Question: at what point do we decide McMillan isn't the coach that will take us all the way? One first round exit? Two first round exits? Three? Four?
Right after our next championship parade? Seriously, I think a +13 win improvement over last year has earned him one more year. If we pull a NO in the first round next year, then we start looking.
I'm serious. How many years is a reasonable timeline for McMillan to have success? If this team wins 60 games next year, but loses in the first round, what happens?
You beat me to my edit. I think a +13 win improvement over last year has earned him one more year. If we pull a NO in the first round next year, then we start looking.
Well, I'm not necessarily saying we should fire him. He has, what, one more year left on his contract? If we don't see marked improvement next season in certain areas, I would think that Pritchard should really start to reconsider the the future of this team at the head coach position. I'm not completely in disagreement with some of the posters on this board who feel that this team is more a product of its overall talent, and less about McMillan's coaching.
You all CAN'T be serious...we've only gotten better each year with Sarge. We WAAAAY overachieved this year. Honestly, who expected us to have the 2nd best record in the West this year? Thats what I thought. At the start of the year, most everyone thought that getting the 6 spot was too high. We're only going to get better. We'll win tonight, and given the recent trend in Houston, we'll have a legit shot to pull out a W. Would anyone be willing to pick against us in the RG for game 7? I don't think so. I trust Nate, and I think we'll pull out this series. Book it.
Well I've already decided that he IS the coach that will take us all the way. We lost games 3 & 4 not because of our coach, not because of officiating, but because the players on the floor failed to execute down the stretch. Call it our youth, call it choking, but that's what happened, and I'm not going to blame Nate for it. He's a great coach.
First off, this thread is making a claim from an author who has no credibility, and he hasn't provided a link or source that he isn't just making this up. Second, Nate might leave on his own after his contract is up, just like he did in Seattle. Then all the Nate bashers can rejoice. I'm sure there is another olympic caliber coach that will be jobless and wanting to come to Portland, right?
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/04/battered_blazers_still_believe.html edit - Just saw that Nate won't make any changes to the starting 5. http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/04/blazers_shootaround_roy_aldrid.html
Nate is NOT the coach that will take us to the next level. His offense is easy to defend, and he doesn't have the best grasp on substitution patterns. I do not think Nate is a very good in game coach at all either. His teaching and his ability to get his team to fight are good though. The teams constant slow starts are another reason I don't think he is the best choice. I think another cpach would have us much more prepared at the beginning of games. I also think the whole "Sarge" schtick is going to wear out quickly on these guys. He was a very good choice to come in here and help weed out the idiots, but now we need a coach that knows how to better take advantage of our players abilities, and not have them shooting jumpers all over the place in a set offense. As to the Way overachieved CROWD....LOL Everyone from Paul Allen to KP to Nate to the players have said all year that missing the playoffs would be considered a failure, and that they all expected to make it. They did and they finished within a game or two of where they should have. Portland got HCA, but easily could have been the 7th seed and that would have been fine too.
You know we had the most efficient offense in the league, right? (or end up 2nd?) Either way...our offense must not be THAT easy to defend.
Thanks for the link, that was helpful. It's also nice to hear that he isn't changing anything and someone freaked out for no reason.
I think some people grossly underestimate how much of a difference it makes to have a roster as talented as the Blazers.
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but the fact you're not even aware that he's adapted to the changing team and lost his "Sarge" label makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. There was a huge article a little while ago about this...
Our offensive efficiency was due to offensive rebounding. A missed jumper at the shot clock buzzer and an offensive rebound and put back equals 1 possession. You know that right?
I really do enjoy your posts, but this one should be subtitled " in my opinion", as I think you're the only person I continually read that says Nate isn't a very good in game coach. You have a tendency to post in a way that sounds very factual, but it really isn't. I respect your opinions, but this whole post is generally your opinion and I'd be willing to bet a large majority of us on the board wouldn't agree. I happen to think Nates done a great job at managing games to keep us in them, on a lot of nights we might be blown out. Very rarely did we lose by large margins this year, and we lead the league in come from behind wind when we were down double digits. It's my opinion, that without Nates ability to manage a game, we'd have lost quite a few more games this year then we did.
I read the article, and I have talked to people about it. I will go with the people over the article.
We were 2nd, but the Nate bashers think the credit should be taken away because we rebound well. We should all be aware that constantly going to your strongest threats on offense, forces the defense to double team, and opens up offensive rebound opportunities. That is good offense, and the coach should get credit/blame, just like anything else. Nate is smart to go through Roy and Aldridge, just like the Rockets are smart to go through Yao.
