It's funny to see the support for Stan, and then read the Magic forums at different portions last season.
You think Larry Brown is a players' coach!? Wow. Larry Brown is really the only coach I would want over Nate that is likely to be available. I'm not over impressed with either Van Gundy. Adelman has done a (far) better job with Houston than JVG. Stan is pretty good, but he's definitely going to wear on his players quickly. With Larry Brown, it's more the reverse. But he is one of the best three living NBA coaches. And is there another coach who's won an NBA title AND an NCAA title? I don't think so.
Well, Sheed liked him and played hard for him. It could have something to do with his NC connection. But I don't think that's entirely the reason for it. Did he do the same for Dunleavy?
Yes, and they all got excellent coaching. Only Duncan won a ring within 3 years in the league, but he did get to play next to a hall-of-fame center at the time. This team does not have anything like that. They pretty much grow as a group, at least the core. We have some role players that are veterans - but the comparison is not the point I am getting at.
Last year's Greg Oden was not that much to put in the positive side, Rudy and Batum were rooks - we had to clearly above average (in production, not efficiency) young players on the team in Roy and LMA. They still won a lot. You do not think I can find young teams with two very good young players and a bunch of young role-players around them? Heck, OKC last year had a very good young player in Durant, a good Westbrook and a bunch of role players. This year, in theory, they should have these two above average in production young players in Durant, Westbrook with a bunch of high-pick rooks and other nice young role players with some vets sprinkled around them. Think they will win 54 games this year? Based on the fact that we really had only 2 good players with clear above average production - I find this argument very unlikely. the 2001-2002 LAC - 3rd year for Brand, had a young healthy Darius Miles and a young Q-Rich, A young Magette, a young Lamar Odom and a bunch of other young players. Didn't this team had as much good young talent? Brand was out-worldly that year as well, with a PER of 23.6 - so they had their almost super-star just like we had in Roy. They won 40 games. This team is an anomaly - and given that we had a gimpy Oden, Rudy's body did not handle the entire year, Batum was a rook, Webster was out, Bayless did not play - we really did not have that much productive talent on the court. It was Roy, LMA + role players. Very talented role players, some of them - but - not very productive young players. Just efficient in spurts and wildly inconsistent. So, what is your list of these fantastic coaches? (Sorry if you already posted it and I missed it).
That is the one thing that might make me abandon the team. That cheating, whining dirtbag deserves to be a pariah.
Before he went into management Larry Bird was a very good coach. Word is he's leaving Indiana after this season.
I'd double down on this rec. Larry Bird was an excellent coach- I'd want him to replace Nate if things go south. Also- Flip Saunders, Van Gundy. (i'm assuming Sloan, Riley, etc are unreachable.
Oden put up an 18 PER with good defense. Even with his missed time, he was clearly a significant asset. Batum, Rudy, Przybilla, Outlaw, Blake were all role-players, but good ones. Identical ones? No, I don't. Durant wasn't as good as Roy, Westbrook wasn't as good as Aldridge and the Thunder's role-players weren't nearly as good as Portland's, collectively. Using words like "identical" and then naming a team that was pretty hugely different when you get past the so-vague-it's-meaningless category of "two good players and then a bunch of role-players" isn't very compelling Nope, for the reason given above: significantly less talent. Do you think that if they simply had Nate McMillan as coach now, they'd win 54 games this year? No, none of those players were as good as Roy, to start with. Having a true superstar makes a massive difference. Brand was a star, but not a superstar. Even if you cast Brand in the "Roy role," you end up with the same analysis as with the Thunder example...their best player wasn't as good as Roy, their second-best player (Odom) wasn't as good as Aldridge and Miles, Richardson and Maggette weren't as good a supporting cast as Oden, Fernandez, Batum and Przybilla. (And in case you think it is odd that I am listing players like Przybilla and Blake in this post, they were part of the team and factored into the team age. We're not just counting the young players, we're considering all the players on a young team.) Two excellent players and a group of good to very good role-players is pretty much the blueprint for a championship team, so your dismissal of the talent level on those grounds is off-base, IMO. It's incredibly rare that a franchise essentially gets all the elements of a championship team together where so many of them (all of them, I'd say, except Przybilla and maybe Blake) are young. So, I think the talent level is unprecedented for the age. I didn't provide it. I'd go with Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman and Larry Brown. Pat Riley was, but he hasn't seriously coached in so long, I don't know if he still is...and, in any case, I doubt he has any inclination to anymore. The rest of the coaches I'd consider a lateral move from McMillan. Which is why there's no "Fire Nate!" / "Replace Nate!" from me. Unless Portland can get one of a very few coaches, I don't think Portland can significantly upgrade at coach. There's no point upsetting whatever chemistry and stability the team has attained, by firing the coaching staff, unless you can get a game-changer.
I think that if Nate was their coach since Durant/Green's first year - they would have won a lot more than what they did the first two years - and would win a lot more this year than what they are going to. It's impossible to tell what this year's team would look like if Nate was their coach for all these 3 years - because I suspect that Nate would have given a lot of input to their GM - so that team might look different than what they look now. Chicken and egg. Were they not as good because their coaching was not as good - or because their talent was not as good. Their talent was, imho, just as good. Their coach never developed it as much. Odom's first 2 years were just as good as LMA's. He never progressed when playing next to Brand, as LMA did in his 3rd year? Why? Maybe coaching? How about Kobe, Shaq, Fisher, Fox, Eddie Jones, Derek Harper and Horry. That team, in 1998-99, the short season, was on pace for 50 wins - and had a much more dominant player than Roy in Shaq, a player as good as LMA was last year in Kobe and a bunch of veterans much better than what we had last year. Two excellent players and a group of good to very good role-players is a blueprint for a championship team. The fact that this team was 5th in the league in win total when their best players are so young, and most of their role-players were as well is just uncommon - and I think that a good bit of that is coaching. Larry Brown - yuck. Talk about a slap in the fact for anything to do with culture. How quick will have whine to trade half the roster and look for another team to coach? I can see PJ and Pop as no questions asked - better. Rick Adelman - maybe, not sure about him. He had some fantastically great talented teams in his history and yet never won a ring. I am not certain he is a clear upgrade over Nate at this point. Of all other active coaches - maybe Stan-Van as an upgrade. Who else is a clear upgrade? I just don't see anything obvious.
Granted. I made the same point earlier, that it's tricky to separate "talent" from "coaching" because, at least notionally, the coaching affects the talent. We simply differ on our evaluations of the talent and, perhaps, the general value of coaching at the NBA level (assuming that you do have an NBA-caliber coach in the first place). Yes, this is basically where we differ in comparing these Blazer teams to those Clipper teams. I agree...but this part of the discussion was about how Portland was an anomaly. If LA's roster was about as young and they were on pace for a similar season, then Portland isn't quite so anomalous. If they weren't about as young (I don't know the team age of those Lakers), then they're not a valid comparison. On the coaching front, that was the year that Del Harris was replaced by Kurt Rambis mid-season. Like with Portland, I'd say that it was just a very talented roster. I don't think any especial coaching brilliance was the reason. Fair enough, I didn't think we'd have the same list of coaches we'd ideally like to see helm the Blazers. We both come to the conclusion that only a few coaches would represent an upgrade worth having on McMillan, but I think we're a bit different on how we come to that conclusion.
