No, it has nothing to do with saying he's a good coach, bad coach. It has to do with saying he doesn't make adjustments, but good coaches do. When really, the majority of good coaches in the NBA have had the same style of play throughout their careers. Yes, we were generally that team that you describe. With adjustments made to positions, players, etc. Pop, Phil, Sloan, again, to name 3, have had very, very similar styles from year to year as coaches, where you can say the exact same thing, yes, they made adjustments, but primarily were an "X", "y", "z" team. You made the claim that good coaches made drastic changes, but other than pop running a tiny bit more last season, you haven't explained the drastic changes that good coaches make. That was my contention with the initial comment, and follow up. What good coaches made drastic changes?
Wouldn't starting 2 PGs in Blake and Miller, while a move I don't like, be doing something agile, and not being stubborn, and just going with a "traditional" lineup?
At first blush it seems like it could be him doing something "unconventional" until you remember that Nate has at times had "his guys" and has played "his guys" at times most of wish he could have moved on. I won't claim to have ironclad proof of it, but I'm fairly confident that starting Blake with Miller was an act of stubbornness, not out-of-the-box thinking.
If you look at it as a "hey, I can get some more ball-handling on the floor, or putting 2 SGs in the backcourt for more shooting, or starting 5 guys taller than 6'10 to see what happens, etc" move, then sure it's innovative. But this was a "Blanky is my PG no matter who you brought in as a FA, and I'm starting him. If that means moving Roy to SF and Miller to SG, I'm doing it" move, which is neither agile, nor forward-thinking, and quite stubborn, from my limited POV. Same with this blast from the past: I mean, sure, it's innovative to not have a dominant big man worry about offense--not many coaches in NBA history would think to do it--but I surmise that's more from being stubborn and fitting into his system than agile. To each his own, I guess.
You're missing the point. The question asked was: What good / great coaches have been known to make drastic changes to their system? To say that Nate is a bad coach because good coaches make drastic changes to their system appears to be a pretty lame argument. If you want to say that Nate didn't make drastic changes, fine. But you must be arguing with somebody else.
I'm going to say this S L O W L Y so you don't miss it: There is a large list of coaches that have been considered good or great coaches that were stubborn in their approach and didn't make drastic changes to their system. You say coaches frequently "tweaked" their offense to fit their people. Nate "tweaked" the offense last year to fit his people by going more into LMA deep, adding more of the backdoor alley-oop, more high post entry passes. If you don't think Nate is a good coach, great. That is a fair opinion. But to say that Nate is not a good coach because good coaches make drastic changes to their system is silly.
George Karl is one of the best at adapting to fit his personnel. His teams in Seattle were more uptempo, in Milwaukee they were more half-court oriented with Glenn Robinson, Sam Cassell and Allen. Then in Denver its been a little bit of both. He's been successful every where he's gone. I'm too young and haven't watched enough old school games to know what style he ran in GS with Mully, Sleepy and Joe Barry. It was funny watching Pop chew out Tony Parker last night for not pushing it. He tore into him Bobby Knight style. Parker just laughed it off. Sometimes those frenchman need a good ass chewing, though.
I thought the question was "does Nate make adjustments?" (posts 51, 53, 57) then RR7 replied: Um, Nate didn't have Andre do the same things as Blake b/c he insisted that Blake start the first 20 games of the season with a 9 PER. He made Roy the SF and Miller the SG so that Blake could keep doing the Blake thing in the offense. Remember "you don't play the way we play?" How is that making the most of his player's strengths? How is telling Oden to just worry about defense playing to his players' strengths? As for Joel, he was most effective in the pick-and-roll...how many times did Blake actually run that? I'll give you the high post play with Marcus (and I'll throw in the Rudy-driving-to-the-lane-while-LMA-slips-the-pick-for-the-lob-dunk from last year). But those have been aberrations (ones I like, don't get me wrong) in the 11-yr career of Nate.
I think the Blake thing was because he was Brandon guy. B-Roy was the man. Blake is a Kobe guy, too. He endears himself to superstars. Blake must be a good equipment manager.
Somewhere along the way this got twisted to only making adjustments to systems. My point with Nate is that he's been very slow to make adjustments to his personnel in the past. he finally looks like he's made a concerted effort to do that. Where did I say he's not a good coach and where is the fucking controversy?
Nate had to adjust on the fly more than any other coach in this league in the last years to make the playoffs because of injuries. No team had a higher success to injury ratio than the Blazers. If this is not adjusting on the fly, what is?
Too many coaches see making changes as an admission of falibility on their part. If a coach stays the course, he can try to claim that the game-plan was sound, and the players just didn't execute it properly. It is tough to find a coach - in any sport - who doesn't sometimes sabotage himself with risk avoidance behavior. In Nate's case, he has been slow to abandon the grind-it-out style that *almost* worked in the past. That's understandable. His handling of in-game substitutions and adjustments is harder to excuse. As I have said in the past, Nate is hardly a BAD coach - but he isn't a GREAT coach either. There is a lot of middle ground there!
I think Nate's greatest strength has been getting ramshackle lineups to "hold the line" and keep their heads above water ... but it's still not quite the same thing as knowing how to maximize his teams' talent when everybody is healthy. What I've seen so far this year is that he's gotten 8 guys (mostly) involved in the flow of the offense and they are playing to just about everyone's strength
I have no idea where you get this from. He had reliable non-injured teams on very few seasons - and when he had it - he won a lot more than expected in Seattle (52 wins, 2nd round with no center and no PG) and in Portland with the 54 wins team (just about the youngest team in the league). All other times he had to contend with human Garbage (the ZBo team he had here when he got here) or constant injuries maxed with new roster members. If you actually give him some time to experiment with the rotation and get people to buy into his system - he is very successful. The only time we saw him have something close to a full-roster that is stable with defined roles was so far this year (knock on wood) and that 52 win team in Seattle - and he seems to maximize the roster just well.
All I know is that Nate wanted to start Steve Freaking Blake over Andre Miller after he traded for him, all to preserve his half-court, isolation heavy offense that mostly made LaMarcus into a jump shooter and never got him inside much at all. To me that's the kind of obduracy that epitomized his rotations and decision making through most of his coaching career -- he had a way he wanted to play and it didn't matter if that was the best use of assets. He definitely maximized Roy's opportunities and that's not exactly wrong given how good Roy could be, but I think the development of other players (LMA in particular) took a back seat when I don't think it had to be an "either, or" situation. The other issue I had with his approach in the past were that his teams have run some of the most generic, predictable offenses I've ever seen at the pro level. No misdirection, little player movement or ball movement and formulaic. That low-risk, grind it out style can certainly win you some regular season games and can make a team respectable, but the high-floor, low-ceiling approach he's had for almost his entire coaching career can only get you so far in the playoffs when opponents have been able to scheme against it -- which is what really matters. This more open, style that generates more shots at the rim via player and ball movement doesn't exactly guarantee success in the playoffs either, but it probably ups their odds and that's all you can ask for.
