Let us readdress this issue shall we? Nate McDillon :fail:

An apt analogy ...

From what I can understand, McHale doesn't have much interest in coaching; he was pretty clear about not liking the travel and only took over the interim coaching gig in Minny after much coaxing.

 

Ok, first of all, no head coach has much to do with players getting better or not. Assistant coaches like Monty Williams and John Prunty are the ones who spend countless hours working with these players on their games. So whether Rudy, Bayless, Oden, Roy or whoever is better or not doesn't have much to do with Ass McClown. What he has control over is game situations, and putting players in a possition to do well or not. This is an area....other than Roy, that he fails at, IMO.


Nate is a very good motivator, and seems to have the respect of a lot of his players, but when it comes to execution and scheme, he is not so good. And his worst trait is probably his substitution patterns. I know people argue, and rightfully so, that "if our team has such a bad offense, why is it so efficient?" To me, the answer is simple. The players KP/Steve Patterson/Paul Allen/whoever else brough to this team make it happen. Oden, Joel, LA, Camby are all freakishly good offensive rebounders. The Blazers don't run a lot, so TO's are low. Brandon Roy making an off ballanced fade away with two guys draped on him is not an efficient offense. It's an incredible play by one of the top 10 players in the game of basketball.

 

Did any of us know who Scott Brooks was before he got the OKC job? The next guy doesn't have to be a recycled, big-name coach. The NBA is full of assistant coaches that are looking for a shot and could be great candidates.

Simply saying "give me a specific name of his replacement" isn't a compelling argument to keep Nate around. This team has clearly outgrown his skill set and it's time to part ways for a coach that can install some real offensive sets.

 

This is worded so well. This is exactly it.


As for Scott Brooks though, is it him, or Durant? I argue Nate is successful because of Roy, and I think the same might be true for Brooks. Durant makes him look better than he is.

 

I thought the same thing until I saw them play defense. He has them helping and closing down passing lanes all over the place. In terms of offense, they aren't exactly the greatest, but he know how to get his players in position to succeed.

 

It's actually even simpler than that. The way offensive efficiency is calculated (per possession) is pretty straightforward, but the fact that offensive rebounds are not counted as new possessions skews the numbers in favor of teams that have good/great offensive rebounders. The ability to generate these extra possessions through rebounding are certainly nothing to scoff at, but it's really a way of replacing precision with volume.

This strategy of out-boarding your opponent is a great method for beating opponents who don't have the length to match up with you, but once you get to the playoffs, that advantage usually evaporates (playoff teams usually get to be that way by possessing both talent and length). Nate's system also seems to rely on getting to the foul line more than an opponent, which is also a good regular season strategy against the bottom 2/3s of the league, but refs swallow the whistle in the playoffs as play becomes more physical, and when the O-boards and foul shots dry up for this team, they become a very average offense ... actually worse than average, because they usually end up settling for isolation jump shots and tend not to generate any high percentage offense, either through player movement or through the ability to post anybody up.

If you want to know how effective this team's offense is likely to be in a playoff situation, just look at their field goal % compared to the rest of the league ( http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html ) Portland currently ranks 15th which seems to suggest they don't get particularly high percentage looks, you can get away with this if you also play lockdown defense, but the Blazers are unfortunately also middle of the pack in points per possession allowed (15th) and even worse in field goal % allowed (18th in the league).

 

Yup. That team is already well on its way to being an elite defensive unit, all they lack is a true low post defender, but Ibaka with his shot blocking, strength and size might be part of the longterm answer there.

 

Roy was just off the IR when Portland traded for Camby... they promptly dropped their first two games with the new lineup. Since then they are 15-4 (or 0.789)... thats a pretty kick ass 2nd gear. Is it really broke and in need of fixing

Just a short while ago posters were assuring us that KP would never make a mid-season trade of significance & also that he was too close to his guys to ever move them... were you one of those savants?

That said, McHale is the only potential next coach I've speculated on. He's always seemed very bright and (as opposed to Nate) a great quote/media relations guy. The addition of his star power/national recognition would lend tremendous marketability to Podunk Portland. Unfortunately that sort of stuff matters a great deal in this league.

btw, he isn't unemployed as he's a regular on TNT and NBA TV which is a pretty cushy gig.

STOMP

 

Statistics v. Opinion. Our neverending battle on this board.

 

You are correct that isnt' a good enough reason to fire any coach. However, Oklahoma City did not fire one of the top 5-10 coaches in the league, who was an olympic coach, and is nationally regarded as a top candidate for coach of the year. Its easier to take a risk when you're firing a coach that rates in the bottom half of the league.

Plus, Scott Brooks is this year Nate McMillan, so that's not the best comparison.

Like I said earlier, Adleman wasn't the best coach in the league, so we fired him for PJ. How did that work out?
Dunleavey wasn't the best coach in the league, but he was up there, yet we fired him for Mo Cheeks. How did that work out?

 

Give a moron a keyboard and some anonymity, and next thing you know, they think they are John Wooden.

 

Scott Brooks has had an almost unbelievable season in terms of having a healthy roster, has an All-Star player, and it's still 50/50 at this point whether or not they stay out of the 8th seed.

I'd like to see Scott Brooks coach through at least a sniff of adversity before I give the guy credit as being a better option than Nate McMillan. Everything has gone right for him this year, and he's still scrapping to stay away from the Lakers in round 1.

 

By how you phrased that I'm guessing that you're either from Spain/a Spanish basketball fan who is disgruntled by how Nate is using Rudy...

 

I've been thinking the exact same thing for like a week now.

 

That may be the best analysis of Nate McMillan I've ever read. Bravo and repped.

 

Your name suits you.

MOTWYW

 

Following that logic, imagine if we had Mike Krzyzewski. We'd be champions of the universe by now.

 

How did you follow "that logic"? Do you struggle with logic? It appears so, since that wasn't the poster's point.

 

That was his point you tetherball.

If being the asst coach to the US men's team is proof he's a good coach...

Imagine how good the head coach is.