I thought about this as McMillan confronted me, and took the time to try and understand where I was coming from when I wrote the column. I also realized that the Blazers coach has done some deep thinking this offseason, and was bothered by the assertion that he was outcoached.
I told McMillan that I was impressed how he used Andre Miller to exploit the Suns in Game 1. And gave Gentry considerable credit for his decision in Game 2 to put Grant Hill on Miller. The trouble I had, mostly, with McMillan in the season-ending series is that he failed to counter-adjust.
He had Nicolas Batum on the much shorter Steve Nash, but the Blazers didn't commit to using Batum to post up Nash. McMillan said, "I thought about doing that during the game, but we hadn't done that all season." And he's right. But it was the only real mismatch short-handed Portland had, and the Blazers didn't attempt to exploit it.
Phoenix smothered Lamarcus Aldridge, and locked up Miller with Hill. Game over. Granted, the Blazers were injury plagued, including being without a healthy Roy. So Gentry had it easier. Still, I felt he had the better series.
More than 5 months later, McMillan wanted to know why.
Pride is what's buried much deeper in all of this. Because I spent about 10 minutes in McMillan's office, some of it with him at the grease board diagramming plays and with me jotting down notes. And by the end of our discussion, what I realized more than anything is that McMillan badly wants to win, and understand himself, and get better.
