I really want us to go a different route, but this management seems to be enthralled with Nate. I have to give him credit for being able to roll with the punches and coach a depleted roster into being mediocre. But whenever he's had a full roster (regardless of how few stretches), he's fucked up pretty bad. But it's hard to determine if Nate will choose to stay here even if he is offered an extension. He bolted Seattle when the ownership got shady, and it's sorta similar here. But if he's offered another similar contract like last time (5 years, $30 mil), it would be hard to pass that up.
I voted no. But I do think it is unfair to criticize him to an extent on rotations, that when he has a full roster, he fucks them up. If you have a full roster, and 8 guys who can start for you(more last season than this), how exactly DO you manage those rotations? Without making someone upset. Especially the fan base. Every fan has his or her favorites. So if he plays Bayless too little, he's fucking that up, Rudy he's fucking that up, Armon, Patty, etc. If you go out and start this season Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, oden with Armon, Patty, Rudy, Wes, Cunningham, Camby, Joel on the bench...someone isn't going to get the minutes or role they want. Joel, probably. Rudy, as well. And some guys, and this is a GM issue more-so than a coach issue, thrive in different situations, and don't excel as much in bench roles, etc. I mean people complained he fucked up our rotations two years ago, and after Frye left some were pissed that he did well in Phonix, and Nate fucked it up, but seemed like a lot of people here wanted Diogu in over Frye, because Frye liked to float out at the perimiter(what he does in Phoenix) and nobody wanted that out of our backup. I think there's a chance we can do better at coach. I think we can do worse. I am all for trying it out to see. But some of the criticisms, I just don't get.
I think he wants the chance at a semi-full year with Oden. Me thinks it'll be another one-year deal. Nothing more at this point. Would seem to be a win-win, IMO.
I think you're right to an extent, RR7. And I'm guilty of doing that. His inability to make adjustments in the playoffs both years, and the seemingly obvious double standards he has really bug me more than the rotations. I think he's an above average overall, but I believe we need a different philosophy and culture in place just for change's sake. Very few coaches have tenures longer than 5-6 years without any playoff success (even if that might be a result of him not having a full roster to work with).
That was a lot to digest, but I really didn't see it that way. I didn't see the Blazers ever having 8 guys who could start, and for the most part, had 2 higher level players and a bunch of guys who weren't starters, but were constantly complaining about their minutes. Overall, I didn't feel the Blazers got another starting quality player on to the roster until they got Miller and then Camby, which is recent Blazer history. The thing I see right now with Nate is growth, and I really don't want to pull the plug on that. He finally has Aldridge playing inside. I don't want another coach to come along and turn him back into a jump shooter. He is finally communicating with the players better and being more flexible to take advantage of their talents.
Why do you assume that a different coach would not do the same? My feeling (hope, really) is that a new coach can bring a different perspective to our weaknesses and make them better while keeping the strengths we are developing now.
I am not assuming that. But by opening the door you are allowing the possibility. If you look forward, you can eliminate many mistakes by just not allowing them to have a chance to happen.
Me, too. He's kinda like that girlfriend you're afraid to break up with, but are afraid to, even though you know there's decent chance there's a better girl out there for you.....somewhere.
That's how I feel. In just half a season I have seen posters want him fired and then praise him several weeks later. Who knows where this team will be or where Nate will be with this team by the end of the year. The fact that Nate can pretty much write his own ticket plays into the whole mix. The Blazers may not want to resign him, Nate may not want to resign, or they both want to resign for another year . . . crazy.
I disagree. He had a shot with a healthy Oden at the start of the 2009-10 season and had absolutely no clue how to use him. After Oden led the team in scoring during the preseason, Nate told him not to worry about scoring, to just focus on rebounding and defense. BNM
I think a lot of people forget how poorly he used Greg when he had him. A lot of that could have been Brandon, but in the end it's the coach that is ultimately responsible
How did he mess up badly with the full roster? There were times when we were playing elite basketball, and sometimes not so much. Don't exaggerate your point. And the fact remains, he has never had extended time with a healthy roster to be able to make proper adjustments. Some people complain that Nate is too slow in making adjustments, but for the most part, he does eventually do them and he does them well. There are also probably a dozen other adjustments that we don't even notice that makes the team better. B-Roy getting injured and then trying to play through it was what made us lose in the playoffs. In the year before that, the Rockets were just obviously a better team and we had huge matchup problems with Yao and Brooks.
I think the thing I would remind folks of, is that if you are going to switch coaches, you should at least have some idea of where you are going. Look at Toronto, Detroit, and even Philadelphia to some extent. Detroit lost Brown, and tried to replace him with Saunders, Michael Curry, and are now to Kuester. Does anybody at this time, think coaching was the problem? Or was it the fact the GM drafted Darko Milicic, signed Charlie Villenueva and Ben Gordon? Toronto fired Sam Mitchell and has been on the skids every since. Since Sam didn't have the capability to turn shit to gold, I don't think he was the problem. At least when he was coaching the team played D sometimes. Philadelphia was in the same pattern. Throw out coach. Same bad mix of players meant for different systems. When they finally got to Doug Collins (The first coach I think they actually put some thought into in a while) he immediately talked in the press about how the mix of players was for different systems and that they had some work to do to get the roster in sync. Look how many coaches NY fired. Did it ever get them anywhere? The facts are a coach can only be as successful as the situation he is put into. Many times firing the coach is just a symbolic gesture to help save the GM's ass for doing a shitty ass job. So that being said, if the Blazers do decide to go another direction, they better have that direction picked and set up before they go. Because if the team ends up with some NBA retread coach, who has failed everywhere they went, what have we gained? IMO teams that have done it right lately are the Bulls, OKC, Milwaukee. They didn't just fire their coach and just start looking. They had an idea where they were going before they made the move. They knew what style they wanted to play. They knew what type of players they wanted for that system, and got them and the coach they wanted.
Bulls just fired VDN after two years. Just taking a look at the active coaches who have been employed the longer than Nate: Jackson, Popovich, Sloan. That's it. And they all have had tremendous success with their teams (Sloan led his team to a <.500 record only once in the past 22 years). Unless Nate is near their level, or has had as much success, I don't really give much credence to the idea that keeping a guy for longer breeds success.
