Much love for Nate. He was a catalyst in turning around a franchise that had lost it's true identity. He played a huge part in bringing pride back to Rip City. Only Ramsay and Adelman have more wins than Nate in Portland. Give him the proper respect he absolutely deserves. He navigated injury after injury after injury and still had success. Nate will not be unemployed for long. What does that say about his coaching abilities? However, It's time to move on, and I understand why he was let go.
Who cares about what the media was saying, it was obvious from the results on the court that Nate had lost this team. I mean come on, down 37-7 against the Lakers in the second quarter, down by 35 at the half to the Celtics, losing by 42 to the Knicks - who had last six in a row. I have never witnessed a more obvious, more glaring example of a coach losing his team. And then the day after he's fired, they beat one of the best teams in the league, short handed, on the road by double digits. Who cares what the media said, the results on the court speak for themselves. BNM
Dr. Jack won an NBA championship with Bill Walton (PER = 22.9), Maurice Lucas (PER = 18.3) and a bunch of role players. That team, with no previous playoff experience, beat the 2nd seed in the West, the 1st seed in the West and the 1st seed in the East - all without home court advantage. In 2009, Nate couldn't get the Blazers past the first round with Brandon Roy (PER = 24.0), Aldridge (PER = 19.1) and a healthy Greg Oden (PER = 18.1). They lost to the 5th seed in the West and Nate was totally out coached by Rick Adelman. He was also totally out coached by Alvin Gentry the next season. I'm not trying to bash Nate here, but to claim he was a better coach than Hall of Famer Jack Ramsay is just insane - even for you. BNM
LOL. Oden played 61 games that year, and basically none any other year. He was never better than 60% healthwise, as anyone who watched him in college can attest to. He was far less of a force than Sabas was when we had him in the twilight of his career. They were beat by far more experienced, more talented teams all three times Nate managed to get them to the playoffs. Check out the NBA record for those former coaches minus their Blazers records which were padded by having superstar veteran teams. Pretty abysmal.
Oden may of only played 66 games, but he still had an amazing per. If he's 60%, that's still damn good!
And Walton only played 65 games in 1976-77 and was never more than about 60% healthwise in his entire NBA career. And in 1977, the Ramsay coached Blazers, without prior playoff experience. beat the three best teams in the league, all without home court advantage. The Nuggets, Lakers and 76ers all were veteran teams, with lots of playoff experience. Ramsay coached his team up to defeat higher seeded teams, with more talent, more experience and home court advantage. Nate's team lost to a lower seed and couldn't get past the first round. Jack Ramsay had a better winning percentage with the Blazers than the other teams he coached. Exactly who were these superstar veteran teams he coached? The average age of the Blazers top 10 players in 1977 was just 24 years - and that's back when they all went to college for four years. Most of the key players on that championship were second (Gross, Hollins) and third year (Walton, Lucas) players with no prior playoff experience. Probably the closest thing Jack Ramsay came to coaching a superstar veteran team was his first year in Philadelphia - the year AFTER they traded Wilt. He also coached some truly terrible, talentless teams in Buffalo and Indiana. Yet, he has a higher career winning percentage than Nate, a better playoff record, and an NBA Championship. Yet, you still think Nate was a better coach? Seriously, the harder you try to dig yourself out of this hole the deeper you get. I'm not really sure if you think that highly of Nate, or you're just trolling. Sorry to be so suspicious, but anyone who can actually claim Nate McMillan is a better coach than Jack Ramsay either has some ulterior motive, or has lost all touch with reality. Or, I suspect, both. BNM
You start the thread classless, then you later complain that it's classless. What did you expect when you set an example like that? Most NBA coaches last 2 years. If they last over 6 years like McMillan, they should be a great coach, with practically nothing that anyone can criticize, like an inability to coach uptempo even with an experienced, injury-free team. I like constant change. A new roster every year is what keeps me interested. That's why I liked Bob Whitsitt.
Best coach Blazers ever had? 34 year old former unpaid intern, Kaleb freaking Canales, just instituted an entire new offensive set in 45 minutes that kept his all star forward from being double teamed and had the offense attacking from different spots that kept the defense off balance. Nate might not even be the best Blazer coach this season
