McCluess thinking about starting outlaw now??? WOOOW

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)
Tince said:
First off, this thread is making a claim from an author who has no credibility, and he hasn't provided a link or source that he isn't just making this up.

Second, Nate might leave on his own after his contract is up, just like he did in Seattle. Then all the Nate bashers can rejoice. I'm sure there is another olympic caliber coach that will be jobless and wanting to come to Portland, right?
Click to expand...

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/04/battered_blazers_still_believe.html

Regarding the Blazers' offensive woes -- they are averaging 89.8 points a game in the series -- McMillan said he would have to sleep on it. One consideration figures to be starting Outlaw at small forward in place of Batum, a defensive specialist who is averaging 1.8 points, 0.5 rebounds and 14 minutes a game.

"We will have to look at that," McMillan said. "We will talk tomorrow, the coaching staff. We talked a little today trying to find ways to score against this team."
Click to expand...


edit - Just saw that Nate won't make any changes to the starting 5.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/04/blazers_shootaround_roy_aldrid.html
 
Last edited:
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level.

His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games.

I also think the whole "Sarge" schtick is going to wear out quickly on these guys. He was a very good choice to come in here and help weed out the idiots, but now we need a coach that knows how to better take advantage of our players abilities, and not have them shooting jumpers all over the place in a set offense.


As to the Way overachieved CROWD....LOL

Everyone from Paul Allen to KP to Nate to the players have said all year that missing the playoffs would be considered a failure, and that they all expected to make it. They did and they finished within a game or two of where they should have. Portland got HCA, but easily could have been the 7th seed and that would have been fine too.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level.

His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games.
Click to expand...

You know we had the most efficient offense in the league, right? (or end up 2nd?)

Either way...our offense must not be THAT easy to defend.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level.

His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games.

I also think the whole "Sarge" schtick is going to wear out quickly on these guys. He was a very good choice to come in here and help weed out the idiots, but now we need a coach that knows how to better take advantage of our players abilities, and not have them shooting jumpers all over the place in a set offense.


As to the Way overachieved CROWD....LOL

Everyone from Paul Allen to KP to Nate to the players have said all year that missing the playoffs would be considered a failure, and that they all expected to make it. They did and they finished within a game or two of where they should have. Portland got HCA, but easily could have been the 7th seed and that would have been fine too.
Click to expand...

I think some people grossly underestimate how much of a difference it makes to have a roster as talented as the Blazers.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level.

His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games.

I also think the whole "Sarge" schtick is going to wear out quickly on these guys. He was a very good choice to come in here and help weed out the idiots, but now we need a coach that knows how to better take advantage of our players abilities, and not have them shooting jumpers all over the place in a set offense.


As to the Way overachieved CROWD....LOL

Everyone from Paul Allen to KP to Nate to the players have said all year that missing the playoffs would be considered a failure, and that they all expected to make it. They did and they finished within a game or two of where they should have. Portland got HCA, but easily could have been the 7th seed and that would have been fine too.
Click to expand...

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but the fact you're not even aware that he's adapted to the changing team and lost his "Sarge" label makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. There was a huge article a little while ago about this...
 
Cake said:
You know we had the most efficient offense in the league, right? (or end up 2nd?)

Either way...our offense must not be THAT easy to defend.
Click to expand...



Our offensive efficiency was due to offensive rebounding. A missed jumper at the shot clock buzzer and an offensive rebound and put back equals 1 possession. You know that right?
 
Mediocre Man said:
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level.

His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games.

I also think the whole "Sarge" schtick is going to wear out quickly on these guys. He was a very good choice to come in here and help weed out the idiots, but now we need a coach that knows how to better take advantage of our players abilities, and not have them shooting jumpers all over the place in a set offense.


As to the Way overachieved CROWD....LOL

Everyone from Paul Allen to KP to Nate to the players have said all year that missing the playoffs would be considered a failure, and that they all expected to make it. They did and they finished within a game or two of where they should have. Portland got HCA, but easily could have been the 7th seed and that would have been fine too.
Click to expand...

I really do enjoy your posts, but this one should be subtitled " in my opinion", as I think you're the only person I continually read that says Nate isn't a very good in game coach. You have a tendency to post in a way that sounds very factual, but it really isn't. I respect your opinions, but this whole post is generally your opinion and I'd be willing to bet a large majority of us on the board wouldn't agree.

I happen to think Nates done a great job at managing games to keep us in them, on a lot of nights we might be blown out. Very rarely did we lose by large margins this year, and we lead the league in come from behind wind when we were down double digits. It's my opinion, that without Nates ability to manage a game, we'd have lost quite a few more games this year then we did.
 
Erroneous Subterfuge said:
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but the fact you're not even aware that he's adapted to the changing team and lost his "Sarge" label makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. There was a huge article a little while ago about this...
Click to expand...



I read the article, and I have talked to people about it. I will go with the people over the article.
 
Cake said:
You know we had the most efficient offense in the league, right? (or end up 2nd?)

Either way...our offense must not be THAT easy to defend.
Click to expand...
We were 2nd, but the Nate bashers think the credit should be taken away because we rebound well. We should all be aware that constantly going to your strongest threats on offense, forces the defense to double team, and opens up offensive rebound opportunities. That is good offense, and the coach should get credit/blame, just like anything else. Nate is smart to go through Roy and Aldridge, just like the Rockets are smart to go through Yao.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I think some people grossly underestimate how much of a difference it makes to have a roster as talented as the Blazers.
Click to expand...



Brandon Roy himself makes Nate Mcmillan look like twice the coach he really is.


Someone tell me what the hell Nate has done to earn this whole "one of the best young coaches in the league" title.

He had a sub .500 record in Seattle. One good year where he had 3 all stars, and now has one of the best rosters in the league and has done better again.

What is Paul Westhead doing these days? He won a championship with the L*kers, so he must be a great coach right?
 
Mediocre Man said:
Our offensive efficiency was due to offensive rebounding. A missed jumper at the shot clock buzzer and an offensive rebound and put back equals 1 possession. You know that right?
Click to expand...
Just like a great play that forces the defense away from the player they are defending, which prevents them from blocking out, counts as one possession.

It seems like you are implying that majority of our offensive rebounds come from garbage shots with no time on the shot-clock. I don't think that is true, but if you have proof/stats that show me otherwise, I'd love to see it.
 
Mediocre Man said:
I read the article, and I have talked to people about it. I will go with the people over the article.
Click to expand...

I know your type. Ignore anything that isn't in agreement with your preconceived opinions. Whatever, you can hate on him for the rest of your life if it makes you feel better. Won't change reality.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Brandon Roy himself makes Nate Mcmillan look like twice the coach he really is.

Someone tell me what the hell Nate has done to earn this whole "one of the best young coaches in the league" title.
Click to expand...

All-stars make their coaches look better. Name a good coach that doesn't have an all-star player.

Nate has improved the team 4 straight seasons, how many current coaches in the league can say that?

Nate was a member of the Olympic Team coach staff and has the respect off many if not all of those players, how many current coaches can say that?

Nate's players seem to have no issues getting his players to play hard.

He's done plenty of good things...
 
jwhoops11 said:
I really do enjoy your posts, but this one should be subtitled " in my opinion", as I think you're the only person I continually read that says Nate isn't a very good in game coach. You have a tendency to post in a way that sounds very factual, but it really isn't. I respect your opinions, but this whole post is generally your opinion and I'd be willing to bet a large majority of us on the board wouldn't agree.

I happen to think Nates done a great job at managing games to keep us in them, on a lot of nights we might be blown out. Very rarely did we lose by large margins this year, and we lead the league in come from behind wind when we were down double digits. It's my opinion, that without Nates ability to manage a game, we'd have lost quite a few more games this year then we did.
Click to expand...




My opinion indeed Sir.

I think your last sentence is where the majority of people on both sides differ. The people that think Nate has done a great job think he is the reason for us being in games like we have been. Those of us that don't think Nate has done the best job think Brandon Roy is the reason.
 
Erroneous Subterfuge said:
I know your type. Ignore anything that isn't in agreement with your preconceived opinions. Whatever, you can hate on him for the rest of your life if it makes you feel better. Won't change reality.
Click to expand...
That is correct. And it won't change the minds of the brightest people in basketball who all seem to agree that Nate is a top level coach.
 
I think a lot of folks need to take a look at the big picture and realize, that Nate McMillen is also learning coaching as our young players are learning hoops. He was in the playoffs once before, and fairly successful. The job of a coach is sure a lot easier if you have stars that carry the team. It gets tougher when you have to teach guys the game.
 
hasoos said:
I think a lot of folks need to take a look at the big picture and realize, that Nate McMillen is also learning coaching as our young players are learning hoops. He was in the playoffs once before, and fairly successful. The job of a coach is sure a lot easier if you have stars that carry the team. It gets tougher when you have to teach guys the game.
Click to expand...



Fairly successful?

He lost in the second round? But now I get the mentality of some of you and what you think is successful.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Fairly successful?

He lost in the second round? But now I get the mentality of some of you and what you think is successful.
Click to expand...

So only coaches who made it past the second round are successful? That's a mighty small pool you're fishing in.

I don't think Nate is at the top of the game in terms of X's and O's, but I don't think he is below average, either. I also think..err...KNOW...that there's no way you can know what goes on in every huddle, every timeout, what the coach is saying and how the players respond. And, consequently, neither can I.

I think Nate has improved the team consistently over the last few years. If you want to argue that's all because of Roy, that's fine. Just remember that regardless of how much natural talent a player may have, it takes a coach to get him off the bench.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Fairly successful?

He lost in the second round? But now I get the mentality of some of you and what you think is successful.
Click to expand...

Do you think Mike Dunleavy is a good coach? Was he a genius with the Lakers, but a moron with the Clippers?

Your criteria is a bit odd. Perhaps if you explained what a good coach is I would better understand what is wrong with Nate.
 
Mediocre Man said:
He had a sub .500 record in Seattle. One good year where he had 3 all stars, and now has one of the best rosters in the league and has done better again.
Click to expand...

Not trying to argue your point, but just curious. Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis. Who was the third all-star that year? My memory must be getting real bad.
 
yakbladder said:
So only coaches who made it past the second round are successful? That's a mighty small pool you're fishing in.

I don't think Nate is at the top of the game in terms of X's and O's, but I don't think he is below average, either. I also think..err...KNOW...that there's no way you can know what goes on in every huddle, every timeout, what the coach is saying and how the players respond. And, consequently, neither can I.

I think Nate has improved the team consistently over the last few years. If you want to argue that's all because of Roy, that's fine. Just remember that regardless of how much natural talent a player may have, it takes a coach to get him off the bench.
Click to expand...

But what if that's as far as he can take us?
 
Mediocre Man said:
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level.

His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games.
Click to expand...

No slow start, and the guys looked pretty prepared to me.

Gotta love how he's taught the guys to NEVER give up.

How did you like the in-game adjustment to bring Rudy in early. Instant offense!

Starting Rudy for second half seemed to work ok.

Riding the hot hand when Greg was playing great D in Q4.

I've gotta say that Nate seemed to do a pretty damned fine job to me.

What do you think? Just Brandon?
 
Our options are soooo limited right now. We have barely a handful of players that are capable of handling the pressure of the playoffs. Add to that the quick calls in the post so far this series...and there is practically no margin for error. Judging Nate this year is a mistake...they are ALL learning as they go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top