http://www.csnnw.com/pages/landingd...ginning-to-look-=1&blockID=661178&feedID=8351 all i wonder is... who besides jamal/felton want out? my guess wes wallace and thomas This thing has the feel of a rudderless ship, from top to bottom, just drifting aimlessly toward the end of an irritating season. So many players seem to want out of here and many of them appear to have checked out already. It's a mess. -- Yes, the fans deserve better. So do all the hard-working people in the Trail Blazer organization who toil so diligently at trying to put a happy face on everything that happens with this unpredictable team. -- You can say I'm overreacting if you want, but I've seen this stuff before. I've seen teams take the easy way out and just back off from the challenge of doing what it takes to win. And I've seen coaches who couldn't reach those players. And trust me, it never ends well. Not for the coach, those players or the organization.
Seriously. The larger point here is that Nate can't coach a team without a Brandon Roy to 'close' the game. Ergo, he can't coach a 'team'.
This sounds nice and all, but how many elite teams don't have at least one closer who consistently is asked to produce at the end of game? OKC- Durant/Westbrook Miami - Wade (James haha) SAS - Parker/Duncan Chicago - Rose Dallas - Dirk I mean, talking about consistently winning close games by setting screens, using the 3-man weave, and letting the open guy shoot sounds great on paper, but in the NBA, it just is not reality.
What coach in the NBA has had any sustained success without an MVP-level closer? Really, it's a serious question.
-- Once more McMillan comes out after the game and scorches his players for lack of effort and for being outhustled and outworked. That seems to happen constantly. But the thing is, the coach is responsible for motivating his players. You can go ahead and blame the players and to a degree, you'd be right, of course. Problem is, you can't fire 12 players. But you can fire a coach and if he can't get these guys to play he's going to be history. Nonsense. Anyone who won't do the job they were hired to do, and are getting paid insane money to do it, can and should be fired. No coach can motivate someone who has no desire, which appears to be the case for 2/3 of the team. If there are 12 of them then you fire all 12 of them. The idea that a coach is responsible for them fulfilling their job description is absurd, and it's management's (Miller) job to rectify the situation by trading, suspending, or publicly calling them out. I'd have no problem with Nate starting our 5 least talented players and losing games the rest of the season, then trading away anyone who didn't change their lackadaisical attitude. Were these guys playing for the Spurs, well, they WOULDN'T be playing for the Spurs.
I am sick to death of people trying to tell me that the Blazers have put together a team of "good character" guys. If this bunch of spoiled brats represent "good character", I want nothing to do with it! That said, it is silly to suggest that the coach has no responsibility here. If the coach has no influence over how the players play - what is he getting paid for? The idea of Nate passing that responsibility off on Larry "Al Bundy" Miller is just horrifying.
Detroit had a good run without a legitimate MVP-level player, but Billups was seen as one of the best closers in the NBA during those years. Plus, Larry Brown failed in two stops after that without an elite closer.
