Legitimate Coaching Options?

[Wheels]

I'm sure there is a thread aroudn somewhere.. but I couldnt find one.. but for NEXT SEASON... who out there would be a legitimate upgrade as a Head Coach, who would up the tempo and install a better offensive system? I dont say this as a form of calling anyone out. I just cant for the life of me think of other Coaches unless Riley wants to go back into coaching.

 

[axs88]

I think Adleman could do wonders for us. I used to think he can't coach defensive teams anymore (based on his Kings teams), and then all of a sudden he goes to Houston and they are maybe defending even better than when Van Gundy was coaching them. I just look at what he's been able to achieve with those players, and salivate at the thought of what he could get out of our weapons.

And his contract is supposedly up this offseason (can anyone confirm this?). I fear Morey will sign him to an extension though in Houston... or is there a deadline for that?

I could think of a few better, championship-proven candidates (Jackson, Popovich), but I think he's the best realistic option.

 

[Wheels]

Adleman if available I would love that actually.. nice one ax

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

David Blatt

 

[Wheels]

is he available?

 

[hasoos]

Hey TP has been lurking around Blazer HQ.......

 

[Cake]

I read a story a while back about how little an impact NBA coaches really have.

The basic idea of the article is that most coaches make little difference in terms of wins and losses. Phil Jackson helps his teams win more than they should. Tim Floyd hurt his teams when he was coaching. The vast majority of coaches are somewhere around break-even, not really helping or hurting. Some people may hate McMillan, but he doesn't hurt the team. Unless we can find that rare breed of coach that can actually change the game for the positive, there's no point in changing, unless the team begins to tune him out.

If we played a different style...maybe we'd win a couple more games? Then again, maybe not.

 

[Mediocre Man]

You know who I like a lot AS A COACH AND NOTHING ELSE is Kevin McHale. His record is actually pretty good. He believes in a up tepmo style, without being too Mike D.

I think whoever Portland gets.....whenever that might be, it needs to be somoene that believes in easy baskets, doesn't micromanage, has an offensive gameplan that expands past 3 plays, and a coach that understands NBA rotations. Right now, this team needs a very seasoned coach to help them get over the hump. I woul dlove to keep Monty on as a top assistant and replace the next coach with him.


Maybe Lenny Wilkins?

I also don't think it would be the worst idea to have KP coach and let him do what Pop does down in SA with the roster.

 

[hasoos]

I read a story a while back about how little an impact NBA coaches really have.

The basic idea of the article is that most coaches make little difference in terms of wins and losses. Phil Jackson helps his teams win more than they should. Tim Floyd hurt his teams when he was coaching. The vast majority of coaches are somewhere around break-even, not really helping or hurting. Some people may hate McMillan, but he doesn't hurt the team. Unless we can find that rare breed of coach that can actually change the game for the positive, there's no point in changing, unless the team begins to tune him out.

If we played a different style...maybe we'd win a couple more games? Then again, maybe not.

That's the problems with blanket statements. They are not true for every situation. It sounds to me what you read was some statisticians thesis statement. That is just like some of the folks around here that live and die by PERS. They are just stats. Are you going to tell me that Rick Adelman didn't turn around the Blazers after Mike Schuler? Are you going to tell me that Phil Jackson didn't lead the Lakers to championships after years of various coaches trying to get them to work together? That is just like saying that some coaches, who are perennial losers, are not at fault even thoug they have been given multiple chances to coach and have failed at every place they have gone, and been replaced with coaches who have succeded. Guys like PJ Carlesimo. Guys like Terry Stotts. While indeed some coaches are more blessed with talent on their roster to succeed (Jackson is a master at picking the team to coach, as is Riley) others such as Adelman regularly make supposedly make talent challenged teams succeed.

So in short, no I don't buy that argument.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

David Blatt

Only if we bring back his fave player, VK.

You've got to wonder why Blatt hasn't been given a shot in the NBA yet. Maybe he's getting more under the table than we know for coaching Russia...

 

[Wheels]

You know who I like a lot AS A COACH AND NOTHING ELSE is Kevin McHale. His record is actually pretty good. He believes in a up tepmo style, without being too Mike D.

I think whoever Portland gets.....whenever that might be, it needs to be somoene that believes in easy baskets, doesn't micromanage, has an offensive gameplan that expands past 3 plays, and a coach that understands NBA rotations. Right now, this team needs a very seasoned coach to help them get over the hump. I woul dlove to keep Monty on as a top assistant and replace the next coach with him.


Maybe Lenny Wilkins?

I also don't think it would be the worst idea to have KP coach and let him do what Pop does down in SA with the roster.

I like the idea of keeping Monty as a TOP assistant. I do have faith in him. Dean is a super down to earth genuine guy, at least seemed like it when I met him at the fan fest. He invited us to come say hi before games last year after that, since we took the time to actually take a pic with him. Never did though for some reason, probably cause games are at 7 and it takes an hour to drive to Lloyd center parking lot and then walk or catch a max. But OTOH Mo Cheeks was a nice genuine guy too.

 

[Cake]

That's the problems with blanket statements. They are not true for every situation. It sounds to me what you read was some statisticians thesis statement. That is just like some of the folks around here that live and die by PERS. They are just stats. Are you going to tell me that Rick Adelman didn't turn around the Blazers after Mike Schuler? Are you going to tell me that Phil Jackson didn't lead the Lakers to championships after years of various coaches trying to get them to work together? That is just like saying that some coaches, who are perennial losers, are not at fault even thoug they have been given multiple chances to coach and have failed at every place they have gone, and been replaced with coaches who have succeded. Guys like PJ Carlesimo. Guys like Terry Stotts. While indeed some coaches are more blessed with talent on their roster to succeed (Jackson is a master at picking the team to coach, as is Riley) others such as Adelman regularly make supposedly make talent challenged teams succeed.

So in short, no I don't buy that argument.

A few things.

1st - I believe Rick Adelman was among the better coaches in the league in this article I read. IIRC he added a win or two per year.

2nd - Our lineup went from: Porter, Drexler, Kersey, Caldwell Jones/Mark Bryant and Duckworth in 88-89 to Porter, Drexler, Kersey, Buck Williams, Duckworth in 89-90. A huge improvement. Plus, we added Drazen Petrovic and Wayne Cooper in that 2nd year. The team gained a LOT of talent between that 1st year when he took over midseason and the 2nd year. And how did Adelman do that last half season after Schuler left? He went 14 and 21 before those guys got to the team. So...yeah...he actually didn't do shit until the team got better. Which is only natural.

You go on to mention that Adelman took 'talent challenged teams' and helped them win? Really? I guess I don't view our WC finals teams as talent challenged. Sacramento had Chris Webber, Hedo Turkoglu, Peja Stojakovic, Mike Bibby, Doug Christie's wife's husband, Vlade Divacs, Gerald Wallace, etc...Houston had Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, Shane Battier and others. Those teams have a lot of talent. He was at Golden State for 2 years too remember. He won 66 games COMBINED. Why? Because his teams had no talent.

3rd - You mention Phil Jackson. As I said, the article implied that he was the best coach in the league and added a lot of wins. But you actually argue both sides of the fence with Jackson. "Are you going to tell me that Phil Jackson didn't lead the Lakers to championships after years of various coaches trying to get them to work together?" and "Jackson is a master at picking the team to coach." So I'm not really sure which you actually believe.

4th - Carlesimo averaged 46 wins per year for us over 3 years at a time when we lost the entire starting lineup from the WC Finals teams. He leaves for Golden State, which had VERY little talent. He lost a lot of games. It makes sense. Just like how Nate McMillan goes from 21 wins to 54 because the players on the team got better.

Anyway...take it or leave it. I know you don't like stats, you like gut feelings about things. That's cool, I get it. It doesn't matter one way or the other, since neither of us get to make the decision on whether or not we get a new coach. But in my opinion coaches really don't matter that much. All that most of them can do is fuck things up. For my money, I don't see McMillan fucking anything up in particular.

 

[Minstrel]

I read a story a while back about how little an impact NBA coaches really have.

The basic idea of the article is that most coaches make little difference in terms of wins and losses. Phil Jackson helps his teams win more than they should. Tim Floyd hurt his teams when he was coaching. The vast majority of coaches are somewhere around break-even, not really helping or hurting. Some people may hate McMillan, but he doesn't hurt the team. Unless we can find that rare breed of coach that can actually change the game for the positive, there's no point in changing, unless the team begins to tune him out.

If we played a different style...maybe we'd win a couple more games? Then again, maybe not.

That's largely my view on coaching, which is why I haven't been very worried or enthused about McMillan. I really don't care an enormous amount if he stays or goes, unless a difference-making coach can be had.

To me, a difference-making coach makes his impact by devising ways for multiple talented players to play together without losing much, if any, effectiveness from any of the players. This season, before Oden went down, we were seeing Roy, Aldridge, Oden and Miller struggle to find a rhythm together. Maybe that was also affecting Rudy McMillan (and, I think, the vast majority of coaches) can get okay results but can't turn several very good but disparate players into one finely-tuned machine. Coaches like Phil Jackson and Rick Adelman (and, at one time anyway, Pat Riley) can.

 

[hasoos]

A few things.

1st - I believe Rick Adelman was among the better coaches in the league in this article I read. IIRC he added a win or two per year.

2nd - Our lineup went from: Porter, Drexler, Kersey, Caldwell Jones/Mark Bryant and Duckworth in 88-89 to Porter, Drexler, Kersey, Buck Williams, Duckworth in 89-90. A huge improvement. Plus, we added Drazen Petrovic and Wayne Cooper in that 2nd year. The team gained a LOT of talent between that 1st year when he took over midseason and the 2nd year. And how did Adelman do that last half season after Schuler left? He went 14 and 21 before those guys got to the team. So...yeah...he actually didn't do shit until the team got better. Which is only natural.

You go on to mention that Adelman took 'talent challenged teams' and helped them win? Really? I guess I don't view our WC finals teams as talent challenged. Sacramento had Chris Webber, Hedo Turkoglu, Peja Stojakovic, Mike Bibby, Doug Christie's wife's husband, Vlade Divacs, Gerald Wallace, etc...Houston had Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, Shane Battier and others. Those teams have a lot of talent. He was at Golden State for 2 years too remember. He won 66 games COMBINED. Why? Because his teams had no talent.

3rd - You mention Phil Jackson. As I said, the article implied that he was the best coach in the league and added a lot of wins. But you actually argue both sides of the fence with Jackson. "Are you going to tell me that Phil Jackson didn't lead the Lakers to championships after years of various coaches trying to get them to work together?" and "Jackson is a master at picking the team to coach." So I'm not really sure which you actually believe.

4th - Carlesimo averaged 46 wins per year for us over 3 years at a time when we lost the entire starting lineup from the WC Finals teams. He leaves for Golden State, which had VERY little talent. He lost a lot of games. It makes sense. Just like how Nate McMillan goes from 21 wins to 54 because the players on the team got better.

Anyway...take it or leave it. I know you don't like stats, you like gut feelings about things. That's cool, I get it. It doesn't matter one way or the other, since neither of us get to make the decision on whether or not we get a new coach. But in my opinion coaches really don't matter that much. All that most of them can do is fuck things up. For my money, I don't see McMillan fucking anything up in particular.

1. Lets get this straight. The team that Schuler had coached before it turned on him had a 53 win season before it fell apart. The team turned on him and he was fired during the year that they only won 39. But it was that year in the playoffs they showed they were coming on against LA in the 1st round of the playoffs. They got swept, but in one half of basketball they got up big on LA and showed them what was coming. Sure buck came in. But the guts of a 53 win team were there. So as you were saying?

2. Try paying attention to current events. He is taking a Houston team that is talente challenged on paper, and they are playing good. He is doing it right in front of you, yet you would argue against it until you are blue in the face. Good luck with that.

3. Nate gets outcoached on a fairly regular basis. He is a reactor rather than a coach that dictates the tempo. That will always make him a 2nd tier coach IMO.

 

[rocketeer]

I think Adleman could do wonders for us. I used to think he can't coach defensive teams anymore (based on his Kings teams), and then all of a sudden he goes to Houston and they are maybe defending even better than when Van Gundy was coaching them.

no. absolutely not.

and i can't see the rockets letting adelman get away.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think coaches have more influence than some may think. They have to develop an offense & defense and make sure they players understand it and run them right. They have to bring up the younger players and help develop their skills. They do have to make a lot of game decisions and adjustments. And so on and so forth.

As for Portland, I do think we've gotten all we can out of Nate and it's time for a change.

That said, we can be either an up tempo team or a slow down team as we have talent for both. The two coaches I really like are Adelman and Popovich. Neither wears out their welcome and both have total devotion from their players.

However, I doubt we can Pops, but Adelman has his family here so I think he'd jump at the chance.

 

[ABM]

However, I doubt we can Pops, but Adelman has his family here so I think he'd jump at the chance.

Adelman would be a relative lushous choice.

 

[Minstrel]

and i can't see the rockets letting adelman get away.

How could they prevent it? It isn't like having a player under Bird rights, where the current team can offer more...if Portland offers as much or more, it just depends on where Adelman would prefer to be.

Clearly, he has a good situation in Houston, but Portland offers a nice situation and his ties to the area could persuade him.

 

[MikeDC]

I think you guys should consider yourselves lucky to have Nate. I'd gladly take him as the Bulls coach.

From an outsider's perspective, I think the Blazers record seems pretty reasonable given the injuries you've suffered. It's certainly true he doesn't believe in an up-tempo game, but on the other hand, your best players don't seem obviously suited for that to me. So what gives?

 

[ABM]

I think you guys should consider yourselves lucky to have Nate. I'd gladly take him as the Bulls coach.

From an outsider's perspective, I think the Blazers record seems pretty reasonable given the injuries you've suffered. It's certainly true he doesn't believe in an up-tempo game, but on the other hand, your best players don't seem obviously suited for that to me. So what gives?

Thank You.

Sometimes, folks around here suffer from acute cases of cranial rectumitis.

 

[rocketeer]

How could they prevent it? It isn't like having a player under Bird rights, where the current team can offer more...if Portland offers as much or more, it just depends on where Adelman would prefer to be.

Clearly, he has a good situation in Houston, but Portland offers a nice situation and his ties to the area could persuade him.

i guess i meant that i see the rockets doing everything possible to keep him. if that's the case, i don't expect him to leave.

 

[KingSpeed]

Patrick Ewing

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think you guys should consider yourselves lucky to have Nate. I'd gladly take him as the Bulls coach.

From an outsider's perspective, I think the Blazers record seems pretty reasonable given the injuries you've suffered. It's certainly true he doesn't believe in an up-tempo game, but on the other hand, your best players don't seem obviously suited for that to me. So what gives?

Nate's a good coach. On a scale of 1-10, he's a 6 or 7. He's begged the players to run more, but Roy refuses to so the team doesn't run. He hasn't been able to get Oden in synche with Roy & Aldridge and he had plenty of time. The team was lost both on offesne & defense and his rotation was curious at best. He has also shown an inability to get the best out of young talent.

Sometimes coaches are great people, but they become stale and ineffective- that's what has happened to Nate.

It's no longer his team.

 

[BrianFromWA]

This is hyperbole, but meant to demonstrate a point. If Nate was bringing Roy off the bench and starting Howard over Oden, would he be making the team worse? Lineups and substitutions are one thing that is solely on the coach--not the GM, not the players, not the media or fans.

If Kurt Rambis didn't know how to coach the triangle, it would be pretty tough to say that he wasn't hurting the team if he scrapped their offense in favor of the triangle.

To bring it back to point: I believe that substitutions and lineups are one way that Nate's hurting this team. I personally believe that our offensive style is another, but will defer that argument b/c I know there are many that believe the opposite. What can't really be argued is that our offense is much worse this year than last with only the additions of Miller for Sergio, Webster for Batum and more minutes from Oden/Less from Outlaw. That's where my Rambis analogy comes in. Nate wants the team to push the ball, he (didn't but recently did, now can't) wants to feature Oden more in the lineup, but he doesn't want to draw up an offense or stick with a style that incorporates it into one machine if that machine doesn't involve 30mpg from Blake. That's hurting the team.

 

[Tince]

No legitimate upgrade

 

[Minstrel]

This is hyperbole, but meant to demonstrate a point. If Nate was bringing Roy off the bench and starting Howard over Oden, would he be making the team worse? Lineups and substitutions are one thing that is solely on the coach--not the GM, not the players, not the media or fans.

It is easy to show how a coach can literally make a (negative) difference, as you just did. The point, though, is that the vast majority of head coaches wouldn't make a significant difference (positively or negatively) over other qualified NBA head coaches. Within the picked population of NBA coaches, very few make a difference relative to the others.

Your example shows that a coach can easily make a positive difference over some random schmuck off the street or a willful saboteur.

To bring it back to point: I believe that substitutions and lineups are one way that Nate's hurting this team.

I agree with you, but in limited fashion. While I am no expert who has devoted his/her life to the game, I also feel McMillan's substitutions are less than optimal. But I'm not convinced that his sub-optimal lineups and rotations make a big difference to wins. I think he's doing around as well as 95% of NBA head coaches past and present would do. If you or someone else wants to say that McMillan's foibles make him 5% less effective than most coaches would be, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But I don't think he makes a huge difference.

However, I think a true difference-maker would really jumpstart this team. A Phil Jackson or Rick Adelman...but those are hard to find and attain. Absent those types of coaches, I don't know that a new coach would make a big difference.

My non-obvious pick for a new head coach (if he were available) would be Flip Saunders. I think he's quite a good offensive mind and would do a nice job of integrating a group of offensive weapons like Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Rudy, Miller and Bayless.

 

[PapaG]

You know who I like a lot AS A COACH AND NOTHING ELSE is Kevin McHale. His record is actually pretty good. He believes in a up tepmo style, without being too Mike D.

For all of the whining you do about "Assclown", I would think you'd have a better idea than a coach with a 39-55 career record who has never coached in the playoffs.

 

[BBert]

As for Portland, I do think we've gotten all we can out of Nate and it's time for a change.

The two coaches I really like are Adelman and Popovich.

I would of course be thrilled with either.

I agree with you on Nate. He has helped the Blazers tremendously. He was seemingly the right coach at the right time, all things considered. For that he deserves our thanks and respect.

This is no longer a team of knuckleheads and is no longer an NBDL project. It's time for a coach who can design and implement an offense that works to the greatest strengths of our best players, all of our best players, not pigeonhole them.

 

[Wheels]

I would of course be thrilled with either.

I agree with you on Nate. He has helped the Blazers tremendously. He was seemingly the right coach at the right time, all things considered. For that he deserves our thanks and respect.

This is no longer a team of knuckleheads and is no longer an NBDL project. It's time for a coach who can design and implement an offense that works to the greatest strengths of our best players, all of our best players, not pigeonhole them.

well said.

 

[BBert]

However, I think a true difference-maker would really jumpstart this team. A Phil Jackson or Rick Adelman...but those are hard to find and attain....

My non-obvious pick for a new head coach (if he were available) would be Flip Saunders. I think he's quite a good offensive mind and would do a nice job of integrating a group of offensive weapons like Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Rudy, Miller and Bayless.

I'll drink to that. I think Flip's worth a shot. Or two.