In your own words, describe Nate and grade

Mine.

A hard nosed coach, perfect for a young team with suspect characters. Won't make any gambles defensively or offensively, and usually falls in love with mediocre talent at PG, as long as they shut the fuck up and not make mistakes. Also, contradicts himself saying things like "We need to focus mainly on defense", then put in a only offensive player like Outlaw. Will gamble on other positions (i.e. starting Roy at rookie, Starting Batum at Rookie, and put in a three guard line-up). But for the most part, he doesn't want to change on the things that were successful on previous seasons. A good play caller on the sidelines, but will not give with having the PG run plays on the offensive end (i.e. loving the Jack and Blake type PGs).

I am a homer and I love this team, but my oh my I really want Nate to loosen his fucking collar and let this team figure things out for themselves. He doesn't have to be the playcaller on every possession and he doesn't need to start players that started last year. Blake only had Bayless (rookie and still wet behind the ears) and Sergio (turn over master) as back-ups. Anyone with a brain knew Blake should always start then.

We have a true point guard now. One Historically proven much better than Blake. I understand about "spreading the floor" for Roy, Aldridge and Oden, but seriously?!?!?! Why have 2 players out of position to gain that spacing?

Nate has a D+ rating from me.

 

Great motivator. Great teacher. Control freak. Micro manager. Bad x's and o's guy.

C-

He's not a bad coach, but he isn't a championship caliber coach.

 

I'd give him a B.

He's not the greatest coach in the league, but too often, I think our talent gets over rated, and people expect more out of us than is feasible. I think he has done a great job maximizing what this team could do every night the last two years, and put us in a position to succeed by utilizing his strengths such as Roy, our size and rebounding advantage, superior shooting. He also had a focused effort to minimize mistakes, to put an extremely young team in a position to succeed. I suppose there is a debate in there, whether it is best to develop players by letting them play winning basketball, and focusing on specific aspects, or kind of rolling the ball out there, and allowing them to make mistakes, to learn from them. I don't think he's ever had a PG he really trusted to run our team. He trusts Blake on the court, but not as the general of our team. I think he has that trust with Miller, which bugs me that he won't make the switch, and just go Miller-Roy. I've noticed new plays every year, but I think he is sometimes to quick to fall back on what has worked for him in the past. I think part of that is a trust issue. I know people have issues with that. Maybe he should give trust first, adn then allow that person to lose his trust, as opposed to forcing them to earn it beforehand? I dunno. I don't think he has a ton of trust in Webster, but doesn't have many other options at that spot.
We've all looked at our team, and looked at when that window was going to open wide for us to be title contenders. I think most expectations were for next season. I think in a way Nate has looked at that as well, and has played to win, while giving the team small pieces of what they need. Offensive efficiency, rebounding, shooting. Now looking at a bigger focus on defense and balance through the team. I think you'll see us slowly progress this season, as we ge tin more and more of a flow, and I think next year, we'll see us put it all together, with guys hitting their strides, Roy and LMA getting into their prime and even mroe accustomed to the league. Greg being two years removed from any injuries, and finishing off a full healthy season. I think coaching as much youth as Nate has is a difficult task for an NBA coach. One problem is the need to win, to save your job, while also developing oung guys to appease everyone. I think someguys could have developed better, some maybe could elsewhere, but I think giving it to them in pieces will end up being more effective for us as a franchise, personally.

 

I don't think it's fair to grade Nate at this point in the season. He's had major changes to the lineup from what he anticipated and planned for over the summer and he's adapting on the fly. But, if you're going to grade him anyway, I think getting to 8-4 with the issues he's faced is pretty darned good. I'd give him a solid B.

 

Been shooting at a moving target over the past three seasons. Seems to have the players' ears, though. Gone are the sarge days. Nice to see he's relinquished some control into the hands of maturing/matured players. Listens to his staff and they seem to support him, as well. Best practices in place.

I'll give him a B.

 

Incomplete. I'll get back to you after the season.

 

Assclown

F


Ok, a real post.

I think Nate was good for a young team that needed to mature. He is a good motivator, he has a great work ethic and he is an upstanding gentleman.

I think he is a horrible X's and O's coach, he is a poor at substitutions, he is a micro manager and a control freak, and I think he relies on "his guys" too much.

I don't think Nate is the kind of coach that can win a title with, but he's also not the worst coach in the league.......barely

D-

 

Solid B. He's got the team at 8-4 after all.

 

It was interesting watching NBATV last night with Chris Webber. He was talking about Don Nelson, and coaches in general, and his relationship with Nelson. He mentioned that coaches stick to set rotations as a tool for letting the players know who is in control. Is it possible the players coming/position battles in have made Nate feel his control of the team is threatened? Or is this just the same Nate as previous years, unwilling to make changes because he is a conservative coach?

 

Sounds to me like Barfo is in total agreement!

 

Good x's and o's guy out of a time out. No nonsense. Good for whipping young guys in shape. Bad for motivating vets. Doesn't know how to use his players. Doesn't adapt. Shoots himself in the foot a lot. Not spectacular.

C+

 

In one word: Rigid.

Advantages:
Young players have a great framework to develop under.
Creates a highly disciplined environment.
Very effective and methodical in half court offensive sets.
Tightly scheduled rotations allow players to know when and how long they get minutes.
Team seems to follow fundamentals (boxing out, correct low-risk passing, etc).
Teams don't seem to get too rattled by bad reffing.
Gets his players to execute plays correctly out of timeouts.

Disadvantages:
Slow to change lineups, particularly when a vet needs to be supplanted by a promising youngster.
Uncomfortable with getting his players to play at even a moderate tempo.
Unwilling to ride the "hot hand" regardless of rotation (until the fourth quarter).
Rigidity leads to binary thinking of Starting Unit and Bench Unit, meaning he doesn't leave Roy or Aldridge on court at all times.
Tends to think more about what did work in the past, as opposed to what might work much better in the future.
Sticks to some bad judgments too long (starting Jack and Webster for entire seasons).

 

Overall, I think he's a really good coach. Almost never do you hear about a player leaving him and blossoming somewhere else, which I think is the biggest sign that he knows how to do his job well.

While he's great at player development, it's not as easy to see if his highly structured coaching style will translate into championships.

In truth, the real problem may not be his rigidity, but his lack of focus on getting scoring out of the PF/C positions. Mike Dunleavy, although an overall inferior coach (largely due to his personality), was obsessed with winning post matchups. If he were running this team, Aldridge or Oden would touch the ball on every single possession. I'd like to see Nate go that way more.

 

Incomplete due to ignorance on my part.

I don't know enough about being a head coach in the NBA to accurately grade one. I can, however, rate them against one another based on how their teams perform when matched up.

So I would put Nate in the second tier of coaches. Good, but he still gets his ass handed to him by the dudes at the top (Jackson, Popovich, and Adelman*).

*If you are wondering why Adelman is in that list ask yourself if any coach has done more with less. He got a horrible Kings team to win half their games. The Rockets don't have a real star player yet they are giving teams all kinds of trouble. That dude flat out gets it done.

I wish Portland could bring him back here for this current team.

 

Nate owns the head to head against Phil as a Blazer coach. Just FYI...

 

Don't have time for the description... but I give him an A.

He was turned guys like Steve Blake into starters with a damn good record last year. Talk about getting the most from your talent. We are not even playing well yet and we won 4 games in five night... ON THE ROAD.

 

he is like the guy that trained the blazers before Ramsey got here....

 

You think Nate McMillan is like Hall of Famer Lenny Wilkins?

Well the more I think about it, the more I agree with you

1. Both black
2. Both played for the Sonics
3. Both guards