Want Nate Gone? Read On

[ABM]

IMO, this is an interesting read. To me, Nate kind of has "things" figured out. It's no wonder to me that he simply relies on one-year deals - year in, and year out.

FWIW...

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/warriors/2010/09/15/what-i-want-in-a-coach/

 

[andalusian]

That's a good read.

 

[HailBlazers]

and people call Nate a control freak.

 

[noknobs]

Nate has evolved as a coach (IMO) during his time with the Blazers. He began as 'Sarge' and gradually eased up. That to me is one of the reasons I like him. When he got here, he had a young, immature, and in many ways unprofessional team. 'Sarge' is exactly what the team needed. But after a few years Nate seemed to realize that as the team matured and worked hard, it would be counter-productive to continue coaching that way. If he had continued to be 'Sarge' with the last few playoff teams, I think the players would have eventually tuned him out.

As Nate said last year, ""I'll be what I need to be, when I need to be it,"

He may not be the best X's and O's guy, but he is a great motivator and communicator. He's old-school, but is willing to listen to his players. And he has found a way to get his guys to buy into his system and keep their respect (well, except for Rudy). Even last year with all the injuries.

A great article by Joel Odom written last year on the subject.

 

[mook]

Interesting article. It kind of reminds me of when I've been a leader in volunteer organizations. You don't have any real authority (you can't and don't really want to fire volunteers) so you have to figure out how to motivate them. Never thought of it in terms of NBA coaching, but there are some similarities.

It's also why guys like Tim Duncan or Brandon Roy are so valuable. When the most talented person in the group buys into the leader, it makes everything a lot easier.

 

[gatorpops]

Nate has evolved as a coach (IMO) during his time with the Blazers. He began as 'Sarge' and gradually eased up. That to me is one of the reasons I like him. When he got here, he had a young, immature, and in many ways unprofessional team. 'Sarge' is exactly what the team needed. But after a few years Nate seemed to realize that as the team matured and worked hard, it would be counter-productive to continue coaching that way. If he had continued to be 'Sarge' with the last few playoff teams, I think the players would have eventually tuned him out.

As Nate said last year, ""I'll be what I need to be, when I need to be it,"

He may not be the best X's and O's guy, but he is a great motivator and communicator. He's old-school, but is willing to listen to his players. And he has found a way to get his guys to buy into his system and keep their respect (well, except for Rudy). Even last year with all the injuries.

A great article by Joel Odom written last year on the subject.

That seems to be why Nate or PA/Miller have gone out and got new coaching assistants. To help Nate where he is weakest. Great strategy (if it works). I for one think it will.

 

[OddEnormous]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Winning a single bloody playoff series or at the very least not getting blown out over 1/2 the time > blog post

 

[andalusian]

I am pretty sure Nate won a bloody playoff series in Seattle when he had a healthy team with a good matchup...

 

[oldmangrouch]

I am pretty sure Nate won a bloody playoff series in Seattle when he had a healthy team with a good matchup...

I'll agree on the injuries.....but a coach who can't win without being handed favorable match-ups is not taking a team to the top.

 

[andalusian]

I'll agree on the injuries.....but a coach who can't win without being handed favorable match-ups is not taking a team to the top.

The only other thing we had to go by is the Houston series - and that Blazers team was very, very young and very, very inexperienced. So, you had a team that was very green, in a series that was a big, bad mismatch... I do not think you can do too much projecting about his playoffs success based on this series.

If anything, I think that winning 2 games against PHX last year with a skeleton of a crew and minimal contribution from an injured Roy + hurting Batum - while the mighty, experienced Spurs with a hall-of-fame coach in Pop were swept by the same team - is not exactly a mark against Nate...

 

[MickZagger]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Winning a single bloody playoff series or at the very least not getting blown out over 1/2 the time > blog post

Your not a Blazer fan, why do you spend so much time here?

 

[SnakeOiler]

Your not a Blazer fan, why do you spend so much time here?

Some people need to complain. Lots of Debbie Downers out there...

 

[Sheldon Shape]

It seems that people have bad memory. He wasted a whole off-season having Andre Miller and Greg Oden play in the second unit. When either came to play in the same unit as Roy and Aldridge, either they didn't play well with them or the other way around. Way to go jackass. And when the team couldn't figure it out during the season, all he could say was that they needed to figure how to play with Oden. I also liked his comments directed towards Greg, saying he needed to only focus on the defensive and rebounding areas of the game. What a waste.

 

[mook]

Nate has made some boneheaded playing time decisions in the past. I don't think he really can this year. The starting positions and general rotation seem so incredibly obvious that I just don't think we'll be having all the controversy we had last year.

Miller is the starting PG. Undeniable.

I suppose there's the possibility that Nate will do something really, really fucking inane like starting Camby over Oden. But I don't think so. Oden really was beasting it up last year before he went down. It's not like in his first year where he entered the season with way too much expectation and flamed out on opening night against the Lakers, and was quickly relegated to the bench.

Oden was really, really damned good out there, and I think Nate just has to look at the game log to decide who starts. Or look at how well Oden does in pre-season.

It's Nate's job to make the starting unit of Roy/Aldridge/Miller/Batum/Oden work. That seems pretty clear-cut to me.

If he can't make it work, I think it'll be more on the players (specifically Roy and Miller) than the coach. Those are some really smart, quality, veteran guards there. It's on them to make it happen.

 

[HailBlazers]

Mike Krzyzewski on Nate coaching with him: per 95,5

Nate McMillian was such a stud, such an amazing guy with this team

 

[Minstrel]

I'll agree on the injuries.....but a coach who can't win without being handed favorable match-ups is not taking a team to the top.

Not sure I agree with that. I'm not sure Phil Jackson, for example, has won very many playoff series where he didn't have a favourable match-up and/or the superior team. And I consider Jackson the best coach of my NBA watching lifetime.

Ultimately, talent wins. No coach is taking a team to the top if they don't generally have the favourable match-up...unless they're just super lucky.

 

[MickZagger]

Mike Krzyzewski on Nate coaching with him: per 95,5

So he's a great assistant?

 

[HailBlazers]

So he's a great assistant?

On the best team in the world, behind the best college/Team USA coach ever. Great compliment. Especially considering there were no other glaring ones about the other coaches who are also great

 

[OddEnormous]

I am pretty sure Nate won a bloody playoff series in Seattle when he had a healthy team with a good matchup...

LOLZ!

 

[OddEnormous]

Your not a Blazer fan, why do you spend so much time here?

Actually I am. That's why I'd like Nate fired.






.

 

[OddEnormous]

Some people need to complain. Lots of Debbie Downers out there...

Facts are facts. That's all I posted.

If you read them as complaints, that says more than I could ever say.

 

[jlprk]

The article is extremely high in English skills, but the content is way too vague. The author doesn't give specifics on how the coach should relate to players. He just says that a good coach can figure it out. We already knew that.

When Andre Miller had his tirade yelling at McMillan, it could have gone the same as Miles-Cheeks. Instead, McMillan acted regretful afterward. I was surprised. I think that incident is key to understanding his tough guy act.

 

[BGrantFan]

When Andre Miller had his tirade yelling at McMillan, it could have gone the same as Miles-Cheeks. Instead, McMillan acted regretful afterward. I was surprised. I think that incident is key to understanding his tough guy act.

Very solid point. A lot of coaches have lost control of their players/team after such incidents. Mo Cheeks and PJ Carlesimo immediately come to mind. Instead of losing the player/team, Miller started playing much better, and Nate apologized for his approach in delivering his message, but not his actual message.

Both guys came across as extremely professional in the aftermath of that practice. A lot of teams would have gone sideways after it.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

good article, thanks for the link.

To me, the article was singing the praises of KP. He drafted talented players with good attitudes and sang culture, culture, culture. Once he got Roy and LMA to buy in and get rid of Randolph, it's not that hard for the coach. Nate has made mistakes, but I happy with how he's done.

The article also reminded me of Mike Dunleavy. Awesome Xs and Os guy, not so good at motivating the modern player.

 

[mook]

The article also reminded me of Mike Dunleavy. Awesome Xs and Os guy, not so good at motivating the modern player.

I'm probably one of the only Dunleavy fans out there. Mostly because one of my favorite players of all time, Rasheed, played so damned well under the guy. Sure, Sheed hated his guts, but there's no denying that the last 4 years Dunleavy coached him, he built a fantastic low post game, became a great defender, and was constantly getting better.

Dunleavy gets fired and Sheed coasts on his results in his first season under Cheeks. Cheeks lets him float out to the perimeter (because he's a "players coach"), and thus began the steady decline. Within 3 years his PER dropped from 20 to 16, and he was a quality starter but a three-point-chucking shadow of his former self.

Someday Sheed should write a thank you note to Dunleavy for that ridiculous contract. "THANK YOU YOU MOTHER FUCKING DICK! I HATE YOUR FUCKING GUTS BUT I SURE LOVE SPENDING ALL THIS FUCKING MONEY! FUCK!"

Dunleavy was kind of unlikeable. Which is definitely a huge liability as an NBA coach. If he had Cheeks' charisma (or Cheeks had Dunleavy's talent), he'd probably still be coaching the team.

In many ways I think McMillan is a combination of the best of both guys.

 

[OddEnormous]

Very solid point. A lot of coaches have lost control of their players/team after such incidents. Mo Cheeks and PJ Carlesimo immediately come to mind. Instead of losing the player/team, Miller started playing much better, and Nate apologized for his approach in delivering his message, but not his actual message.

Both guys came across as extremely professional in the aftermath of that practice. A lot of teams would have gone sideways after it.

Exactly how low have our expectations dropped?

 

[HailBlazers]

Exactly how low have our expectations dropped?

I'm sorry OddTroll, but I'll take Mike Krzyzewski's perception of a coach any day over the fast majority of assholes, er I mean opinions

 

[STOMP]

Not sure I agree with that. I'm not sure Phil Jackson, for example, has won very many playoff series where he didn't have a favourable match-up and/or the superior team. And I consider Jackson the best coach of my NBA watching lifetime.

Ultimately, talent wins. No coach is taking a team to the top if they don't generally have the favourable match-up...unless they're just super lucky.

thats not the only part of his premise that is messed up, his Warrior history is askew as well. It wasn't Nelson who had issues with Weber, it was the Warriors horrible rookie owner Chris Cohan who didn't want to pay him. CW achieved an out in his rookie contract by winning ROY and hitting some statistical requirements. The club was free from the regular rookie pay scale that we now have and could have given him the sort of contract that a top talent garners (I recall him wanting 10M-ish per year). Cohan dragged his feet that offseason and ultimately offered him a 7 year contract for 6M per knowing that every team with capspace had already spent it. Dude was playing hardball betting that Weber wouldn't take the scraps others could offer and would sign well below what he could get on the open market. CW of course was pissed about this burned bridges with the Warriors publicly, but didn't say it was all about the money for PR sake. Nelson was the fall guy taking the blame for his owners gamble/cheapness.

Beyond that, I really didn't buy much of what the article was selling. Like you and a few who commented in the article itself, I side with the talent wins view. I'm not some big fan of DN's, but he's done a lot with not much. He's never really had a great team to speak of. Some good but flawed teams, yet dude is first in all time coaching wins.

STOMP

 

[Further]

Coaches have a lot of jobs, but the two main ones are 1) x's and o's, and 2) getting the team motivated and on the same page.

Nate has #2 very well, but is deficient in #1. However, with new assistant coaches who are supposed to be good x's, and o's guys, hopefully that will be enough to make the NATE TEAM a great coaching team.

 

[ABM]

However, with new assistant coaches who are supposed to be good x's, and o's guys, hopefully that will be enough to make the NATE TEAM a great coaching team.

Yes.

Oh, and as someone once said, where would Phil Jackson be without the insights of, one, Tex Winter?