What to do with Nate this year?

[illmatic99]

I really want us to go a different route, but this management seems to be enthralled with Nate. I have to give him credit for being able to roll with the punches and coach a depleted roster into being mediocre. But whenever he's had a full roster (regardless of how few stretches), he's fucked up pretty bad.

But it's hard to determine if Nate will choose to stay here even if he is offered an extension. He bolted Seattle when the ownership got shady, and it's sorta similar here. But if he's offered another similar contract like last time (5 years, $30 mil), it would be hard to pass that up.

 

[RR7]

I voted no. But I do think it is unfair to criticize him to an extent on rotations, that when he has a full roster, he fucks them up. If you have a full roster, and 8 guys who can start for you(more last season than this), how exactly DO you manage those rotations? Without making someone upset. Especially the fan base. Every fan has his or her favorites. So if he plays Bayless too little, he's fucking that up, Rudy he's fucking that up, Armon, Patty, etc. If you go out and start this season Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, oden with Armon, Patty, Rudy, Wes, Cunningham, Camby, Joel on the bench...someone isn't going to get the minutes or role they want. Joel, probably. Rudy, as well. And some guys, and this is a GM issue more-so than a coach issue, thrive in different situations, and don't excel as much in bench roles, etc.

I mean people complained he fucked up our rotations two years ago, and after Frye left some were pissed that he did well in Phonix, and Nate fucked it up, but seemed like a lot of people here wanted Diogu in over Frye, because Frye liked to float out at the perimiter(what he does in Phoenix) and nobody wanted that out of our backup. I think there's a chance we can do better at coach. I think we can do worse. I am all for trying it out to see. But some of the criticisms, I just don't get.

 

[ABM]

I think he wants the chance at a semi-full year with Oden. Me thinks it'll be another one-year deal. Nothing more at this point. Would seem to be a win-win, IMO.

 

[illmatic99]

I think you're right to an extent, RR7. And I'm guilty of doing that.

His inability to make adjustments in the playoffs both years, and the seemingly obvious double standards he has really bug me more than the rotations. I think he's an above average overall, but I believe we need a different philosophy and culture in place just for change's sake. Very few coaches have tenures longer than 5-6 years without any playoff success (even if that might be a result of him not having a full roster to work with).

 

[HailBlazers]

I think he wants the chance at a semi-full year with Oden. Me thinks it'll be another one-year deal.

I agree. I think he deserves a shot with a healthy Oden, after all he's got us through.

 

[hasoos]

I voted no. But I do think it is unfair to criticize him to an extent on rotations, that when he has a full roster, he fucks them up. If you have a full roster, and 8 guys who can start for you(more last season than this), how exactly DO you manage those rotations? Without making someone upset. Especially the fan base. Every fan has his or her favorites. So if he plays Bayless too little, he's fucking that up, Rudy he's fucking that up, Armon, Patty, etc. If you go out and start this season Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, oden with Armon, Patty, Rudy, Wes, Cunningham, Camby, Joel on the bench...someone isn't going to get the minutes or role they want. Joel, probably. Rudy, as well. And some guys, and this is a GM issue more-so than a coach issue, thrive in different situations, and don't excel as much in bench roles, etc.

I mean people complained he fucked up our rotations two years ago, and after Frye left some were pissed that he did well in Phonix, and Nate fucked it up, but seemed like a lot of people here wanted Diogu in over Frye, because Frye liked to float out at the perimiter(what he does in Phoenix) and nobody wanted that out of our backup. I think there's a chance we can do better at coach. I think we can do worse. I am all for trying it out to see. But some of the criticisms, I just don't get.

That was a lot to digest, but I really didn't see it that way. I didn't see the Blazers ever having 8 guys who could start, and for the most part, had 2 higher level players and a bunch of guys who weren't starters, but were constantly complaining about their minutes. Overall, I didn't feel the Blazers got another starting quality player on to the roster until they got Miller and then Camby, which is recent Blazer history.

The thing I see right now with Nate is growth, and I really don't want to pull the plug on that. He finally has Aldridge playing inside. I don't want another coach to come along and turn him back into a jump shooter. He is finally communicating with the players better and being more flexible to take advantage of their talents.

 

[illmatic99]

The thing I see right now with Nate is growth, and I really don't want to pull the plug on that. He finally has Aldridge playing inside. I don't want another coach to come along and turn him back into a jump shooter. He is finally communicating with the players better and being more flexible to take advantage of their talents.

Why do you assume that a different coach would not do the same? My feeling (hope, really) is that a new coach can bring a different perspective to our weaknesses and make them better while keeping the strengths we are developing now.

 

[e_blazer]

It's a bit of a cop-out, but I'm going to take Nate's lead and wait until the end of the season.

 

[hasoos]

Why do you assume that a different coach would not do the same? My feeling (hope, really) is that a new coach can bring a different perspective to our weaknesses and make them better while keeping the strengths we are developing now.

I am not assuming that. But by opening the door you are allowing the possibility. If you look forward, you can eliminate many mistakes by just not allowing them to have a chance to happen.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I voted

 

[ABM]

I voted

Me, too.

He's kinda like that girlfriend you're afraid to break up with, but are afraid to, even though you know there's decent chance there's a better girl out there for you.....somewhere.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It's a bit of a cop-out, but I'm going to take Nate's lead and wait until the end of the season.

That's how I feel.

In just half a season I have seen posters want him fired and then praise him several weeks later. Who knows where this team will be or where Nate will be with this team by the end of the year.

The fact that Nate can pretty much write his own ticket plays into the whole mix. The Blazers may not want to resign him, Nate may not want to resign, or they both want to resign for another year . . . crazy.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Me, too.

He's kinda like that girlfriend you're afraid to break up with, but are afraid to, even though you know there's decent chance there's a better girl out there for you.....somewhere.

So you are saying the Blazers should hold onto Nate while cheating with other coaches?

 

[illmatic99]

It's a bit of a cop-out...

What is?

 

[Boob-No-More]

I agree. I think he deserves a shot with a healthy Oden, after all he's got us through.

I disagree. He had a shot with a healthy Oden at the start of the 2009-10 season and had absolutely no clue how to use him. After Oden led the team in scoring during the preseason, Nate told him not to worry about scoring, to just focus on rebounding and defense.

BNM

 

[Mediocre Man]

I disagree. He had a shot with a healthy Oden at the start of the 2009-10 season and had absolutely no clue how to use him. After Oden led the team in scoring during the preseason, Nate told him not to worry about scoring, to just focus on rebounding and defense.

BNM

I think a lot of people forget how poorly he used Greg when he had him. A lot of that could have been Brandon, but in the end it's the coach that is ultimately responsible

 

[Hey]

How did he mess up badly with the full roster? There were times when we were playing elite basketball, and sometimes not so much. Don't exaggerate your point. And the fact remains, he has never had extended time with a healthy roster to be able to make proper adjustments. Some people complain that Nate is too slow in making adjustments, but for the most part, he does eventually do them and he does them well. There are also probably a dozen other adjustments that we don't even notice that makes the team better.

B-Roy getting injured and then trying to play through it was what made us lose in the playoffs. In the year before that, the Rockets were just obviously a better team and we had huge matchup problems with Yao and Brooks.

 

[hasoos]

I think the thing I would remind folks of, is that if you are going to switch coaches, you should at least have some idea of where you are going. Look at Toronto, Detroit, and even Philadelphia to some extent.

Detroit lost Brown, and tried to replace him with Saunders, Michael Curry, and are now to Kuester. Does anybody at this time, think coaching was the problem? Or was it the fact the GM drafted Darko Milicic, signed Charlie Villenueva and Ben Gordon?

Toronto fired Sam Mitchell and has been on the skids every since. Since Sam didn't have the capability to turn shit to gold, I don't think he was the problem. At least when he was coaching the team played D sometimes.

Philadelphia was in the same pattern. Throw out coach. Same bad mix of players meant for different systems. When they finally got to Doug Collins (The first coach I think they actually put some thought into in a while) he immediately talked in the press about how the mix of players was for different systems and that they had some work to do to get the roster in sync.

Look how many coaches NY fired. Did it ever get them anywhere?

The facts are a coach can only be as successful as the situation he is put into. Many times firing the coach is just a symbolic gesture to help save the GM's ass for doing a shitty ass job.

So that being said, if the Blazers do decide to go another direction, they better have that direction picked and set up before they go. Because if the team ends up with some NBA retread coach, who has failed everywhere they went, what have we gained?

IMO teams that have done it right lately are the Bulls, OKC, Milwaukee. They didn't just fire their coach and just start looking. They had an idea where they were going before they made the move. They knew what style they wanted to play. They knew what type of players they wanted for that system, and got them and the coach they wanted.

 

[illmatic99]

Bulls just fired VDN after two years. Just taking a look at the active coaches who have been employed the longer than Nate: Jackson, Popovich, Sloan. That's it. And they all have had tremendous success with their teams (Sloan led his team to a <.500 record only once in the past 22 years). Unless Nate is near their level, or has had as much success, I don't really give much credence to the idea that keeping a guy for longer breeds success.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Just how far in the playoffs do you think a different coach would have gotten the Blazers?

 

[Masbee]

But whenever he's had a full roster (regardless of how few stretches), he's fucked up pretty bad.

I haven't read the rest of the thread - I assume this is already mentioned - but why do you post this as generally agreed upon fact?

What support do you have for this contention?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Bulls just fired VDN after two years. Just taking a look at the active coaches who have been employed the longer than Nate: Jackson, Popovich, Sloan. That's it. And they all have had tremendous success with their teams (Sloan led his team to a <.500 record only once in the past 22 years). Unless Nate is near their level, or has had as much success, I don't really give much credence to the idea that keeping a guy for longer breeds success.

But the question is why doesn't keeping a coach for a long time usually doesnt lead to sucess. I believe keeping a coach a long time doesn't usally work because whatever message he is preaching eventually gets tuned out by players. I have not seen this be a case with Nate.

To make a general rule that it isn't good to keep a coach for a long time, by itself, doesn't sound like good logic to me.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I guess Nate didn't handle Oden correctly for the 3 months during the season that he was healthy?

And people think he should be fired based on those 3 months rather than how he has handled the team in for the past 6 years and how he handles the team in the face of adversity that no other team has really faced (maybe GS). Nate has a team, that has lost thier team leader and only all star, above 500 and in playoff position. I'm guessing this summer it will be Nate making the tough decision, not the Blazers.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Just how far in the playoffs do you think a different coach would have gotten the Blazers?

At the very least, to the 2nd round last season. Even without Brandon Roy, Portland should have won that series. Nate was TOTALLY out coached by Alvin Fucking Gentry. Gentry made ONE simple adjustment after losing Game 1. He put Grant Hill on Andre Miller, after Miller killed Nash in Game 1. And, Nate NEVER countered, well at least not until 6 months later when he FINALLY made Phoneix pay for trying to hide Nash's poor defense by putting him on Batum. For the rest of that series, Miller was far less effective and Batum as a total non-factor - while being guard by a player 15 years older, 6" shorter who is a HORRIBLE defender. Nate had FIVE games to counter Gentry's simple move, and coudn't/didn't. Forget in-game adjustments,. Nate can't make in series adjustments.

BNM

 

[illmatic99]

I haven't read the rest of the thread - I assume this is already mentioned - but why do you post this as generally agreed upon fact?

What support do you have for this contention?

I figured his underutlization (improper, rather) of Oden his rookie year and most of last year before he went down, and how he messed with the Dre/Blake situation can be agreed upon as bad handling with a more talented roster.

To make a general rule that it isn't good to keep a coach for a long time, by itself, doesn't sound like good logic to me.

I didn't really make it a rule as much as I simply stated some perspective from the other 27 teams in the league. Do you think Nate is a good playoff coach who can eventually lead us to a title?

Just how far in the playoffs do you think a different coach would have gotten the Blazers?

Can't really predict, but I think adjustments (or even better preparation) could have been made during the series in both years. Like when Dre was hounded by Grant Hill and we couldn't take advantage of Nash defending a bigger Blazer. Losing by 30+ at home to start a playoff series kinda killed us from the start two years ago, and I think that could have been prevented by better readying the players. And his seeming insistence on playing the same game when it's scouted in both years is not really a glowing report of Nate's coaching in the playoffs. (Damn, BNM, that's what I get for not reading).

 

[RoyToy]

Keep him. The fact that it's his 6th year and the players still play hard for him means something. He's not a perfect coach but he's good enough imo. I can't say the team has ever underperformed in a season under Nate.

 

[Masbee]

I figured his underutlization (improper, rather) of Oden his rookie year and most of last year before he went down, and how he messed with the Dre/Blake situation can be agreed upon as bad handling with a more talented roster.

I was unhappy with both of those situations as well.

No coach is perfect, and no team that tries is going to have perfect harmony.

Look at Phil Jackson presiding over his team losing their shit right now and calling out Kobe by name in the press for "screwing" with the offense.

And yet, you expect a lesser coach to have a flawless record at handling a team?

Also, the two problems you mention - with Oden and Miller - both have at their source the same problem: Brandon Roy.

Brandon Roy was at that time a much better offensive player than Miller or Oden.

Brandon Roy was the Face of the Franchise.

Brandon Roy was a half-court, ball-in-his hands, iso loving guy.

Brandon Roy got on the court with Oden and Miller and didn't like it too much. He whined. He complained.

McMillan made a choice.

He choose the better offensive player, leaving Miller to be "misused" and brew his understandable upset.

He choose the player who made it through the previous seasons over the coming off an injury rookie - and told the rookie to rebound and defend.

Sure, there were problems, but really, how much better off would the team have been if McMillan had sat Roy down, told him the ball was coming out of his hands into Miller's, and that Miller was going to set up Oden in the post as Option A, and that Roy would have to learn to play off the ball until the end of the game when it would be Roy Time?

Would that have worked out better? Would you respect McMillan more if he had done that or something similar? Even if Roy had gone apeshit? Or, would you have blamed that on McMillan?

 

[Boob-No-More]

I guess Nate didn't handle Oden correctly for the 3 months during the season that he was healthy?

And people think he should be fired based on those 3 months rather than how he has handled the team in for the past 6 years and how he handles the team in the face of adversity that no other team has really faced (maybe GS). Nate has a team, that has lost thier team leader and only all star, above 500 and in playoff position. I'm guessing this summer it will be Nate making the tough decision, not the Blazers.

Not JUST that reason.

He also:

Dicked around starting Steve Blake over Andre Miller for a month and a half. Miller should have been the starter from Day 1 of Training Camp.
Couldn't devise a 4th quarter offense that used more than ONE player (more below)
Didn't react to Alvin Gentry putting Grant Hill on Andre Miller during the Phoenix series (more in my earlier post)

And for anyone who thinks the Blazers blowing 4th quarter leads is something new this season, I complained about it last season, too - both when Roy was healthy and when he wasn't. The Blazers lost several games last season, to inferior teams (Grizzlies, 76ers, Wizards, Hornets, etc.) when they had substantial leads (8 or 9 points) with less than 4 minutes to play. Many of those games were at home to sub-.500 non-play-off teams. The reason they lost was an unimaginative, easy to stop one-dimensional isolation based offense that could not score when everyone in the building knew what play the Blazers were going to run every time down the court - the one where their SG goes 1 on 5. He even ran the Roy Iso when other teams were playing zone defense. That's plain stupid - and the results showed in the final scores. The Roy Iso worked great for about a season, maybe a seaon and a half, but once other teams made the adjustments to stop it, Nate never countered.

It stopped working when Roy was healthy, but Nate kept using it even when Roy was less than 100%, or even when Roy was out of the line-up - mostly with Bayless, but he also blew the Hornets game last January by repeatedly calling the ice play for Andre Miller against Darren Collison. He recognized the right mismatch, but totally called the wrong play. Miller was not able to drive around the much quicker Collison, so he ended up forcing bad shots as the shot clock expired (a common trait of the Nate Iso based offense). After the first try, it was obvious to everyone in the building that Miller wasn't going to beat Collison off the dribble starting 20 feet from the basket, but with the game on the line, Nate kept calling the same play, over and over. It didn't work once and the Blazers blew the lead and lost by 1. What he should have done was put the ball in Bayless' hands and posted up Miller on the low block, where Miller could use his size/strength advantage and superior post up game to score on the smaller, lighter Collison. Instead of expoiting the match up by calling a play that used Miller's strengths (size, strength, post up game), he kept calling a play that favored Collison's strengths (quick hands and quick feet).

Nate is a good motivator. He gets guys to play hard, especially when short handed, but he's a horrible in game and in series coach. He doesn't make adjustments. He sticks with the same thing over, and over, and over, even when it's obvious it isn't working which causes the team to lose games and a playoff series they should have won. That's why he should go.

BNM

 

[mgb]

I agree with those that say it's to early to decide. Earlier in the season I thought Nate had lost the ear of the players, but now they are playing well and it seems like the players are listening to Nate. Of course this might not last long, but that's why we should wait until the end of the season.

I don't blame Nate for how he used Oden at the start of the year last year. We were trying to get use to having Oden in the lineup again. It turn out he couldn't handle having the ball on offense a lot so Nate did the wise thing and had him just concentrate and D and rebounds and let the ball come to him on O. It was working well until Oden was injured again. I think it is kind of naive to think we would have started off the season without any growing pains.

 

[MARIS61]

Nate is demanding, disciplined, loyal and honest with his players, and he accepts no excuses nor does he make any.

I have generally liked how the team has played over his tenure WHENEVER ROY WAS INJURED. I have come to the conclusion that with Brandon now pretty much out of the equation, Nate's probably the best coach for this team.