Is it now a general concensus around here....

I say yes. He season in and out gets the most out of least. His PG's have been great, but he gets guys to play their asses off!

 

If McMillan doesn't make a difference, why not try one of those other interchangeable coaches? Maybe we'll get lucky and find an underrated one. Nothing to lose, since the ones available are all about the same as him.

 

I agree. The question then becomes, do you believe the truism that all middle-of-the-pack coaches eventually wear out their welcome, and that the team will respond better to a new voice. (even if he isn't "better")

 

Players win games for the most part, not coaches. The only time the coaches really set it apart is when 2 elite teams meet and the difference in coaching gives one side a slight advantage. I have seen for years people complain about Nate's system and how it slows down players. I have never, ever seen a player out on the court stop and ask a coach for permission to run a fast break when the situation arises. Good players know when to break, and when not to.

So now that has been said. I saw several threads up there saying the team needs more attempts at the rim. Who exactly do you guys want to get the ball to the rim. Who is going to post up on this team and create some spacing?

1. How is the team supposed to function when there is nobody on the team setting picks?
2. How is the team supposed to have spacing when there is nobody that creates a post presence?
3. Now that I have established 2 major problems for the team, I will talk about the 3rd. How is anybody supposed to get to the rim to attack it when nobody is setting picks and there is no spacing to provide them lanes to get to the rim?

There is no coach that can work a miracle with that crew out there. Nobody is doing the little things that allows a team to have a chance. The team needs some bigs that can bang, lay hard picks and fight for post position. When that happens, other players will start to be more effective. No coaching change is ever going to fix that.

 

That's why I've honestly felt that it's Roy who has kept our pace so slow. I've felt this way since midway through last season. I think guys like Miller, Rudy, and Matthews are trying to push the tempo, but it's Roy who likes to keep things slow (his pace).

 

I don't really subscribe to that. I don't mind switching out McMillan for any other competent coach, I just wouldn't view it as likely to make a significant improvement. One of the benefits of McMillan is his interesting willingness to go with a series of one-year contracts. That means he'll always be much easier to replace if a difference-making (or potentially difference-making) coach becomes available....whereas, most other coaches want a 3-4 year deal, giving the team less flexibility. Which is fine for a coach you know you'll want around (a Phil Jackson type) but I'd rather have an "interchangeable" coach on a series of one-year deals.

 

I agree with this, but unfortunately I think we HAD a good coach and we let him leave. Now he has NOR playing fabulously and we're still stuck with Nate.

 

What made you think he was a good coach, prior to being hired by New Orleans? I'm just curious, not disagreeing. What were you evaluating him by?

Also, New Orleans' play to me is more connected with Chris Paul returning to MVP-caliber form. Prior to last season, the Hornets were playing very good basketball under a different, now removed, head coach. Last season, Paul was hurt a lot and not as good. Now he's back to form and New Orleans is back at a high level. I'm not saying Monty is a bad coach, but nothing yet suggests to me that he belongs outside the "interchangeable" category and in the group of difference-makers (which I think is very, very few coaches...like 2-3).

 

Mostly I was basing my opinion on all the positive things we heard from the media, the players, and the coaches. He also seemed to have a different philosophy than McMillan (didn't he coach a few games last year? Can't remember). I think he coached summer league... I just remember watching him coach in either SL or while McMillan was out last year. I have just always liked what I've heard about Monty, and now we're seeing the realization of the potential that we've heard about over the past couple years. Unfortunately it's in New Orleans.

I think getting CP3 back is definitely helping that team, but I had also heard that Monty is really stressing defense and hard nosed play. I'm only tentatively following their situation though.

 

I've always thought coaching was overrated. They don't do that much.

 

I think in general its overrated as well. But, I think ideas can get stale and sitting on a coach who is getting the status quo out of a team isn't a great idea.

 

This made my brain hurt.

You'd rather keep a coach who's easy to get rid of, but you can't get rid of because then you don't have the coach who's easy to get rid of.

 

If the Blazers are going to have a coach who makes no difference one way or the other, I'd rather he be one the team can ditch at a moment's notice rather than one the team is locked into for several years. As I said in a previous post, I'd happily replace McMillan with a coach who I feel actually is a difference-maker. I simply don't have nearly as negative a view of McMillan, relative to the rest of the league, as you do, so I don't see replacing him as an urgent issue. Until someone clearly better comes along, I prefer McMillan's easily-ditched mediocrity to another coach's contractually-locked-in mediocrity.

 

Dear lord what has this franchise done to you?

You are still essentially saying that you don't want to fire him cause he's easy to fire. This is the single worst reason I've ever heard to keep a coach around. Coming from you it's even more baffling... and to be frank, sad.

At the every least you could have lied to me and said you think Nate is still the right guy.

I'd rather go the absolute shit route as soon as possible and try and get lucky again. Middling around for the next 5 years beating only the likes of, Sacto, Milwaukee and phx on cold tuesday nights only to slowly sink into the shit anyway is so fucking pointless it makes my head hurt.

Being shit does not kill franchises, being mediocre does. It's just a delay of the inevitable.

 

I'm not a Nate fan, but who else would you hire at this point? There aren't a lot of great options out there.... how else would you explain Doug Collins still getting work?

 

that this team was much better last year. They were 12-5 at this same time last year (11/30). Blazers are 5-9 in the month of November. Nate's offensive flow sucks.

 

Honestly, we couldn't do much better without Nate.

If he left, he'd get picked up by the Miami Heat, who'll want to recreate Team USA if given the opportunity. Would Blazer fans want to see that? Nate and the Heat succeeding while the struggling Blazers have no replacement coach?

Nate might not be great but there's really no one else to replace him. And if we were to fire him, this team would be lost in mediocrity for the next few years.

Right now, the only thing I would truly see as a hindrance to this team is the injuries.

 

Let me try to clairfy my position, in case anything was unclear. My view is that outside of a few (as in, two or three) coaches, head coaches don't make a significant difference. McMillan is as good (or as bad) as anyone outside of a very few coaches. So if Portland can't get one of those very few difference-makers, yes, I'd prefer one of the 95% of coaches that is easy to fire on the off-chance that one those very few difference-makers becomes available next year or the year after.

Essentially, I don't think head coach matters usually. When that rare head coach comes along who matters, I'd rather Portland's current irrelevant coach be one who's easy to get rid of.

If that's all clear to you and you feel that that's sad, I'm comfortable with that. I don't think McMillan's "the guy." Unless Portland gets someone like Phil Jackson or Rick Adelman, there is no head coach who I'd consider "the guy." So "easy to fire" breaks the tie among irrelevant coaches to me.

 

We most likely already are, even with Nate on board.

 

Like CEOs.

Actually, that's true. There's about one or two of any of them (Phil Jackson, Jose Mourinho, et. al.) that make a difference, and the rest are about interchangeable. It's amazing how many people still claim that Jackson's victories are all because of his players.