It's going to be very interesting to watch what happens with the UofOregon men's basketball team. Last year Ernie Kent had a crap year so the AD hired and forced a new head assistant coach on him. They've basically said they like Kent but there are areas he needs to improve in. This brings us to Nate. I like Nate and I appreciate and value the job he has done. I'm not one of the ones calling for him to be fired but I think there are some areas that he is lacking. IMO Nate needs his own version of Tex Winter. Not someone who would be brought in to take over his job if he fails but someone who is an offensive guru. Nate has never shown much outside of the box thinking when it comes to offense. I've been dismayed on how hard it's been for him to incorporate Miller and Oden into our offense. We're not talking about a Iverson type of player. Miller is a pass first point guard. I really think Nate could use some help with finding an offense that best takes advantage with the pieces we have. My questions are these, should KP bring in an assistant coach / consultant without Nates approval? Who is available that could help the Blazers?
It would have to be someone with his offensive philosophy which I think Monty Williams has. Maybe Nate ought to release the offensive game calling to Monty.
Wake me up when the Blazers win 26% of their games in a season and Nate still keeps his job. Is this a serious thread?
This thread is probably making mountains out of mole-hills, but do you not think Nate calls pretty simple plays? Do you not think he is having trouble incorporating Oden and Miller with Roy and Aldridge? I think based on those two things, it is worth atleast discussing on this Homer website.
I thought it was an outlandish analogy. Ernie Kent won barely 25% of his games last year, yet he kept his job. If Nate does the same, I don't expect him to keep his job, let alone bring in some sort of guru as an assistant.
Please share with us Nate's playbook and then compare it with the average NBA teams playbook. I'm curious if you are just throwing this statement out there, hoping it sticks, or if you have knowledge of the playbook. I'm looking forward to see if you can come up with half the plays we run on a semi-regular basis.
Pick and pop pick and roll iso brandon recently added, but shot down by someone not named brandon "i want my security blankey" roy feed to Oden
You think that is all Portland runs on a semi-regular basis? What plays do you see other teams run that Portland doesn't?
the triangle offense? Fast breaks? Are you going to step from your ivory tower and suggest some plays that I am missing?
They run 3-4 sets out of a flex formation with 2 high posts. They run a pick and pin play for Greg a couple times a game. They run another 3-4 high-low sets using Aldridge They appear to have a rip hamilton type set for Rudy with a double screen on one block and a single screen on the other. They run Roy and Outlaw off of curls on a regular basis. They have at least 5 variation of the P&R. But your story that we run a couple "simple" plays and you implying your standard NBA team runs more complex is great... however, as I expected, it is totally uninformed. If people would take a few steps back and look at the full picture, I think they would be much less critical. If you want to find a coach who lacks perfection, it will be easy, but it doesn't prove if they are effective.
The triangle offense is more complex, but has only been proven to be effective when you have the best guard in the league, combined with another all-star or two as side kicks, with the greatest coach in the history of the NBA running it. Any other coach or any other circumstance has failed to prove the triangle offense is successful in the NBA.
Well I did say this idea is blowing things out of proportion to start. Perhaps I am uninformed/uneducated on the subject. Would you suggest it is a problem of fatigue or some other issue, rather than Nate finding the best way to use the players?
I'm not sure I know the answer to "the problem", but I'm sure it's a combination of many things including, but not limited to: - Players adjusting to their new roles - Batum and Outlaw being hurt - Adjusting to Greg's increased offensive role - Lack of production from the PG spot - Playing 1/4 their games in the first month We're still so early into the season, and despite all the things mentioned above, we still have a .600 winning percentage, so it's not like we're the Nets or something.
WAKE UP!!!!! WAKEUPWAKEUPWAKEUPWAKEUPWAKEUP!!!! 2005-06, Blazers won 25.6% of their games. Nate is still here.
First year of a rebuilding effort compared to Kent's disaster in his what, 11th season? Absurd comparison.
It's really hard to tell what he means any more, to be honest. And I'm in no way saying Nate should have lost his job, or should this season. He asked for an example, and he was provided that. He likes to take things too literally at times when someone comments on here, I see no reason why the reverse shouldn't be applied.
