Canzano Reports (Hey stop laughing!) Nate being offered extension

Think about this, though. Nate was able to coach a team starting Blake/Roy/Batum/LMA/PrzyOden to 54-wins, with a bench of Rudy, Sergio, Bayless, and Outlaw, to 54 wins. This was with 18 PER Oden/LMA, and not beastly Oden for 21 games last year, or beastly LMA this year.

Was that team a contender, or were they just ridiculously overcoached into the 2nd-best record in the West? Outlaw, Blake, and Rudy were the 3/4/5 leading scorers on that team, and they were #1 in the NBA in offensive efficiency.

That's a hell of a coaching job, isn't it? Yet you were complaining about the coach, and even wanted the Blazers to tank last season so you would be "right" about Nate being a bad coach. I am glad that you're waffling about Nate, because look at the 2008-09 roster, and tell me what other coach gets 54 wins.

 

I've pined for Gerald to become a Blazer as long and much as anyone on this board but think he should be coming off the bench. Nic is the better spread the court option at 3 which benefits the overall offense, Gerald is the bigger player more capable of being the 3rd wheel Big. It's not about whats best for the player, it's about whats best for the team.

Also, I don't think it matters so much who starts as who gets minutes as last I checked points count the same amount at every stage of the game. I'm for both Gerald and Nic getting about 30 minutes.

STOMP

 

The universal truth in sports is that wear and tear injuries are due to how the athletes are being trained. This is the responsibility of the head coach and no one else.

Sorry I don't post about having sex with so and so's wife to get your attention...

Yeah, like you've ever provided anything to support any of your claims. Give me a break. I said initially it's a hunch. I can't provide you much more reading comprehension help that it's an opinion.

 

Really? So the team TRAINER has nothing to do with it?

 

It's clear now that we've seen the team get some run time without Roy that my only reservation about Nate (not wanting the team to run) was a mis-understanding on my part.

It wasn't Nate at all.

 

If Nate wants credit for the good things, he also needs to take responsibility for the bad....eg the many times the offense bogs down and turns into a bunch of guys standing around playing chuck-n-duck.

 

If true I think it's a good move. I would like to see Nate with a healthy team for a extended time and we just might get lucky next year and have a healthy team.

 

I would be alright with keeping Nate if he could get an offensive guru around him that would be capable of in game adjustments and running a more non predictable offense...that's my take!

 

I think Nate doesn't sign the extension and moves to the L*kers next year.

 

Trainer as in part of the training staff, possibly. But trainer as a general term usually has little to nothing to do with how athletes are trained unless you're talking about private, off-season conditioning.

 

Go back and look at what I said. I never said I wanted the team to tank so I could be "right" about Nate being a bad coach. I said a part of me hopes the team loses so Nate gets fired. It was something said in the heat of the moment because the team was sucking in preseason and he was starting Blake over Miller, yet you've mentioned it at least a dozen times since then like it was an idea that I was championing. It was an offhand comment about how I was unhappy with Nate as the coach, but keep on remembering it with your own selective memories.

 

Ditka

 

Word on the street is that the replacement has already been selected from within.

To clear up any confusion, I meant the coaching decision with the Lakers. I think it was Spears that had that.

 

Sorry I meant the LA job not our spot.

 

This is always the easy way for someone who supports keeping Nate to argue, But let me ask you this.....

Would you have thought it was a good idea to fire Paul Westhead and hire unproven assistant coach Pat Riley? Keep in mind that Westhead had won an NBA title the year before and made it to the playoffs the year he was fired.

My point is that you never know what coach is going to be able to get your team to the next level. Nate does a great job of getting every ounce of juice out of this team, but his entire body of work shows that he hasn't been able to take any team to the next level.

 

We have a winner!!

All the "fire Nate" crowd seem to think the ghost of Red Auerbach is available. He's not. If you want to dump Nate, who do you put in his place? The best coaches have gigs, the retreads are retreads, and I don't see any hot assistant coming down the pike.

Nate may simply be the best available coach at this time.

 

Which of Nate's clubs rank with Riley's various championship clubs in terms of talent?

I want a coach that can get the most out of what he has and don't place the blame on him for what he doesn't have. I also don't blame the coach for players sustaining injuries just prior to and in the playoffs. If Portland enters this year's playoffs relatively healthy, I like their chances of advancing against anyone but Stern's Lakers

STOMP

 

I do find it interesting that people always seem to cite Nate as a guy who "gets all he can" out of players.

If that is true, why is the team so inconsistent? Why do they go through prolonged stretches where they play like a 20 win team, with no energy and horrible execution?