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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
Some people need to complain. Lots of Debbie Downers out there... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yFSpml8oSw
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.
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.
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.
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
