i guess i meant that i see the rockets doing everything possible to keep him. if that's the case, i don't expect him to leave.
Nate's a good coach. On a scale of 1-10, he's a 6 or 7. He's begged the players to run more, but Roy refuses to so the team doesn't run. He hasn't been able to get Oden in synche with Roy & Aldridge and he had plenty of time. The team was lost both on offesne & defense and his rotation was curious at best. He has also shown an inability to get the best out of young talent. Sometimes coaches are great people, but they become stale and ineffective- that's what has happened to Nate. It's no longer his team.
This is hyperbole, but meant to demonstrate a point. If Nate was bringing Roy off the bench and starting Howard over Oden, would he be making the team worse? Lineups and substitutions are one thing that is solely on the coach--not the GM, not the players, not the media or fans. If Kurt Rambis didn't know how to coach the triangle, it would be pretty tough to say that he wasn't hurting the team if he scrapped their offense in favor of the triangle. To bring it back to point: I believe that substitutions and lineups are one way that Nate's hurting this team. I personally believe that our offensive style is another, but will defer that argument b/c I know there are many that believe the opposite. What can't really be argued is that our offense is much worse this year than last with only the additions of Miller for Sergio, Webster for Batum and more minutes from Oden/Less from Outlaw. That's where my Rambis analogy comes in. Nate wants the team to push the ball, he (didn't but recently did, now can't) wants to feature Oden more in the lineup, but he doesn't want to draw up an offense or stick with a style that incorporates it into one machine if that machine doesn't involve 30mpg from Blake. That's hurting the team.
It is easy to show how a coach can literally make a (negative) difference, as you just did. The point, though, is that the vast majority of head coaches wouldn't make a significant difference (positively or negatively) over other qualified NBA head coaches. Within the picked population of NBA coaches, very few make a difference relative to the others. Your example shows that a coach can easily make a positive difference over some random schmuck off the street or a willful saboteur. I agree with you, but in limited fashion. While I am no expert who has devoted his/her life to the game, I also feel McMillan's substitutions are less than optimal. But I'm not convinced that his sub-optimal lineups and rotations make a big difference to wins. I think he's doing around as well as 95% of NBA head coaches past and present would do. If you or someone else wants to say that McMillan's foibles make him 5% less effective than most coaches would be, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But I don't think he makes a huge difference. However, I think a true difference-maker would really jumpstart this team. A Phil Jackson or Rick Adelman...but those are hard to find and attain. Absent those types of coaches, I don't know that a new coach would make a big difference. My non-obvious pick for a new head coach (if he were available) would be Flip Saunders. I think he's quite a good offensive mind and would do a nice job of integrating a group of offensive weapons like Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Rudy, Miller and Bayless.
For all of the whining you do about "Assclown", I would think you'd have a better idea than a coach with a 39-55 career record who has never coached in the playoffs.
I would of course be thrilled with either. I agree with you on Nate. He has helped the Blazers tremendously. He was seemingly the right coach at the right time, all things considered. For that he deserves our thanks and respect. This is no longer a team of knuckleheads and is no longer an NBDL project. It's time for a coach who can design and implement an offense that works to the greatest strengths of our best players, all of our best players, not pigeonhole them.
