McMillan and Fryes

[Pinwheel1]

Why? He either gets results or he doesn't.

Coaches that don't adapt and don't win playoff series don't deserve to have the "I only have one all-star" excuse in their hip pocket IMO.

I'm not opposed to Nate coaching the way he wants to coach, but he doesn't get the same level of respect from me (at this point) that Sloan and Pop have both earned by winning so many games for so long... and most coaches that fail to adapt don't have long-term success.

Ed O.

You still have to have the players. Phil did not adapt whithout Jordan, nor did he adapt when he came to the Lakers. And he was right not to because he believes in his system. (or at least Tex's system) Even though Kobe hated the Triangle at first. Very little flexibility there.

 

[BBert]

But, what do I know. I still can't figure out why Paul Allen decided to fire Rick Adelman. Wouldn't it have been easier to have just kept that guy around as the franchise defining coach like Sloan? In the end we have had a lot of movement and changes and baloney all to what effect? I still shudder when I think of the Carlisimo and Cheeks reigns.

Amen, Brother.

 

[Ed O]

Of course, one could look to the few years of mediocrity Sloan experienced in between Stockton and Williams, and see a difference players actually do make for coaches. No playoffs for three straight years after Stockton retired, and before Williams was his starter. I'm sure that was just a down period in his coaching abilities, and had nothing to do with the players on his roster?

Of course players matter. The thing is that not all inflexible approaches are created equal. One that has a demonstrated track record is one that is more likely to succeed in the future.

Nate has no such record. Comparing a lull or a single season in Sloan or Pop's career to Nate is silly to me, given Nate's decade of mediocrity in terms of results.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

You still have to have the players. Phil did not adapt whithout Jordan, nor did he adapt when he came to the Lakers. And he was right not to because he believes in his system. (or at least Tex's system) Even though Kobe hated the Triangle at first. Very little flexibility there.

I agree that coaches shouldn't necessarily adapt to their players... but I think that except in rare cases a failure to adapt is going to result in a failure to win games.

Ed O.

 

[Paxil]

I remember someone writing that the best 3pt shooter in 2008-09 camp wasn't Roy, Blake or Webster, but Frye. I'll have to look that up.

That may have been the case... we will never really know how well he could shot it because he only took 33 3-pointers that entire year... and followed that up with 392 at a 44% clip. Did he have that in him the year before? Was it Nate's fault? I don't know... but I tend to think he didn't have it in him quite yet... and in hindsite we really could have used his shooting.

I don't think we would have let him go if we knew he could shoot the 3 like that. Sure... some of it is the system. I suspect when teams start doubling Oden inside a few of our current players will suddenly become deadly with the three.

 

[RoyToy]

Frye is a gimmick player so I don't really care what he thinks.

Also don't get what's wrong with wanting guys that fit your system best.

 

[Pinwheel1]

That may have been the case... we will never really know how well he could shot it because he only took 33 3-pointers that entire year... and followed that up with 392 at a 44% clip. Did he have that in him the year before? Was it Nate's fault? I don't know... but I tend to think he didn't have it in him quite yet... and in hindsite we really could have used his shooting.

I don't think we would have let him go if we knew he could shoot the 3 like that. Sure... some of it is the system. I suspect when teams start doubling Oden inside a few of our current players will suddenly become deadly with the three.

For every 3pt shot Frye would have taken last year (At PF or center) that would have been one less 3 pt shot for Rudy, Martel, or Batum. Who would we rather have shooting them? Our bigs? then who rebounds if there is a miss? I like Frye, but I still want my big guys some what close to the basket.

 

[RoyToy]

For every 3pt shot Frye would have taken last year (At PF or center) that would have been one less 3 pt shot for Rudy, Martel, or Batum. Who would we rather have shooting them? Our bigs? then who rebounds if there is a miss? I like Frye, but I still want my big guys some what close to the basket.

That can also do some of the following:

rebound
defend
create their own shot

Sorry Charmin, there's a reason McMillan didn't want you. You stink and fit in well playing a gimmick role for the Suns at your size.

 

[RR7]

I think that lull in Sloan's coaching, and looking at his first stint in Chicago, it shows that his system requires a very good PG. And absent that PG, he isn't going to have a very good record. I don't see the flexibility in his system to have, say, a star SG, or a stud C. Always a star PG and PF. Whether the system slightly shifts in pace or not, it is built around his type of guys, adn his GM has gone out and gotten those players for him. He hasn't shown an ability to coach outside of that. Nate's system seems to be built around a star wing, and very good offensive rebounding. He had Rashard Lewis as his top wing his first two years in Seattle, along with Payton. Not fitting his type. His first year, their leading rebounder was 38 year old Patrick Ewing. Second year was Rashard Lewis. His third year they traded for Ray Allen late. And he played Reggie Evans a lot because of his rebounding ability. Fourth year was still lacking a decent rebounder and defender down low. His final year in Seattle, he was getting solid rebounding out of Evans. Had his star wing in Allen. Respectable defense out of Jerome James. Steady PG play from Ridnour. And they made it past the first round.
Finally, we get to Portland. I'd say Roy's second season was the first where he was getting guys that fit "his style". Star wing, solid rebounding and defense from a big, steady PG play. I know they're excuses, but I think last year, we get past the first round with a healthy Roy. I think it's unfair to judge a coach's "system" if he has never had players that fit his system. I think he for the most part does now, and there should be asbolutely no excuses if his system fails now.

 

[Masbee]

Of course players matter. The thing is that not all inflexible approaches are created equal. One that has a demonstrated track record is one that is more likely to succeed in the future.

Nate has no such record. Comparing a lull or a single season in Sloan or Pop's career to Nate is silly to me, given Nate's decade of mediocrity in terms of results.

Ed O.

I am enjoying the big step-up to "mediocrity" from the Cheeks years regardless of Nate's ranking among coaches.

 

[BrianFromWA]

For every 3pt shot Frye would have taken last year (At PF or center) that would have been one less 3 pt shot for Rudy, Martel, or Batum. Who would we rather have shooting them? Our bigs? then who rebounds if there is a miss? I like Frye, but I still want my big guys some what close to the basket.

While I semi-agree with you, you could say that each shot Frye took last year was at the expense of Nash (42%), Hill (44%), Dudley (46%), Dragic (40%) and Richardson (39%). They seemed to be able to rebound well enough.

 

[Ed O]

I am enjoying the big step-up to "mediocrity" from the Cheeks years regardless of Nate's ranking among coaches.

Me, too. I don't want to seem to be arguing that Nate has been bad, that he should be fired, or that we could just plug anyone in there and see the same results (or better).

To me, it comes down to:

1. Is Nate a flexible coach? (I would argue no.)
2. Has Nate's approach been a recipe for success in the NBA in the 10 seasons he's coached? (I would argue "kind of".)
3. Is Nate's approach capable of being successful in the future?
4. Would a failure to succeed in the next year or two be excused based on past success?

I think that the answer to 3 is "yes" but the answer to 4 is "no".

Sloan and Pop are No/Yes/Yes/Yes for me.

Ed O.