Really though, all love aside. Nate.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Boise Blazer said:
I think Nate can be the right head coach and that he is going to continue to grow as a coach just like our players will grow in their basketball evolution but I agree that I really want to see more fire out of him especially in sticking up for his players with the refs.

And not that I dislike any of our current assistant coaches but I think with Nate its all about who you surround him with as far as his staff goes.
Click to expand...



The comment Nate continuing to grow always puzzles me. He has been a coach for 9 years. How much more growing is there to do?
 
cdub503 said:
We can get mchale now!!
Click to expand...




All kidding aside, and no, I don't want McHale as coach, but he actually coached well. Before Al Jefferson went down he led that pathetic team to a 13-17 record, and after a couple of weeks practice under his system they were 13-10 before Jefferson went down.

With Al Jefferson this year, and in his other year as coach he led his teams to a .524 winning %

To put that in perspective, Nate's winning % is only .498


So if McHale is viewed as a bad coach...........I think it's fair to say that Nate has probably had a little more talent overall than McHale has had to work with as well, but it's close.
 
Mediocre Man said:
The comment Nate continuing to grow always puzzles me. He has been a coach for 9 years. How much more growing is there to do?
Click to expand...

People learn their whole life dont they? Why are coaches different? Should he have the basics down pat? Of course, but to think that its not an ongoing evolution with different teams and players puzzles me. A good coach makes his team play good but a great coach takes what his team and players have to offer and adapts to that.
 
So to get winning percentages for the two, you are going to exclude the latter half of this season for McHale, but include Nate's first few seasons here, with the team going through an obvious rebuild, and having crap on the roster? Well, if that's the way you want to analyze statistics, they'll always show you what you want them to.

I'll say I don't count Nate having to coach Zach, but once they were finally able to get rid of him, Nate has coached at a .580 clip.

Or, just remoev his first season here, dealing with the crap on that roster, and for his career he is at .529, so still better than McHale.
 
Shooter said:
McMillan has taken the Blazers from 21 wins, to 32, to 41, and then 54 last year.

Yeah, you're right. He's a bum. Get him out of here.
Click to expand...


:confused:

He didn't say he was a bum. Reading is hard.
 
Like with players, replace McMillan if you can get a better alternative. I don't think he needs to be replaced, I think he's a solid/good head coach. There are better ones, though, and if the Blazers could get one (like Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman, Greg Popovich), then great.

If not, Portland is in fine shape with McMillan.
 
McMillan is learning, but he's obviously on the right track. The track record of the team and players developed speaks for itself.

I'd like Portland to see this through. Now if Phil Jackson or Pop expressed interest, I'd change my tune.
 
Minstrel said:
Rick Adelman
Click to expand...

Do you think he can get a team over the line?

I've been thinking about him recently. I've always been dead set against him ever coming back when people bring it up on here, but players seem to love him and he can guide teams deep into the playoffs... I just wonder if he can get teams over the line... I'm not sure he can.

Brilliant regular season coach. Just not sure if he's a finisher.

I think he'd do really well with this Portland team though.

(Yes, all of this is just talk as he's not avail)
 
OddEnormous said:
Do you think he can get a team over the line?

I've been thinking about him recently. I've always been dead set against him ever coming back when people bring it up on here, but players seem to love him and he can guide teams deep into the playoffs... I just wonder if he can get teams over the line... I'm not sure he can.
Click to expand...

I think he can. I don't think his teams have generally been upset...when he and his teams have lost, it's generally to a better team. He got the Blazers past a great Lakers team to reach the Finals. He almost got the Kings past the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, I don't think that long rebound and Horry three was his fault.

Larry Brown was also called a great regular season coach but possibly not a guy who could win a championship, until he did. I think it's just very hard to win a title without having a top-five player, and Adelman has never had that. He's still come very close to winning it all.
 
Minstrel said:
I think he can. I don't think his teams have generally been upset...when he and his teams have lost, it's generally to a better team. He got the Blazers past a great Lakers team to reach the Finals. He almost got the Kings past the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, I don't think that long rebound and Horry three was his fault.

Larry Brown was also called a great regular season coach but possibly not a guy who could win a championship, until he did. I think it's just very hard to win a title without having a top-five player, and Adelman has never had that. He's still come very close to winning it all.
Click to expand...

2 things are wrong in that post

he never got by the Lakers to get the finals and he lost to LAL in WCF when Portland was the favorite.

I somewhat agree with the 2nd half of your post. But he had a top 2 player with CD22 and still wouldn't have a top 5 player this time either (Roy top 10 to 15)
 
Mediocre Man said:
Care to wager on the "Nate will win one ring in Portland, at the very least" Wook?


And I know that at least two of those people you mentioned does not agree with you by the way.
Click to expand...

You're on. You're still in Houston, right? Six-pack of domestic?
 
OddEnormous said:
2 things are wrong in that post

he never got by the Lakers to get the finals and he lost to LAL in WCF when Portland was the favorite.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my mistake. I thought they beat the Lakers in 1990.

I somewhat agree with the 2nd half of your post. But he had a top 2 player with CD22 and still wouldn't have a top 5 player this time either (Roy top 10 to 15)
Click to expand...

I don't agree that Drexler was a top-five (let alone top-two) player. Jordan, Olajuwon, Malone, Robinson and Barkley were all better players, and then there were players like Ewing, Stockton and Kevin Johnson who were on a similar level. Drexler then was essentially what Roy seems to be now...a likely top-ten player who's solidly outside the top-five.
 
OddEnormous said:
Do you think he can get a team over the line?

I've been thinking about him recently. I've always been dead set against him ever coming back when people bring it up on here, but players seem to love him and he can guide teams deep into the playoffs... I just wonder if he can get teams over the line... I'm not sure he can.

Brilliant regular season coach. Just not sure if he's a finisher.

I think he'd do really well with this Portland team though.

(Yes, all of this is just talk as he's not avail)
Click to expand...

I think Jordan and Isiah had more to do with Portland not getting the title then Rick did. He did take that team to the finals twice. Then he should have taken the Kings to the finals, but he got fucked by the refs. Houston has played very, very well in spite of never actually having all of their starters healthy at the same time for more then a couple of games.

Rick is a very good coach who has had the misfortune of not coaching Shaq, Kobe, Jordan, Isiah, Magic, etc... That isn't his fault and all the coaching in the world isn't going to make up for that talent discrepancy.
 
I think the coach is important, but when I look around the league, there are two types of successful coaches. There are those that dictate the game to the other team, and there are those that react to the moves the other coach makes. IMO the coaches that are the "reactors", who match up to what other teams are doing, are always going to fall short. The reason being, the coaches who are dictating the way the game is being played, are playing to their strengths. The coaches who are just matching up with them, are putting their best matchup out out on the floor, but unless they have a superior player of every size type, they are in a losing predicament.

Coaches that react: Dunleavy. Both Van Gundy's. Avory Johnson.

Coaches that dictate: Popovich, Jackson, Sloan, Karl, D'Antoni and Adelman.

Nate seems to fall into neither of these camps.
 
Boise Blazer said:
People learn their whole life dont they? Why are coaches different? Should he have the basics down pat? Of course, but to think that its not an ongoing evolution with different teams and players puzzles me. A good coach makes his team play good but a great coach takes what his team and players have to offer and adapts to that.
Click to expand...

So if the basics are down pat, as they should be, and Nate's teams have never, ever ran.........


Your last statement is what I have been saying. Nate is a good coach. He can coach guys and make them play good. Nate however has never altered from his slow pace in his 9 years of coaching. I would think that at least 1 of the umpteen "experts" that said we should be pushing more knows what they are talking about. Nate refused to do that though.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't agree that Drexler was a top-five (let alone top-two) player.
Click to expand...

Never seen him play huh? Pretty sure he was runner up to MJ in MVP voting the year they met in the finals.

You may want to have a look at his numbers.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Your last statement is what I have been saying. Nate is a good coach. He can coach guys and make them play good. Nate however has never altered from his slow pace in his 9 years of coaching. I would think that at least 1 of the umpteen "experts" that said we should be pushing more knows what they are talking about. Nate refused to do that though.
Click to expand...

In his 3rd year in Seattle - his team was 15th in the league in pace. Not fast - but certainly not slow (relative to the rest of the league).

The numbers just do not support the claim that Nate always had slow teams. We have gone through this in the past - you believe they would have been better faster - a year after he left, the same team was much faster and much worse than when he was there - so maybe, just maybe - he knew what he was doing with that team...
 
RickyRubio said:
I hope one day I can be as brilliant as you.
Click to expand...
It appears you are a long way away, but if you work at it, I'm sure you'll get there.

Keep pimping the overrated Euro's and coaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magnifier661
Coach Nate McMillan Raises Like 1,000 Questions About Blazers Roster
Replies
6
Views
759
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
ucatchtrout
Nate
Replies
9
Views
1K
Minstrel
Minstrel
Natebishop3
You're Cho: What would you do?
2 3
Replies
68
Views
4K
MickZagger
MickZagger
B
FUCK Nate!
Replies
27
Views
1K
BoomChakaLaka
BoomChakaLaka
NOBODY
Nate got outcoached by TP
Replies
8
Views
1K
bodyman5001
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top