Sam Smith: "Nate is Top of the Second Tier"

[Tince]

That's what he said on Courtside. Basically said he's no Phil Jackson, Jerry Solan, Larry Brown, but he's the best of the next level.

Is having the best second tier coach good enough for us?

 

[julius]

That's what he said on Courtside. Basically said he's no Phil Jackson, Jerry Solan, Larry Brown, but he's the best of the next level.

Is having the best second tier coach good enough for us?

Pfft..what does Sam Smith know? Mediocre Man coaches kids basketball!




(and I'm not a fan of Nate..but someone was going to make a crack at MM)

 

[TripTango]

Unless and until a top-tier coach becomes available, yes.

 

[Tince]

Unless and until a top-tier coach becomes available, yes.

That's kinda how I feel. Why trade in your B+ car when you can't afford an A car?

 

[B-Roy]

That's kinda how I feel. Why trade in your B+ car when you can't afford an A car?

Because it's an assclown.

 

[Draco]

Unless and until a top-tier coach becomes available, yes.

Pretty much my opinion. I question some of Nate's decisions, he definetely has room to improve.

But if Larry Drew is getting head coaching jobs, I'm not sure there is a realistic better alternative.

 

[Driew]

And this is why I say we don't understand just how good of a coach McMillan is--certainly beats Cheeks...

 

[jlprk]

This changes everything. What he says goes. Sam Smith said that I am at the top of the third tier of basketball coaches, but he forgot to say Simon Says.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Pfft..what does Sam Smith know? Mediocre Man coaches kids basketball!




(and I'm not a fan of Nate..but someone was going to make a crack at MM)

"Kids" makes it sound so cheap.......I prefer the term high school

 

[Mediocre Man]

That's what he said on Courtside. Basically said he's no Phil Jackson, Jerry Solan, Larry Brown, but he's the best of the next level.

Is having the best second tier coach good enough for us?

I didn't hear the comments, so I can only go by what you wrote.

So Sam Smith thinks Nate is better than Pop, SVG, Alvin Gentry (who outcoached Nate in the playoffs), Rick Adelman (who outcoached Nate last year in the playoffs), George Karl, Doc Rivers (on the verge of winnig his second title. Why is Nate considered better than Mike Brown or Mike Woodson? Both finished with better winning %. Scott Brooks showed he is a good coach too. What makers Nate better than him? He has some hardware that says differently.


The answer is no. Nate is not good enough for this team. He has shown that the last two years.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I would pretty much agree that Nate is a good coach, but not a top tier one. But it's also the players that wins games. Nate is probably good enough to win a title with the right players.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm sort of with MM on this one--there are several coaches other than Jackson, Sloan, and Brown who are better than Nate, or have at least proven more than Nate. I'm willing to bet there are also several assistant coaches who have not yet had an opportunity, but would be better head coaches than Nate is.

However, I don't think there are any coaches out there who are obviously, demonstrably better than Nate and are available, and I don't think we necessarily know for certain that Nate is/isn't a championship coach, so I can't necessarily justify jettisoning him...yet.

 

[Sug]

Pfft..what does Sam Smith know? Mediocre Man coaches kids basketball!




(and I'm not a fan of Nate..but someone was going to make a crack at MM)

What were those guys before they were first tier? How old were they when the reached that first tier? How many seasons did it take them to get there? How many of them had an MVP player on their team? Duncan, Jordan, Malone, Kobe? Larry Brown is a tough one to call tier one IMHO. Great players can make a coach look pretty good though.

 

[craigehlo]

Top of the second tier is generous. I'm just very unclear at what Nate does WELL. People that seem to defend him just regurgitate the "50 wins" mantra without any evidence it was the coach and not the personnel that got the Blazers to that supposedly magic number. I saw a lot of games bailed out by Andre, Camby and Roy in that 50 when the offense couldn't get players open shots, or the defense couldn't get stops.

We've had two straight seasons where we could analyze the Nate in a playoff situations and I'd argue he was an unmitigated disaster in each. Poor substitutions, players unprepared, offensive schemes that don't adjust to the opposing coaches moves.

 

[BBert]

Top of the second tier is generous. I'm just very unclear at what Nate does WELL. People that seem to defend him just regurgitate the "50 wins" mantra without any evidence it was the coach and not the personnel that got the Blazers to that supposedly magic number. I saw a lot of games bailed out by Andre, Camby and Roy in that 50 when the offense couldn't get players open shots, or the defense couldn't get stops.

We've had two straight seasons where we could analyze the Nate in a playoff situations and I'd argue he was an unmitigated disaster in each. Poor substitutions, players unprepared, offensive schemes that don't adjust to the opposing coaches moves.

I agree. As far as I can tell, the only thing Nate does well is get his guys to limit mistakes and never give up. By virtue of those two things, they squeek out some extra wins. While that is admirable, it isn't enough to make him a "good coach" imo. I'd welcome a change. I think there are a lot of basketball guys out there who could get just as much or more out of the players on our roster.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I would call a Nate a top fifteen coach in the league. He's done a pretty good job, especially motivating and sometimes getting blood from a stone, but I still have serious questions about his ability to make adjustments in a playoff scenario; this year should answer these questions once and for all.

 

[Tince]

I didn't hear the comments, so I can only go by what you wrote.

So Sam Smith thinks Nate is better than Pop, SVG, Alvin Gentry (who outcoached Nate in the playoffs), Rick Adelman (who outcoached Nate last year in the playoffs), George Karl, Doc Rivers (on the verge of winnig his second title. Why is Nate considered better than Mike Brown or Mike Woodson? Both finished with better winning %. Scott Brooks showed he is a good coach too. What makers Nate better than him? He has some hardware that says differently.


The answer is no. Nate is not good enough for this team. He has shown that the last two years.

Sorry, I didn't make it more clear. I don't believe Sam Smith listed off every coach he thought was top tier, but I'm near confident Pop would be in that category for him. I doubt any of the other coaches you listed were, but that's just a guess.

 

[handiman]

So Sam Smith thinks Nate is better than Pop, SVG, Alvin Gentry (who outcoached Nate in the playoffs), Rick Adelman (who outcoached Nate last year in the playoffs), George Karl, Doc Rivers (on the verge of winnig his second title. Why is Nate considered better than Mike Brown or Mike Woodson? Both finished with better winning %. Scott Brooks showed he is a good coach too. What makers Nate better than him? He has some hardware that says differently.

When you list it out like that, slightly above average sounds about right... Which I guess is basically what the team is, being a 1st round and out'er the past two years, and more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs, so that distinction puts you right around average. (Give or take, with the conference disparity.)

 

[craigehlo]

To me it really boils down to this: Good coaching force you to play their style of game. Bad coaching allow the opposing team to get away with it.

Nate is in the latter category more often than not.

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

So basically, yesterday Sam Smith states that the Blazers could get involved in the LeBron sweepstakes and he's called "clueless" and has "zero credibility." Today, he calls Nate top of the second tier and we are supposed to agree.

Interesting.

FWIW, (as usual) I'm in 100% agreement with Nik.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think McMillan has done anything to positively or negatively separate himself from the majority of coaches in the league. So I'd say he's in the middle tier of NBA coaches. Coaching value is far too hard to quantify in order to be more precise than that in ranking, IMO. I don't think he's one of the very few coaches who makes his team worse than the talent on hand suggests they should be and I don't think he's one of the very few coaches who makes his team better than the talent on hand suggests they should be.