Nate & Miller driven apart by similarities

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,016
Likes
147,624
Points
115
I thought this was an excellent article. I looked to see if anyone posted this in the big Miller/Nate heated exchange thread and I didn't see it.

Brian T. Smith has been has been a pleasant addition in the coverage of things Blazers. I really enjoy his articles. The Oregonian should dump Freeman and replace him with Smith.

TUALATIN, Ore. — First, there was the barrage.

Everything else that followed was damage control.

Trail Blazers guard Andre Miller and coach Nate McMillan finally went at it Thursday, drowning out the team’s practice and driving a stake through the middle of what has been already a season filled with misery.

The duo lifted their voices and stood their ground during a verbal confrontation at times so loud that it poured through a thick wooden door that separates the media room from the court, making waves that instantly perked the ears of notes-ready reporters.

What exactly was said? Who fired the first shot? Who got the last word? Who won? Who lost?

It really doesn’t matter.

What does matter, though, is that the relationship between McMillan and Miller hasn’t been right since training camp.

And even as the Blazers have stood strong and fought for high, dry ground during a downpour of injuries, health concerns and setbacks, McMillan and Miller have drifted farther and farther apart.

Now, McMillan and Miller appear to be standing on two separate shores while the waves pound and the rain hails down.

And it’s a shame.

Because it should never have gotten to this point.

McMillan and Miller are both proud, strong-minded individuals. Both rose from little to accomplish remarkable things. Both hide a sensitive, caring heart with bold, righteous words

And the coach and player have one more incredibly important trait in common: Each has held down the role of a big-time NBA starting point guard.

So how can they now be so far apart?

Because the same traits that define their best components — pride, inner strength, will — are the ones that have clashed all season.

McMillan began the 2009-10 campaign with a vision. Blazers 2.0, he called it.

In McMillan’s eyes, Rip City Redux would be led by two units; two rotating, interchangeable sections that, together, would create a team greater than the sum of its individual parts. A squad filled with mismatches, advantages and dynamic talent that ideally could do more than just compete against top-tier squads such as the Los Angeles Lakers, Denver Nuggets and Boston Celtics.

And one of the main pieces of McMillan’s vision hinged on Miller serving as the team’s back-up point guard, in turn playing behind starter Steve Blake.

But injuries wrecked McMillan’s ideal.

Goodbye, Greg Oden. Goodbye, Joel Przybilla, Travis Outlaw, Nicolas Batum and a long list of others limping and hobbling around like a three-legged dog.

To his credit, though, McMillan has shown the ability to adjust on the fly.

He has promoted rookies such as Jeff Pendergraph and Dante Cunningham. Put faith in veteran Juwan Howard. And he has displayed the unshakable recognition that the future success of all things black and red ultimately rests in the trusted hands of Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge.

But there is one area where McMillan has missed the mark this season: Miller.

Yes, Miller has been given his much-desired starting role. But when it comes to the confusion and frustration that have surrounded his presence ever since he became a Blazer, the 11-year veteran still sounded as unsure as a lost child during an interview last Sunday.

“I just don’t think I’ve been given the opportunity as a veteran to actually show what I can do to help this team; there never was a chance coming in here to put my stamp on the team as a veteran leader,” Miller told The Columbian. “If you look at it, if you’re not given the opportunity, you’ve got to find it; you’ve got to find ways to adjust.”

Miller adjusted Thursday. And after pawing and clawing at his box since training camp, Miller finally broke out.

“What the (heck) did I do?” Miller yelled out.

What Miller did — and has done all season — is be himself.

He’s mixed oohs and ahs with silence and murmurs. He’s played the game, while balancing the best of intentions with missteps and contradictions.

Meanwhile, McMillan has kept Miller at distance. And the coach who called Thursday’s outburst a “team conversation” has also professed to being unable to reach his new point guard.

“He’s a very, very quiet individual. And he is to himself,” McMillan said last month when discussing Miller. “It’s almost like — sometimes silence is worse than someone who talks. Because you can’t, you don’t have a read. Or you don’t know how to ... communicate with them.”

Thursday, the broken communication between McMillan and Miller was loud enough for the whole world to hear. And as the coach and player drifted farther apart, it was clear that the only thing uniting them was their division.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/jan/08/coach-player-driven-apart-by-similarities/
 
I think this article dances around the real issue, which is that Miller believes in a different style of basketball than McMillan does. I have to assume - since no one in the esteemed Portland-area sports media community has pursued this issue - that Miller thought when he was signed to come to Portland that it signaled the team was interested in running more, with him leading the way. And I have to wonder if McMillan really believed that he could sign a veteran, All-star quality point guard whose tendency is to run and control the ball, and then turn him into either a backup, or a deferential PG alongside Brandon Roy.

Where Brian Smith is undeniably correct is that McMillan blew the communication with Miller. He should've treated this guy like an additional assistant coach, given Miller's intelligence, experience, and relative advanced age, compared to the rest of the team. I have to wonder if Miller didn't join the Blazers thinking "OK, I'm going to be the big brother around here..." Problem is, McMillan treated him like the weird, quiet uncle, and Miller hasn't gotten the respect he's deserved.

I hope that the whole blow-up has splashed cold water on McMillan's face and shown him that Miller deserves a whole lot better.
 
I think this article dances around the real issue, which is that Miller believes in a different style of basketball than McMillan does. I have to assume - since no one in the esteemed Portland-area sports media community has pursued this issue - that Miller thought when he was signed to come to Portland that it signaled the team was interested in running more, with him leading the way. And I have to wonder if McMillan really believed that he could sign a veteran, All-star quality point guard whose tendency is to run and control the ball, and then turn him into either a backup, or a deferential PG alongside Brandon Roy.

Where Brian Smith is undeniably correct is that McMillan blew the communication with Miller. He should've treated this guy like an additional assistant coach, given Miller's intelligence, experience, and relative advanced age, compared to the rest of the team. I have to wonder if Miller didn't join the Blazers thinking "OK, I'm going to be the big brother around here..." Problem is, McMillan treated him like the weird, quiet uncle, and Miller hasn't gotten the respect he's deserved.

I hope that the whole blow-up has splashed cold water on McMillan's face and shown him that Miller deserves a whole lot better.

Conversely, if Miller opened his mouth once in a while and made an effort to speak, he wouldn't be considered the quiet uncle.

But as usual, this entirely Nate's fault.
 
Conversely, if Miller opened his mouth once in a while and made an effort to speak, he wouldn't be considered the quiet uncle.

But as usual, this entirely Nate's fault.

Point taken.

To clarify, I'm not in the "everything is Nate's fault" crowd. In fact, I think he's a darn good coach.

I just think there was a culture clash and a lack of understanding of what the situation in Portland was going to truly look like. I put more of that responsibility for that on Nate than I do on Andre for one main reason: Nate is the reigning coach of a very good team and Miller was the new guy coming in to contribute.

Why should Miller be the one initiating communication? It ought to be the coach making every effort to integrate that guy. Miller can't integrate himself - because he doesn't know the other players, the system, or the team's needs. He knows what he prefers doing - but if that's not what fits the team's needs, it's really up to the coach to set him straight.

All that being said, I'm really hoping that the explosion the other day and the looser reins in the LA game are steps toward Miller and McMillan not just communicating, but learning how the Blazers are going to run an offense that both Miller and McMillan like - and that wins games.
 
Interesting quote from Smith's Twitter:

"I don't think we're running enough."

~Nate McMillan
 
Point taken.

To clarify, I'm not in the "everything is Nate's fault" crowd. In fact, I think he's a darn good coach.

I just think there was a culture clash and a lack of understanding of what the situation in Portland was going to truly look like. I put more of that responsibility for that on Nate than I do on Andre for one main reason: Nate is the reigning coach of a very good team and Miller was the new guy coming in to contribute.

Why should Miller be the one initiating communication? It ought to be the coach making every effort to integrate that guy. Miller can't integrate himself - because he doesn't know the other players, the system, or the team's needs. He knows what he prefers doing - but if that's not what fits the team's needs, it's really up to the coach to set him straight.

All that being said, I'm really hoping that the explosion the other day and the looser reins in the LA game are steps toward Miller and McMillan not just communicating, but learning how the Blazers are going to run an offense that both Miller and McMillan like - and that wins games.

^^This. It's a coaches job to manage his roster and that doesn't mean a "one-size-fits-all" approach. I give Nate a lot of credit for apologizing to the team for the way he handled the situation. As for the long term effects I hope this has helped the two come to some kind of accomodation or at least a better understanding of the expectations each has.
 
^^This. It's a coaches job to manage his roster and that doesn't mean a "one-size-fits-all" approach. I give Nate a lot of credit for apologizing to the team for the way he handled the situation. As for the long term effects I hope this has helped the two come to some kind of accomodation or at least a better understanding of the expectations each has.

Indeed. I should've mentioned Nate's apology in addition to the blow-up itself, and the Laker game as signs things could improve.
 
Dude that wrote that pos is a total pussy. They are men not days of our lives or survivor. Makes me puke.
 
Interesting quote from Smith's Twitter:

"I don't think we're running enough."

~Nate McMillan
"I don't think I'm an evil dictator."

~ Me

... doesn't mean I want to be one.
 
Dude that wrote that pos is a total pussy. They are men not days of our lives or survivor. Makes me puke.

Brian Smith pretty much runs circles around J Quick as a beat reporter (maybe not saying much), he's been killing it in his first year covering the team.
 
"I don't think I'm an evil dictator."

~ Me

... doesn't mean I want to be one.

He does use the word "enough." Not having enough of something suggests believing you need more.

To use your example, I think the better equivalent would be: "I don't think I'm enough of an evil dictator." I think saying that would imply you want to be more of an evil dictator than you currently are.
 
"Nate & Miller driven apart by similarities"

NBA head coaches are mostly former NBA point guards. Andre Miller may well be a future head coach. Because of Pritchard's bake philosophy, Nate has only dealt with young moldable players. Now, he has a future head coach, and he's finding that he can't just push him around like the youngsters. This is why I say we should trade for experienced players. Miller knows everything McMillan knows as a player. As a coach, he's behind, of course.
 
" Miller knows everything McMillan knows as a player. As a coach, he's behind, of course.

IMO this team would be more effective with Millers role being that of a player/coach, calling the plays from the point.

McMillans offensive sets are well and truly offensive.
 
I think the blow up was probably good and shorten any divide between Nate and Miller not widen it as this article seems to be saying.
 
Actually it's more likely that Steve Blake is a future head coach than Miller. That's because NBA head coaches seem to be the less talented former players, the ones who had to learn every little trick to survive. So they have quite a repertoire of skills to teach, even if they themselves weren't the sharpest at carrying them out.
 
He does use the word "enough." Not having enough of something suggests believing you need more.

To use your example, I think the better equivalent would be: "I don't think I'm enough of an evil dictator." I think saying that would imply you want to be more of an evil dictator than you currently are.
Perhaps. But the counter-argument would be that, "I don't think we're running" doesn't make a ton of sense grammatically. Throwing "enough" in there just makes it sound right, whether or not it fits with the rest of the thought.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top