Poll: Nate's job secured

[magnifier661]

We can consider that BRoy and Oden are out of the picture, so with this line-up and if we can obtain 1-4th seed; if we don't make it out of the first round; should we:

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We let the new owners of the Blazers decide who they want to be their coach and GM.

 

[HailBlazers]

BORing

 

[maxiep]

I can't want to see which way mediocre man will vote. The suspense is killing me!

 

[Nikolokolus]

If they get a 1-4 seed and lose again in the first round what other choice do they have but to fire him and go in a different direction? Injuries or not, at some point you have to be able to translate your regular season performance into success at the next level and a top 4 seed would indicate to me that the Blazers played well enough that something other than a "one and done" is to be expected.

If on the other hand the Blazers end up with a 5-8 seed and they get bounced in the first they will have probably lived up to their potential and done what was generally expected, so Nate's job will likely be secure -- assuming he wants to stay here after 7 years of unfulfilled expectations.

 

[Natebishop3]

They'll never get rid of him, but I think he needs to go.

 

[Draco]

I think some people want to continuously fire coaches just to fire them. We haven't had a roster that anybody would expect to get out of the first round. We've had major injuries and usually been written off by the national media but Nate has got the team to somehow get around 50 wins. We've had to deal with scrubs like Juwan Howard starting numerous games. Jerryd Bayless and Patty Mills as the backup point guard. Steve Blake, Rudy Fernandez, and Travis Outlaw as key reserves to help carry the teams scoring load.

Nates players respect him, enjoy playing for him, and play hard for him. That is the most important characteristic of a coach, having the attentive ear of the players. When players start tuning out a coach its definitely time to make change. I don't understand some of his critics, if we fire GM's too frequently many say it shows we have an incompetent front office but we should be firing coaches frequently? That makes no sense.

If we could bring in Phil Jackson or Coach K or another stud coach sure I'd jump on it, but we'd likely be looking at someone less qualified then the recent Los Angeles coaches, Mike Brown and Vinny Del Negro. We'd be getting a Mike Ivorini. Does anybody think our team would have a bunch of playoff series wins if we had Ivorini as a head coach? Remember the last hot assistant coach we brought in, Mo Cheeks?

No thanks, I'll stick with the team USA coach who is well respected throughout the league, and is the only non-player in this organization you can say that about.

 

[magnifier661]

Well then this season should have no excuse baring there is no injuries right?! Also if we have no injuries, a coach that got 50 wins with a depleted roster, then we should be a lock for top 3.

Personally I think nates better coaching depleted talent than a team filled with talent. Look at last season when we had all those injuries. We actually did better than when we had a healthy squad.

 

[Mediocre Man]

All but #2 apply, but I chose #1

 

[e_blazer]

Isn't this poll just a wee bit premature? My answer will vary depending upon a few factors such as who's on the roster, who's injured, who the Blazers are playing, how close the series is, and whether or not I thought he was out-coached.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Isn't this poll just a wee bit premature? My answer will vary depending upon a few factors such as who's on the roster, who's injured, who the Blazers are playing, how close the series is, and whether or not I thought he was out-coached.

So his first 11 years as a head coach mean nothing?

 

[Minstrel]

So his first 11 years as a head coach mean nothing?

No, I think his success with the Blazers, never having overwhelming talent to work with and often contending with bad injury news, should certainly be factored in. Why would we ignore that?

 

[e_blazer]

So his first 11 years as a head coach mean nothing?

You haven't been bashful in asserting your opinion about Nate's coaching record, but the question asked relates to how the results of this year's playoffs would affect a decision about him continuing as coach.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think some people want to continuously fire coaches just to fire them. We haven't had a roster that anybody would expect to get out of the first round. We've had major injuries and usually been written off by the national media but Nate has got the team to somehow get around 50 wins. We've had to deal with scrubs like Juwan Howard starting numerous games. Jerryd Bayless and Patty Mills as the backup point guard. Steve Blake, Rudy Fernandez, and Travis Outlaw as key reserves to help carry the teams scoring load.

Nates players respect him, enjoy playing for him, and play hard for him. That is the most important characteristic of a coach, having the attentive ear of the players. When players start tuning out a coach its definitely time to make change. I don't understand some of his critics, if we fire GM's too frequently many say it shows we have an incompetent front office but we should be firing coaches frequently? That makes no sense.

If we could bring in Phil Jackson or Coach K or another stud coach sure I'd jump on it, but we'd likely be looking at someone less qualified then the recent Los Angeles coaches, Mike Brown and Vinny Del Negro. We'd be getting a Mike Ivorini. Does anybody think our team would have a bunch of playoff series wins if we had Ivorini as a head coach? Remember the last hot assistant coach we brought in, Mo Cheeks?

No thanks, I'll stick with the team USA coach who is well respected throughout the league, and is the only non-player in this organization you can say that about.

We had homecourt advantage and failed to get past Houston. We should have gotten past Phoenix. In both series we were underprepared and Nate failed to make adjustments. Dallas was the only team that realistically had more talent than us, and we went into that series the clear underdog.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Thread #2,762,891 about Nate in the last year.

Geeze, when does this all end?

 

[Minstrel]

We had homecourt advantage and failed to get past Houston. We should have gotten past Phoenix.

Portland should have gotten past Phoenix with Roy essentially unavailable? (Technically he played, but as a complete shadow of himself...his performance in that series was not even NBA-caliber.) I don't agree with that at all. Portland was probably the better team with Roy, but not without their best player.

As for Houston, the two teams were roughly equal but Houston was far more experienced and playoff-tested. Portland was talented, but young and looked jumpy. It didn't help that Yao was getting all the "veteran superstar" respect from officials.

I think considering either series a failure that illustrates that McMillan is the problem to be a pretty flawed analysis. There were clear reasons that Portland lost each of those series that didn't involve coaching.

That isn't to say that I think McMillan is unimpeachable as a coach...I think he inhabits the zone of NBA coaches who probably don't make a large impact, positive or negative, on their team's chances. I think the coaches who do make such an impact are very, very rare. So, I wouldn't mourn if the Blazers moved on from McMillan, but I also don't agree with claims that McMillan has proven himself to stand in the way of team success.

 

[Natebishop3]

Portland should have gotten past Phoenix with Roy essentially unavailable? (Technically he played, but as a complete shadow of himself...his performance in that series was not even NBA-caliber.) I don't agree with that at all. Portland was probably the better team with Roy, but not without their best player.

As for Houston, the two teams were roughly equal but Houston was far more experienced and playoff-tested. Portland was talented, but young and looked jumpy. It didn't help that Yao was getting all the "veteran superstar" respect from officials.

I think considering either series a failure that illustrates that McMillan is the problem to be a pretty flawed analysis. There were clear reasons that Portland lost each of those series that didn't involve coaching.

That isn't to say that I think McMillan is unimpeachable as a coach...I think he inhabits the zone of NBA coaches who probably don't make a large impact, positive or negative, on their team's chances. I think the coaches who do make such an impact are very, very rare. So, I wouldn't mourn if the Blazers moved on from McMillan, but I also don't agree with claims that McMillan has proven himself to stand in the way of team success.

We beat Phoenix in game one one the Suns' home floor. Gentry moved Grant Hill over to guard Andre Miller and Nate never attempted to counter the move. We only won one more game after that.

I also believe it is the job of the coach to prepare his team for the playoffs. We were absolutely crushed in game one on our own floor. How do you lose that badly on your own floor?

 

[MARIS61]

Maybe 4-5 coaches could get this team into the playoffs.

If Nate is one of them, why would you replace him?

 

[Minstrel]

We beat Phoenix in game one one the Suns' home floor. Gentry moved Grant Hill over to guard Andre Miller and Nate never attempted to counter the move. We only won one more game after that.

Because the Blazers had no one else playing well. Do you consider the players to have any responsibility, or is all player performance due to the coach? What "counters" can you make when no one else is capable of making plays? The Blazers/McMillan definitely tried exploiting Nash defending Batum, but Batum was also playing hurt in that series. Aldridge was given touches, but he wasn't aggressive (as per his career until last season) and didn't force the Suns to adjust their defense.

You're taking the easy way out, analytically, when you say "They didn't do well, the coach should have done SOMETHING." He did try things...at what point does being less talented (with Roy a non-entity and Batum hurt) matter? And is there some specific counter to Gentry putting his best defender on the one Blazer playing well that you think McMillan should have utilized?

I also believe it is the job of the coach to prepare his team for the playoffs. We were absolutely crushed in game one on our own floor. How do you lose that badly on your own floor?

One bad game doesn't tell us anything. If someone used one good game (like, say, the Blazers beating the Suns, on the road, without their best player) to illustrate that McMillan was a great coach, you'd suddenly see the value in using larger sample sizes than one game.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Nate isn't a bad coach....but for a very average coach he has an undeserved level of job security. If Oden leaves next season, he may (finally) start to feel some heat - but as long as he has Oden as his unimpeachable excuse for failure, he isn't going anywhere.

 

[jlprk]

I voted to fire him, and agree with these. He's an average coach. You give them 2-3 years and then try someone else. There are just too many fish in the sea, and one might excel. You don't refrain from fear that the next fish may be a little worse. If so, you get rid of him after only a year and throw out your net again. You keep doing this till you find a great coach.

They'll never get rid of him, but I think he needs to go.

I think he inhabits the zone of NBA coaches who probably don't make a large impact, positive or negative, on their team's chances.

Nate isn't a bad coach....but for a very average coach he has an undeserved level of job security.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

What is a "mediocracy"? When a team is run by a sportswriter? Are we doomed to become the Timberwolves? Is that why Canzano is leaving the Oregonian? :MARIS61:

 

[Mediocre Man]

Maybe 4-5 coaches could get this team into the playoffs.

If Nate is one of them, why would you replace him?

To get the team through the playoffs, and not just in them

 

[Natebishop3]

Because the Blazers had no one else playing well. Do you consider the players to have any responsibility, or is all player performance due to the coach? What "counters" can you make when no one else is capable of making plays? The Blazers/McMillan definitely tried exploiting Nash defending Batum, but Batum was also playing hurt in that series. Aldridge was given touches, but he wasn't aggressive (as per his career until last season) and didn't force the Suns to adjust their defense.

You're taking the easy way out, analytically, when you say "They didn't do well, the coach should have done SOMETHING." He did try things...at what point does being less talented (with Roy a non-entity and Batum hurt) matter? And is there some specific counter to Gentry putting his best defender on the one Blazer playing well that you think McMillan should have utilized?



One bad game doesn't tell us anything. If someone used one good game (like, say, the Blazers beating the Suns, on the road, without their best player) to illustrate that McMillan was a great coach, you'd suddenly see the value in using larger sample sizes than one game.

Why have a coach at all if you're just going to blame the players for sub-par play on the court? Hand the keys over to your best player and then you can lay all the blame on the players you want.

 

[Minstrel]

Why have a coach at all if you're just going to blame the players for sub-par play on the court? Hand the keys over to your best player and then you can lay all the blame on the players you want.

That's not what I said...I asked if you considered the players to have any responsibility, because you seemed to think that any failure on the court was purely McMillan's fault.

I do think player talent matters far more, in basketball, than coaching. Coaching isn't irrelevant, but a team's fate is much more closely tied to their overall team talent. As I said, among NBA coaches (that is, this doesn't apply to someone just pulled off the street), I believe the vast majority have no real impact on the team's fortunes...and I think McMillan is among that group. So I hardly feel like McMillan is crucial. I just think he makes a convenient whipping boy for fan frustration over what is actually a paucity of talent (partly due to injury).

If you're going to be able to get a difference-making coach (like a Phil Jackson or a Rick Adelman), great. Fire McMillan and make that change. If you're just going to replace him with another of the "no significant impact" coaches, I don't see the point. It's not risk-free to change coaches...you could get a negative-impact coach like PJ Carlisimo.

So, I really have no deep desire to see McMillan remain as coach. I just think he absorbs much more of the blame than he deserves and no one who advocates his dismissal generally provides a good and likely replacement. That's not to say there's no one out there who could do better...I don't think the Blazers should feel any hesitation to replace McMillan if they think they've found someone better.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I believe the vast majority have no real impact on the team's fortunes...and I think McMillan is among that group. So I hardly feel like McMillan is crucial. I just think he makes a convenient whipping boy for fan frustration over what is actually a paucity of talent (partly due to injury).

If you're going to be able to get a difference-making coach (like a Phil Jackson or a Rick Adelman), great. Fire McMillan and make that change. If you're just going to replace him with another of the "no significant impact" coaches, I don't see the point. It's not risk-free to change coaches...you could get a negative-impact coach like PJ Carlisimo.

So, I really have no deep desire to see McMillan remain as coach. I just think he absorbs much more of the blame than he deserves and no one who advocates his dismissal generally provides a good and likely replacement.

Many who advocate his replacement, however, disagree with your assessment of Nate as a no-impact coach. If one believes that the team's success is being hindered by Nate's abnormally slow pace (resulting from his predilection to avoid turnovers at all costs), as well as his inability to install a versatile offense that takes advantage of his players' strengths or to dictate to opponents by capitalizing on obvious matchup advantages, then one could easily argue that he is in reality a negative-impact coach.

One could also argue that even if McMillan is a no-impact coach, then once that fact is discovered, then we are obligated to jettison him for the opportunity to find a difference-maker. If the goal is to win a title, then there is no value in a no-impact coach unless you have superior talent. We clearly do not, so there is then no possibility of a championship without a difference-maker on the sidelines.

Treading water is of no value if there's no boat out there to rescue you; you have to swim somewhere. Yeah, you might head out to deeper water, but if you move, there's at least there's a possibility of reaching shore.

 

[Minstrel]

Many who advocate his replacement, however, disagree with your assessment of Nate as a no-impact coach.

I realize that. I was simply offering my opinion, not saying that it's objective reality. You're responding to my disagreement with their assessment that McMillan is a "negative impact" coach.

One could also argue that even if McMillan is a no-impact coach, then once that fact is discovered, then we are obligated to jettison him for the opportunity to find a difference-maker.

If you believe he's a no-impact coach but most NBA coaches do make positive impact, then yes, I agree with you. As I said, my opinion is that very, very few NBA coaches make significant impact. I believe one's chances of landing a superstar player are greater than landing a coach who makes a significant positive impact (that is, gets a team to play above its talent level). From such a world view, I think if you replace McMillan, you stand a higher chance of acquiring a negative-impact coach (there are plenty of those, because most of them aren't currently in the NBA...the Pistons just jettisoned one in Keuster) than you do of acquiring a positive-impact coach (because there are so few such basketball coaches in the world, IMO). The greatest likelihood is you acquire another "no-impact" coach.

This isn't an argument for stasis. If the Blazers organization believes they've found someone better, someone who might be a positive-impact coach...they should go for it. What this is an argument for is not to fire McMillan "just for the sake of change." It's also an argument that McMillan is scapegoated for things outside of his control, IMO. That's not to say he's done everything right...obviously I don't believe that. But he doesn't control team talent or injuries, and I think those two things have been far and away the most guiding to the team's path.

 

[Nikolokolus]

There's just a couple of questions that I see as pertinent as far as Nate's job security.

Is he a great coach?
Does his presence add value in the playoffs?
And lastly, does he still have the ear of his team?

If you can't answer definitely yes to those questions then his job shouldn't be safe. Aside from the third question I don't think you can answer in the affirmative.

Nate's decent, but if for instance they could have dumped him to add a guy of Adelman's caliber (who wasn't under contract at the end of last year) then I would have no qualms about it.

 

[Minstrel]

If you can't answer definitely yes to those questions then his job shouldn't be safe. Aside from the third question I don't think you can answer in the affirmative.

Nate's decent, but if for instance they could have dumped him to add a guy of Adelman's caliber (who wasn't under contract at the end of last year) then I would have no qualms about it.

Just for the sake of perspective (to those who may be mistakenly assuming that I'm an ardent McMillan defender), I fully agree with these sentiments. I think McMillan is a "decent" coach, his job shouldn't be safe or assured and I'd love to dump him for a guy of Adelman's caliber.

 

[e_blazer]

As far as I can tell from watching the NBA for about 40 years, no coach's job is "safe". The easiest thing to do when management wants to shake things up is to dump the head coach. Fans seldom give a coach more than a season or two before they start calling for a change if things aren't going to their expectations. Players can reach a point where they won't listen to a coach if he's telling them to do things in a way that they don't like. Even a great coach like Jack Ramsay reached a point where he was no longer effective with the players he was coaching. So, no, I don't think Nate's job is "safe" regardless of what he's done in the past. I also think that he knows this better than any of us around here do. It goes with the territory. Unlike other coaches, he's avoided the financial security of demanding long contracts. I respect that. He wants to be judged on his record, and he also wants the freedom to move on if he thinks that management is no longer doing what needs to happen to build the team into a winning franchise. Nate's got integrity and that can't be said about every coach in the NBA.