I haven't read the rest of the thread - I assume this is already mentioned - but why do you post this as generally agreed upon fact? What support do you have for this contention?
But the question is why doesn't keeping a coach for a long time usually doesnt lead to sucess. I believe keeping a coach a long time doesn't usally work because whatever message he is preaching eventually gets tuned out by players. I have not seen this be a case with Nate. To make a general rule that it isn't good to keep a coach for a long time, by itself, doesn't sound like good logic to me.
I guess Nate didn't handle Oden correctly for the 3 months during the season that he was healthy? And people think he should be fired based on those 3 months rather than how he has handled the team in for the past 6 years and how he handles the team in the face of adversity that no other team has really faced (maybe GS). Nate has a team, that has lost thier team leader and only all star, above 500 and in playoff position. I'm guessing this summer it will be Nate making the tough decision, not the Blazers.
At the very least, to the 2nd round last season. Even without Brandon Roy, Portland should have won that series. Nate was TOTALLY out coached by Alvin Fucking Gentry. Gentry made ONE simple adjustment after losing Game 1. He put Grant Hill on Andre Miller, after Miller killed Nash in Game 1. And, Nate NEVER countered, well at least not until 6 months later when he FINALLY made Phoneix pay for trying to hide Nash's poor defense by putting him on Batum. For the rest of that series, Miller was far less effective and Batum as a total non-factor - while being guard by a player 15 years older, 6" shorter who is a HORRIBLE defender. Nate had FIVE games to counter Gentry's simple move, and coudn't/didn't. Forget in-game adjustments,. Nate can't make in series adjustments. BNM
I figured his underutlization (improper, rather) of Oden his rookie year and most of last year before he went down, and how he messed with the Dre/Blake situation can be agreed upon as bad handling with a more talented roster. I didn't really make it a rule as much as I simply stated some perspective from the other 27 teams in the league. Do you think Nate is a good playoff coach who can eventually lead us to a title? Can't really predict, but I think adjustments (or even better preparation) could have been made during the series in both years. Like when Dre was hounded by Grant Hill and we couldn't take advantage of Nash defending a bigger Blazer. Losing by 30+ at home to start a playoff series kinda killed us from the start two years ago, and I think that could have been prevented by better readying the players. And his seeming insistence on playing the same game when it's scouted in both years is not really a glowing report of Nate's coaching in the playoffs. (Damn, BNM, that's what I get for not reading).
Keep him. The fact that it's his 6th year and the players still play hard for him means something. He's not a perfect coach but he's good enough imo. I can't say the team has ever underperformed in a season under Nate.
I was unhappy with both of those situations as well. No coach is perfect, and no team that tries is going to have perfect harmony. Look at Phil Jackson presiding over his team losing their shit right now and calling out Kobe by name in the press for "screwing" with the offense. And yet, you expect a lesser coach to have a flawless record at handling a team? Also, the two problems you mention - with Oden and Miller - both have at their source the same problem: Brandon Roy. Brandon Roy was at that time a much better offensive player than Miller or Oden. Brandon Roy was the Face of the Franchise. Brandon Roy was a half-court, ball-in-his hands, iso loving guy. Brandon Roy got on the court with Oden and Miller and didn't like it too much. He whined. He complained. McMillan made a choice. He choose the better offensive player, leaving Miller to be "misused" and brew his understandable upset. He choose the player who made it through the previous seasons over the coming off an injury rookie - and told the rookie to rebound and defend. Sure, there were problems, but really, how much better off would the team have been if McMillan had sat Roy down, told him the ball was coming out of his hands into Miller's, and that Miller was going to set up Oden in the post as Option A, and that Roy would have to learn to play off the ball until the end of the game when it would be Roy Time? Would that have worked out better? Would you respect McMillan more if he had done that or something similar? Even if Roy had gone apeshit? Or, would you have blamed that on McMillan?
Not JUST that reason. He also: Dicked around starting Steve Blake over Andre Miller for a month and a half. Miller should have been the starter from Day 1 of Training Camp. Couldn't devise a 4th quarter offense that used more than ONE player (more below) Didn't react to Alvin Gentry putting Grant Hill on Andre Miller during the Phoenix series (more in my earlier post) And for anyone who thinks the Blazers blowing 4th quarter leads is something new this season, I complained about it last season, too - both when Roy was healthy and when he wasn't. The Blazers lost several games last season, to inferior teams (Grizzlies, 76ers, Wizards, Hornets, etc.) when they had substantial leads (8 or 9 points) with less than 4 minutes to play. Many of those games were at home to sub-.500 non-play-off teams. The reason they lost was an unimaginative, easy to stop one-dimensional isolation based offense that could not score when everyone in the building knew what play the Blazers were going to run every time down the court - the one where their SG goes 1 on 5. He even ran the Roy Iso when other teams were playing zone defense. That's plain stupid - and the results showed in the final scores. The Roy Iso worked great for about a season, maybe a seaon and a half, but once other teams made the adjustments to stop it, Nate never countered. It stopped working when Roy was healthy, but Nate kept using it even when Roy was less than 100%, or even when Roy was out of the line-up - mostly with Bayless, but he also blew the Hornets game last January by repeatedly calling the ice play for Andre Miller against Darren Collison. He recognized the right mismatch, but totally called the wrong play. Miller was not able to drive around the much quicker Collison, so he ended up forcing bad shots as the shot clock expired (a common trait of the Nate Iso based offense). After the first try, it was obvious to everyone in the building that Miller wasn't going to beat Collison off the dribble starting 20 feet from the basket, but with the game on the line, Nate kept calling the same play, over and over. It didn't work once and the Blazers blew the lead and lost by 1. What he should have done was put the ball in Bayless' hands and posted up Miller on the low block, where Miller could use his size/strength advantage and superior post up game to score on the smaller, lighter Collison. Instead of expoiting the match up by calling a play that used Miller's strengths (size, strength, post up game), he kept calling a play that favored Collison's strengths (quick hands and quick feet). Nate is a good motivator. He gets guys to play hard, especially when short handed, but he's a horrible in game and in series coach. He doesn't make adjustments. He sticks with the same thing over, and over, and over, even when it's obvious it isn't working which causes the team to lose games and a playoff series they should have won. That's why he should go. BNM
I agree with those that say it's to early to decide. Earlier in the season I thought Nate had lost the ear of the players, but now they are playing well and it seems like the players are listening to Nate. Of course this might not last long, but that's why we should wait until the end of the season. I don't blame Nate for how he used Oden at the start of the year last year. We were trying to get use to having Oden in the lineup again. It turn out he couldn't handle having the ball on offense a lot so Nate did the wise thing and had him just concentrate and D and rebounds and let the ball come to him on O. It was working well until Oden was injured again. I think it is kind of naive to think we would have started off the season without any growing pains.
Nate is demanding, disciplined, loyal and honest with his players, and he accepts no excuses nor does he make any. I have generally liked how the team has played over his tenure WHENEVER ROY WAS INJURED. I have come to the conclusion that with Brandon now pretty much out of the equation, Nate's probably the best coach for this team.
The general contention I recall from prior years was that Nate was a great coach for a team that is building, but is probably not the guy that can take a team to a title. Or in otherwords, he can get a team to the playoffs, but doesn't seem to have the chops to do much when he's there. I don't think that perception has changed much. As it stands, this is not a team that anyone believes would be a title contender even under Greg Popovich or Phil Jackson, so I think Nate is probably good enough for what we have. Extend for 5 years? No. Extend for 2-3, sure.
Different coaches are good at different things. I think Nate is good at several things including taking young players and getting them to play with good fundamentals and getting players to learn how to play hard. I thank him for instilling those ideals but now it's time for the Blazers to build on those bricks by hiring a coach with different strengths that include creativity and the ability to coach at different speeds and alter game plans. Honestly, I think Nate never had the right assistant coaches, or, he never listened to those coaches.
