrigued by.

Bill Laimbeer

LOL wow I'm not sure how I'd react to that hire. Anyone who witnessed the Drexler years might not go for that even if he would be a godlike coach. The natives would become restless me thinks...

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

My greatest fear is that McMillan or our local media alienates Greg Oden and he leaves in 2 years. Short of something happening to my wife or son this is my biggest fear.

I've thought about that too. That is a concern.

But if you looked at him the other night. He was fine with what he did.

 

[Idog1976]

It takes the "science" out of it, but I don't think anyone suggested we could study this scientifically. One can still employ logic when speaking conceptually/theoretically.



Identical teams? There have been other teams in NBA history with Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden, Rudy Fernandez, etc? Clearly not. You can look at other "young teams" but that introduces a new question: is this team unique (in terms of record versus team age) due to unique coaching or unique talent? It's entirely possible that no other franchise has assembled this much good, young talent. In fact, that would be my default assumption, though I'm open to the possibility that it's so good due to the coaching of McMillan and his staff. That isn't clear to me, though.



That is certainly a point in his favour, but also such a small sample that it's hard to know the reason for the success. There have been many teams that had things click for them for one season.

My own position on this is that the vast majority of NBA coaches have very little effect on their teams' success. There are a very few difference-makers, mostly at the top end...making a positive difference. There are the rare negative difference-makers, but they likely get weeded out so quickly that it's probably unusual that one has a coaching job any given season. I think Phil Jackson, for example, is one of the unique coaches that is a difference-maker in a good way. I think PJ Carlisimo is one of the even rarer coaches that is a difference-maker in a bad way. I think Nate McMillan is in that "vast majority" that don't make an appreciable difference.

To be clear, I'm not saying that you can plug anyone off the street in as NBA coach and see no difference. My comments about the vast majority of coaches having no major effect applies to the NBA coaching population which is already a picked population of coaches who have shown the leadership and basketball knowledge to join that exclusive group. Between most of them, I don't think there's a lot of difference.

So, I'm certainly not agitating to get rid of McMillan. If a difference-making coach comes along (I have non-authoritative opinions on who I consider difference-makers), then sure...replace McMillan. Otherwise, I may occasionally disagree with how McMillan uses personnel, but I think the record and playoff success is largely dictated by the talent level.

My final say about potential coaches is this:

#1 Poppovich
#2 Larry Brown
#3 Stan Van Gundy
#4 Jeff Van Gundy

You know what's crazy? There are only three active coaches that have rings if I'm not mistaken. Poppovich, Brown and Jackson. They account for 15 rings between them!

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

My final say about potential coaches is this:

#1 Poppovich
#2 Larry Brown
#3 Stan Van Gundy
#4 Jeff Van Gundy

You know what's crazy? There are only three active coaches that have rings if I'm not mistaken. Poppovich, Brown and Jackson. They account for 15 rings between them!

I think your first two are players coaches. The last two will find themselves in trouble with your players.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Monty Williams as coach and TP added to the staff makes a lot of sense. Both were involved in the SA organization, as well as KP.



As for JVG, I have long been a supporter of either of the VG's. The nice thing about Stan, is he brings Ewing wih him.

 

[BalancedMan]

As much as I'm underwhelmed with Nate, I think Porter would be even worse. At least Nate has achieved some level of success in making it to the second round of the playoffs with the Sonics. What has Porter ever done as a head coach. He wasn't good in Milwaukee and he was outright horrible in Phoenix. In his last stint he attempted to utilize a style of play that was not at all suited for his player's talent. A good coach takes the players he has and uses them in the ways to make them MOST effective. Wayne Winston essentially used this argument to say that Rick Carlsile is perhaps the best coach in the league at doing this, and thus the Mavericks hired him.

I don't know anything about Monty so I really can't comment, but I am certainly not a fan of bringing in Porter as a head coach. As an assistant I'd have no problem, but I have nothing in his coaching body of work to give me confidence that we would progress in development...I actually suspect we would recede.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

JVG FTW

 

[RR7]

It's funny to see the support for Stan, and then read the Magic forums at different portions last season.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I think your first two are players coaches. The last two will find themselves in trouble with your players.

You think Larry Brown is a players' coach!? Wow.

Larry Brown is really the only coach I would want over Nate that is likely to be available.
I'm not over impressed with either Van Gundy. Adelman has done a (far) better job with Houston than JVG. Stan is pretty good, but he's definitely going to wear on his players quickly. With Larry Brown, it's more the reverse. But he is one of the best three living NBA coaches. And is there another coach who's won an NBA title AND an NCAA title? I don't think so.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

You think Larry Brown is a players' coach!? Wow.

Larry Brown is really the only coach I would want over Nate that is likely to be available.
I'm not over impressed with either Van Gundy. Adelman has done a (far) better job with Houston than JVG. Stan is pretty good, but he's definitely going to wear on his players quickly. With Larry Brown, it's more the reverse. But he is one of the best three living NBA coaches. And is there another coach who's won an NBA title AND an NCAA title? I don't think so.

Well, Sheed liked him and played hard for him. It could have something to do with his NC connection. But I don't think that's entirely the reason for it.

Did he do the same for Dunleavy?

 

[andalusian]

Shaq, Kobe, Duncan...none of these guys won it all in college. Just saying.

Yes, and they all got excellent coaching. Only Duncan won a ring within 3 years in the league, but he did get to play next to a hall-of-fame center at the time.

This team does not have anything like that. They pretty much grow as a group, at least the core. We have some role players that are veterans - but the comparison is not the point I am getting at.

 

[andalusian]

Identical teams? There have been other teams in NBA history with Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden, Rudy Fernandez, etc? Clearly not.

Last year's Greg Oden was not that much to put in the positive side, Rudy and Batum were rooks - we had to clearly above average (in production, not efficiency) young players on the team in Roy and LMA. They still won a lot. You do not think I can find young teams with two very good young players and a bunch of young role-players around them? Heck, OKC last year had a very good young player in Durant, a good Westbrook and a bunch of role players. This year, in theory, they should have these two above average in production young players in Durant, Westbrook with a bunch of high-pick rooks and other nice young role players with some vets sprinkled around them. Think they will win 54 games this year?

You can look at other "young teams" but that introduces a new question: is this team unique (in terms of record versus team age) due to unique coaching or unique talent? It's entirely possible that no other franchise has assembled this much good, young talent.

Based on the fact that we really had only 2 good players with clear above average production - I find this argument very unlikely. the 2001-2002 LAC - 3rd year for Brand, had a young healthy Darius Miles and a young Q-Rich, A young Magette, a young Lamar Odom and a bunch of other young players. Didn't this team had as much good young talent? Brand was out-worldly that year as well, with a PER of 23.6 - so they had their almost super-star just like we had in Roy.

They won 40 games.

In fact, that would be my default assumption, though I'm open to the possibility that it's so good due to the coaching of McMillan and his staff. That isn't clear to me, though.

This team is an anomaly - and given that we had a gimpy Oden, Rudy's body did not handle the entire year, Batum was a rook, Webster was out, Bayless did not play - we really did not have that much productive talent on the court. It was Roy, LMA + role players. Very talented role players, some of them - but - not very productive young players. Just efficient in spurts and wildly inconsistent.

So, I'm certainly not agitating to get rid of McMillan. If a difference-making coach comes along (I have non-authoritative opinions on who are difference-makers), then sure...replace McMillan. Otherwise, I may occasionally disagree with how McMillan uses personnel, but I think the record and playoff success is largely dictated by the talent level.

So, what is your list of these fantastic coaches? (Sorry if you already posted it and I missed it).

 

[oldmangrouch]

Here is another future prospect I'm intrigued by.

Bill Laimbeer

That is the one thing that might make me abandon the team. That cheating, whining dirtbag deserves to be a pariah.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

That is the one thing that might make me abandon the team. That cheating, whining dirtbag deserves to be a pariah.

If you're winning championships, what does it matter?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Before he went into management Larry Bird was a very good coach.

Word is he's leaving Indiana after this season.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

Before he went into management Larry Bird was a very good coach.

Word is he's leaving Indiana after this season.

Was he a good coach or was that Carlisle?

 

[anonymous gambler]

Before he went into management Larry Bird was a very good coach.

Word is he's leaving Indiana after this season.

I'd double down on this rec. Larry Bird was an excellent coach- I'd want him to replace Nate if things go south.

Also- Flip Saunders, Van Gundy. (i'm assuming Sloan, Riley, etc are unreachable.

 

[Minstrel]

Last year's Greg Oden was not that much to put in the positive side, Rudy and Batum were rooks

Oden put up an 18 PER with good defense. Even with his missed time, he was clearly a significant asset. Batum, Rudy, Przybilla, Outlaw, Blake were all role-players, but good ones.

we had to clearly above average (in production, not efficiency) young players on the team in Roy and LMA. They still won a lot. You do not think I can find young teams with two very good young players and a bunch of young role-players around them?

Identical ones? No, I don't. Durant wasn't as good as Roy, Westbrook wasn't as good as Aldridge and the Thunder's role-players weren't nearly as good as Portland's, collectively. Using words like "identical" and then naming a team that was pretty hugely different when you get past the so-vague-it's-meaningless category of "two good players and then a bunch of role-players" isn't very compelling

Think they will win 54 games this year?

Nope, for the reason given above: significantly less talent. Do you think that if they simply had Nate McMillan as coach now, they'd win 54 games this year?

Based on the fact that we really had only 2 good players with clear above average production - I find this argument very unlikely. the 2001-2002 LAC - 3rd year for Brand, had a young healthy Darius Miles and a young Q-Rich, A young Magette, a young Lamar Odom and a bunch of other young players. Didn't this team had as much good young talent?

No, none of those players were as good as Roy, to start with. Having a true superstar makes a massive difference. Brand was a star, but not a superstar. Even if you cast Brand in the "Roy role," you end up with the same analysis as with the Thunder example...their best player wasn't as good as Roy, their second-best player (Odom) wasn't as good as Aldridge and Miles, Richardson and Maggette weren't as good a supporting cast as Oden, Fernandez, Batum and Przybilla.

(And in case you think it is odd that I am listing players like Przybilla and Blake in this post, they were part of the team and factored into the team age. We're not just counting the young players, we're considering all the players on a young team.)

Two excellent players and a group of good to very good role-players is pretty much the blueprint for a championship team, so your dismissal of the talent level on those grounds is off-base, IMO. It's incredibly rare that a franchise essentially gets all the elements of a championship team together where so many of them (all of them, I'd say, except Przybilla and maybe Blake) are young. So, I think the talent level is unprecedented for the age.

So, what is your list of these fantastic coaches? (Sorry if you already posted it and I missed it).

I didn't provide it. I'd go with Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman and Larry Brown. Pat Riley was, but he hasn't seriously coached in so long, I don't know if he still is...and, in any case, I doubt he has any inclination to anymore.

The rest of the coaches I'd consider a lateral move from McMillan. Which is why there's no "Fire Nate!" / "Replace Nate!" from me. Unless Portland can get one of a very few coaches, I don't think Portland can significantly upgrade at coach. There's no point upsetting whatever chemistry and stability the team has attained, by firing the coaching staff, unless you can get a game-changer.

 

[Tince]

Whoever our next coach is, will get ripped a new one on a regular basis.

 

[andalusian]

Nope, for the reason given above: significantly less talent. Do you think that if they simply had Nate McMillan as coach now, they'd win 54 games this year?

I think that if Nate was their coach since Durant/Green's first year - they would have won a lot more than what they did the first two years - and would win a lot more this year than what they are going to. It's impossible to tell what this year's team would look like if Nate was their coach for all these 3 years - because I suspect that Nate would have given a lot of input to their GM - so that team might look different than what they look now.

No, none of those players were as good as Roy, to start with. Having a true superstar makes a massive difference. Brand was a star, but not a superstar. Even if you cast Brand in the "Roy role," you end up with the same analysis as with the Thunder example...their best player wasn't as good as Roy, their second-best player (Odom) wasn't as good as Aldridge and Miles, Richardson and Maggette weren't as good a supporting cast as Oden, Fernandez, Batum and Przybilla.

Chicken and egg. Were they not as good because their coaching was not as good - or because their talent was not as good. Their talent was, imho, just as good. Their coach never developed it as much. Odom's first 2 years were just as good as LMA's. He never progressed when playing next to Brand, as LMA did in his 3rd year? Why? Maybe coaching?

Two excellent players and a group of good to very good role-players is pretty much the blueprint for a championship team, so your dismissal of the talent level on those grounds is off-base, IMO. It's incredibly rare that a franchise essentially gets all the elements of a championship team together where so many of them (all of them, I'd say, except Przybilla and maybe Blake) are young. So, I think the talent level is unprecedented for the age.

How about Kobe, Shaq, Fisher, Fox, Eddie Jones, Derek Harper and Horry. That team, in 1998-99, the short season, was on pace for 50 wins - and had a much more dominant player than Roy in Shaq, a player as good as LMA was last year in Kobe and a bunch of veterans much better than what we had last year.

Two excellent players and a group of good to very good role-players is a blueprint for a championship team. The fact that this team was 5th in the league in win total when their best players are so young, and most of their role-players were as well is just uncommon - and I think that a good bit of that is coaching.

I didn't provide it. I'd go with Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman and Larry Brown. Pat Riley was, but he hasn't seriously coached in so long, I don't know if he still is...and, in any case, I doubt he has any inclination to anymore.

The rest of the coaches I'd consider a lateral move from McMillan. Which is why there's no "Fire Nate!" / "Replace Nate!" from me. Unless Portland can get one of a very few coaches, I don't think Portland can significantly upgrade at coach. There's no point upsetting whatever chemistry and stability the team has attained, by firing the coaching staff, unless you can get a game-changer.

Larry Brown - yuck. Talk about a slap in the fact for anything to do with culture. How quick will have whine to trade half the roster and look for another team to coach?

I can see PJ and Pop as no questions asked - better. Rick Adelman - maybe, not sure about him. He had some fantastically great talented teams in his history and yet never won a ring. I am not certain he is a clear upgrade over Nate at this point.

Of all other active coaches - maybe Stan-Van as an upgrade. Who else is a clear upgrade? I just don't see anything obvious.

 

[Minstrel]

Chicken and egg. Were they not as good because their coaching was not as good - or because their talent was not as good.

Granted. I made the same point earlier, that it's tricky to separate "talent" from "coaching" because, at least notionally, the coaching affects the talent. We simply differ on our evaluations of the talent and, perhaps, the general value of coaching at the NBA level (assuming that you do have an NBA-caliber coach in the first place).

Their talent was, imho, just as good.

Yes, this is basically where we differ in comparing these Blazer teams to those Clipper teams.

How about Kobe, Shaq, Fisher, Fox, Eddie Jones, Derek Harper and Horry. That team, in 1998-99, the short season, was on pace for 50 wins - and had a much more dominant player than Roy in Shaq, a player as good as LMA was last year in Kobe and a bunch of veterans much better than what we had last year.

I agree...but this part of the discussion was about how Portland was an anomaly. If LA's roster was about as young and they were on pace for a similar season, then Portland isn't quite so anomalous. If they weren't about as young (I don't know the team age of those Lakers), then they're not a valid comparison. On the coaching front, that was the year that Del Harris was replaced by Kurt Rambis mid-season.

Like with Portland, I'd say that it was just a very talented roster. I don't think any especial coaching brilliance was the reason.

Larry Brown - yuck. Talk about a slap in the fact for anything to do with culture. How quick will have whine to trade half the roster and look for another team to coach?

I can see PJ and Pop as no questions asked - better. Rick Adelman - maybe, not sure about him. He had some fantastically great talented teams in his history and yet never won a ring. I am not certain he is a clear upgrade over Nate at this point.

Of all other active coaches - maybe Stan-Van as an upgrade. Who else is a clear upgrade? I just don't see anything obvious.

Fair enough, I didn't think we'd have the same list of coaches we'd ideally like to see helm the Blazers. We both come to the conclusion that only a few coaches would represent an upgrade worth having on McMillan, but I think we're a bit different on how we come to that conclusion.