This team is done. Fire Nate. Seriously. This is ridiculous.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
HomerLovesKoolAid said:
We have a GM by committee, why not a coach?

I suggest a select S2 panel should text in game plans and instructions during timeouts, it's foolproof.
Click to expand...

Or we could just do what Nate does... hand the ball to your best player and let him do whatever he wants :grin:
 
HomerLovesKoolAid said:
We have a GM by committee, why not a coach?

I suggest a select S2 panel should text in game plans and instructions during timeouts, it's foolproof.
Click to expand...

I like this idea! I will sit on the bench and you guys can tweet me the plays after you figure out which ones to run.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Or we could just do what Nate does... hand the ball to your best player and let him do whatever he wants :grin:
Click to expand...

Not unless you think Jamal Crawford is our best player. Nate does designate a go to guy who will get the majority of the shots in the 4th quarter, and it seems like it's ALWAYS a guy who can bring the ball up the court and get off a shot without any passing or player movement. It's like he's afraid a play involving more than one player is too complex for the team to handle. So, he goes the "safe" route of non-stop isos for the 2 guard. The ineptitude of this scheme was masked when Brandon Roy was one of the best 1-on-1 offensive players in the game. Jamal Crawford, not so much.

The second half point differential is severely skewed by the 32 point home win over Sacramento, the 38 point home win over Phoenix and the 44 point home win over Charlotte. We blow out the shitty teams at home, but lose to Detroit, Phoenix and Sacramento on the road.

BNM
 
Same old story as Blazers falter on the road
I love that title by Joe Freeman.
SACRAMENTO -- Sacramento is a little more than 380 miles away from Los Angeles.

But Thursday night's game between the Trail Blazers and Sacramento Kings might as well have been played on some studio lot deep inside Hollywood.

Blazers fans have seen this movie before.

It was the same story on a different day for these maddening Blazers, who blew yet another early lead and suffered yet another road defeat, falling 95-92 to the Kings before 11,740 at Power Balance Pavilion.

"We gave the game away, plain and simple," Jamal Crawford said.
Click to expand...
No shit!!!

This team is awful on holding onto the lead. I blame the coach. He needs to have more timeouts and change of strategies.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Not unless you think Jamal Crawford is our best player. Nate does designate a go to guy who will get the majority of the shots in the 4th quarter, and it seems like it's ALWAYS a guy who can bring the ball up the court and get off a shot without any passing or player movement. It's like he's afraid a play involving more than one player is too complex for the team to handle. So, he goes the "safe" route of non-stop isos for the 2 guard. The ineptitude of this scheme was masked when Brandon Roy was one of the best 1-on-1 offensive players in the game. Jamal Crawford, not so much.

The second half point differential is severely skewed by the 32 point home win over Sacramento, the 38 point home win over Phoenix and the 44 point home win over Charlotte. We blow out the shitty teams at home, but lose to Detroit, Phoenix and Sacramento on the road.

BNM
Click to expand...

That's probably why he wanted Crawford so badly. He wanted Roy 2.0 because his offense can't exist without a shooting guard with handles.
 
This team does need to look in a different direction. The coach is stale, the offense is stale. Nate has never been a good schematic coach, not good at all IMO. He is a great motivator when you think things are snowballing out of control he'll motivate and overachieve. He doesn't know how to run an offense that can utilize more than one main option at a time. Shit, look at what kind of wonders Adelman has done in Minnesota with a rookie PG. Ball movement, player movement. All good coaches emphasize it. Tired of watching Blazer guards dribble the air out of the ball.

I have said it for a couple years, but I think Budenholzer a long-time Pop assistant would be a good hire. Lets get some new ideas on offense.
 
Last edited:
I havent had a chance to read through the game thread but my thought was why, in the second half, of a b2b, when we were struggling on offense did Nate keep the starters in almost the whole third quarter? If its not working you have to try something else. It takes a few key plays here or there to spark things sometime and the starters just werent getting it done. Im not saying a wholesale substitution but you gotta try something. I also think this was the kind of game that Batum would have been the perfect person to make those plays that spark the run we so desperately needed.
 
Why blame McMillan?? He wasn't the one who botched a simple 2-on-1 play, that was Crawford.
 
There are alot of frusterated Blazer fans right now... as we should be. This is bullshit!
 
Been saying this for the last 2 years....get rid of Nate fucking McMillian. He's a terrible predictable coach. Shitty offense, and has no fire in his personality to inspire the toughness of these guys.
 
blue32 said:
Been saying this for the last 2 years....get rid of Nate fucking McMillian. He's a terrible predictable coach. Shitty offense, and has no fire in his personality to inspire the toughness of these guys.
Click to expand...

I think Nate has mostly always gotten guys to play hard for him and I don't think he's a "terrible" coach, but I can't argue with the rest of it. I think Nate's tenure has run its course -- it happens to every coach eventually.
 
I was unhappy with the Iso-Roy offense when we had Roy, and he was awesome at it. Now, god what a disaster.
 
Nates not gonna get fired. I don't know why but he has as much job security as a Phil Jackson type coach. And there can be another excuse this season as well. Oden not coming back, Roy retiring, yada yada yada. Come to reality. He's here to stay. So frustrating too! We had a chance to get adelman this season. Instead we went all in with Nate. I can't imagine how much better we would have been with adelman coaching this team.
 
In a game where Wallace blew a simple layup and the team blew a 3 on 1 fastbreak, I guess I have a hard time getting into Nate-bashing. The problem with this team is that there are a bunch of players who play terrific ball when things are going well, but who shrivel up like a salted slug when the going gets tough. The team needs a player with that extra something that Roy had in spades. Unfortunately, those players are nearly impossible to find.
 
e_blazer said:
In a game where Wallace blew a simple layup and the team blew a 3 on 1 fastbreak, I guess I have a hard time getting into Nate-bashing. The problem with this team is that there are a bunch of players who play terrific ball when things are going well, but who shrivel up like a salted slug when the going gets tough. The team needs a player with that extra something that Roy had in spades. Unfortunately, those players are nearly impossible to find.
Click to expand...

Nash is the guy. I'm telling you it makes perfect sense!
 
I agree, it is not all McMillan....although I don't think he is this fantastic coach that some other people do, but the bottom line is that this is just a mediocre team....

Rebuild...Retool...whatever you want to call it....Outside of Aldridge, Batum and possibly Elliot Williams, clean the rest of the roster out...build around those 2-3 players...

You have a fair amount of expiring contracts (Felton, Crawford, Camby, likely Wallace) some players who IMO would have value to other teams at the All Star Break (Wallace, Matthews, Camby & Thomas)

Oh yeah, but before you do that, get a frickin GM...b\c Buchanan is a lousy judge of talent....
 
We play bad on the road because of the team culture. It's just like any company; the culture begats a mindset that the players employ during the game. I don't believe Nate holds his players accountable for their mistakes. If he did, he would bench players when they break his directive. He tried once with Miller, and then hasn't since.

The culture starts with Allen, who appears to no longer be as interested as he once was. Sarge doesn't appear to hold players accountable. And our self-admitted on-court leader isn't commanding the performance out of his teammates. Change the culture, change the team.

Allen needs to step up, be more involved (not with decisions, but with face time, expectations, etc...), hire an assertive GM, fire Nate, get a Tom Coughlin type disiplinary coach and demand Aldridge take some leadership courses.

Changed culture + our roster + Hard-ass coach = success
 
e_blazer said:
In a game where Wallace blew a simple layup and the team blew a 3 on 1 fastbreak, I guess I have a hard time getting into Nate-bashing. The problem with this team is that there are a bunch of players who play terrific ball when things are going well, but who shrivel up like a salted slug when the going gets tough. The team needs a player with that extra something that Roy had in spades. Unfortunately, those players are nearly impossible to find.
Click to expand...

"Impossible to find?" Tough certainly, but not impossible.
 
magnifier661 said:
Nash is the guy. I'm telling you it makes perfect sense!
Click to expand...

Nash might give us a lift for 20 games ... and then what? Hell, even if you can resign him (which is no guarantee) what can you reasonably expect next year when you probably lose Camby and Wallace and maybe Batum (nevermind who you traded to get Nash) and you're mostly left with a skeleton crew around LaMarcus and Nash and that's probably going to crater spectacularly.

I know people still want to believe that we're on the cusp of something great if we could only make that one move ... but it's far more dire than that.
 
yuyuza1 said:
Misuse of statistics ftw.
Click to expand...

I did an analysis for mags a few weeks ago. He was discouraged by the lack of 'second half adjustments'. I went over the previous 5 games, and found that the Blazers had outscored the other team in 4 out of the 5 games he was talking about.

This was before the blowout wins against PHX and CHA, and anyway, why shouldn't those games count? Or are the Blazers expected to win every second half of every game, and failure to do so means the coach sucks?

Please add your own stats to disprove mine. "Misuse of stats ftw" is intellectually lazy, and can't be taken seriously without a sourced counterpoint.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Nash might give us a lift for 20 games ... and then what? Hell, even if you can resign him (which is no guarantee) what can you reasonably expect next year when you probably lose Camby and Wallace and maybe Batum (nevermind who you traded to get Nash) and you're mostly left with a skeleton crew around LaMarcus and Nash and that's probably going to crater spectacularly.

I know people still want to believe that we're on the cusp of something great if we could only make that one move ... but it's far more dire than that.
Click to expand...

Viewing the world through negatron glasses and calling it reality again? I don't know whether Nash has enough left to push this team into contention this season, but he might. I'd sure as hell be willing to take a shot at going deep into the playoffs and worry about next season next summer.
 
Admittedly it does sadden me a little that I am this frustrated enough to be willing to deal with the consequences of a player rental for half of a season of Blazer enjoyment.
 
PapaG said:
I did an analysis for mags a few weeks ago. He was discouraged by the lack of 'second half adjustments'. I went over the previous 5 games, and found that the Blazers had outscored the other team in 4 out of the 5 games he was talking about.

This was before the blowout wins against PHX and CHA, and anyway, why shouldn't those games count? Or are the Blazers expected to win every second half of every game, and failure to do so means the coach sucks?

Please add your own stats to disprove mine. "Misuse of stats ftw" is intellectually lazy, and can't be taken seriously without a sourced counterpoint.
Click to expand...

You did not take into account the small sample size (n = 5? come on). You did not take into account the confounding biases (opponent quality, margin of overall victory [we did win by 44 last game, and won every quarter by a large amount],) etc ,etc.
 
The only stat that anyone should care about is fucking WINS. And on the road, where coaching is paramount, Nate absolutely FAILS.
 
e_blazer said:
Viewing the world through negatron glasses and calling it reality again? I don't know whether Nash has enough left to push this team into contention this season, but he might. I'd sure as hell be willing to take a shot at going deep into the playoffs and worry about next season next summer.
Click to expand...

Cute.

I'm sure a lot of people think Nash would be just what the doctor ordered, but stating that he probably won't because of some special circumstances doesn't mean I'm being wildly negative, it just means I'm capable of looking at this kind of move in context. A) If they trade for Nash there's going to be a feeling out period. In a normal year there would be more practice time and games to get it figured out. This year, with the compressed schedule, quickly adjusting to new teammates is going to be that much harder. B) If you're trading for Nash, presumably you are parting with what few assets we have left. We can't offer this year's first round pick because next year's is already committed to Charlotte (because of the Stepien rule) so all we have to offer that interests them is probably Nic and Elliot and whatever contract ballast is needed to fill out the deal.

I like this team and I don't want to see them completely mortgage the future on a deal that I think barely moves the contender meter now and severely cripples it for years later ... and you think I'm being negative. :facepalm:
 
Nash would obviously help every team in the league. I just don't want to give up players and picks just to rent him.
 
yuyuza1 said:
You did not take into account the small sample size (n = 5? come on). You did not take into account the confounding biases (opponent quality, margin of overall victory [we did win by 44 last game, and won every quarter by a large amount],) etc ,etc.
Click to expand...

Mags was specifically talking about 5 games, so I looked them up. The stats I gave earlier are representative of the entire season.

Again, offer a counterpoint, of keep being intellectually lazy. You said I misused the stats. I only offered the data. You're accusing me of something that I didn't do, which is intellectually dishonest as well. Attacking me doesn't change the actual data, ftw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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