Hey you are the one that said: "That's McMillan's talent, resucitating mediocre teams with discipline and no fast break" I am just wondering which talented team you were referring to that he failed with.
Nate is very good at getting an undermanned team to battle. If I was a soldier and was attacking Normandy, Nate is the guy I'd want leading me. If I were a soldier that had a 2-1 advantage over my enemy, I would not want Nate to lead me. What he did great last night is run. The L*kers defense was on their heels a lot because of the push the Blazers did on offense. But let's no kid ourselves. The reason we won is because Roy went 9-11 and because Bayless thought the hoop was 10 feet in diameter in the first half.
The enormous free throw disparity didn't hurt either. I only saw parts of the game (argh!), but I wonder if the Lakers wouldn't have a legitimate gripe about not getting foul calls? Not from what I saw, because LA seemed to be content to shoot from the outside while they were slap-happy on defense when the Blazers attacked. I wonder if the conversation with Andre Miller didn't convince McMillan to adjust his coaching a little. That kind of success pushing the tempo more in a big win over the Lakers might just open Nate's mind a little.
I'd like to know how many fouls Bayless, himself, drew. He appeared to force the action the entire game.
He drew at least six... and I believe 3 more getting them over the limit. It reminded me of Bonzi before he went bad, posting up Kobe and getting him into foul trouble.
You know they just repeated history, but got away with it. In the Memphis game, we had a small lead, and then Nate called the "ICE" (Isolation) play every play for the next 4 minutes, we sat on the ball and lost the game because we didn't play to win. Then last night we had a 19 point lead, he did the same thing. The lead was down to 8 by the time the game was over. Please, somebody who talks to Nate, if you read this and have the gnards, show him the error in his ways. There is nothing more futile to me than somebody who will not learn from their mistakes, and he repeats the same mistakes over and over and over again. The rest of the game he did great. The team played hard, pushed the ball, and played physical. I would have no problem with Nate as a coach if he would just make a few adjustments to how he coaches end of game situations. He coaches not to lose, instead of to win.
I've related this exact same thing. He needs to trust his guys a bit more in late-game situations. That said, that Miller -> Roy breaking to the basket for the layup was golden.
Yea my problem is that we got through the game, the guys are playing good, they are sharing the ball, moving, playing great. Then the last 4 minutes, he calls a timeout, and from there on out they go to isolation plays. Isolation plays didn't get them there. Everybody starts standing around. All the younger players start tightening up. You need to keep your younger players involved in the game and just thinking about 'ballin in order to keep them relaxed. When you go to the Iso play, you end up with a ton of those "Flaming bag" passes. Not good.
I just re-watched the game. In retrospect, it was more the Lakers' offensive rebounds and big treys that led to the comeback, as opposed to the two iso's Nate ran which didn't result in Blazer free throws.
I agree with this, Nate gets his players, experienced or not, to buy into their assigned roles and gets them to give 100% within those roles. He hardly ever assigns a role that his player can't flourish with. I think there's a trust and loyalty between his guys and him. This trust and loyalty convinces his players to not stray away from the system. I don't care if the system is flawed, if everyone buys into it, it's going to be successful more times than not. But, what you're not giving him credit for is a number of other coaching moves he's made that adds to our successes. - Moving Outlaw to reserve power forward - Sticking with the rookie Batum as our starting small forward - Including Bayless and Webster in big-game situations and building their confidence - Moving Aldridge to the five, opening up time for the very versatile and skilled Cunningham - Being more flexible with his offense and adapting to Andre Miller That high pick-and-roll between our centers and our guards has always been very effective and it worked extremely well last night. The ISOs have always worked well. Nate goes with what works. The results were very positive last year, and they're very positive this year. He motivates. His players execute. His plays get high percentage shots. His team wins more often than not. The dude is better than his detractors make out.
You know, ABM, last night watching the game I actually thought about starting a thread to give Nate props for changing his usual formula and letting the players run, drive and play. When a team is as understaffed as the Blazers and they are killing the Lakers, everyone deserves credit, starting with the coaches. Then in the last four minutes I was dumbfounded when they cleared the court and went to the stall ball tactic that sucks every time they do it. Still, maybe Nate-dog has learned a new trick. Great game.
I think you've got it backwards. KP has been chasing Kobe for 3 yrs now. Nate smooth-talked him at the Olympics. I've maintained for years now Kobe will be a Blazer eventually.
