See, that's really exciting to me. I remember seeing Marion trying to guard Aldridge in the post this year, and it was a joke. He just went right through him like he wasn't there. Just too short and not strong enough. I think they have to have whoever plays center guard Aldridge, which means either Chandler or Haywood or Dirk. So like you say, Marion goes on Wallace. I think our primary objective early in the game is to get Chandler out of there. First try to have Aldridge get him in foul trouble. If that isn't working, push the tempo with Wallace/Miller/Batum and make having two seven footers out there too much of a slow liability. Dallas' defense is a house of cards that comes crashing down without Chandler.
It'll be a miracle if Nate finds a way to win this series. We have 7 and 1/2 players and no backup bigs at all. Nothing else for Nate to go to if a player gets hurt or has a bad game.
What makes this even more exciting. A year or two ago, Marion would be able to guard Aldridge. Tells you a lot about how Aldridge has improved his toughness.
This is exactly right. No four- or seven-game stretch "defines" a coach or player. Everything that has happened up to this point (except for the end of this season which, if anything, reflects well on him) has already been factored into the extension decision. Further, casting last season's playoff loss as being out-coached is a gross mischaracterization, IMO. Roy's injury allowed Gentry to make the move to put Hill on Miller after Miller lit them up. Batum's injury further reduced Portland's (and McMillan's) ability to counter. Gentry didn't make some brilliant move that McMillan didn't counter. Gentry made the obvious move (put his best defender, rather than his worst defender, on Miller and collapse his team defense when Miller penetrated past Hill, forcing other Blazers to beat them with shooting which they didn't) and it was enabled by injury...not McMillan's coaching. I think McMillan is an average game-planning coach and one of the better NBA coaches at keeping his team focused. That makes him valuable to keep around unless a top-tier coach (like Adelman or Jackson) became available and expressed interest in coaching Portland.
Top-tier Adelman missed the playoffs his final two seasons in Houston fighting with injury issues. Lower-tier McMillan made the playoffs those same two season with arguable more injury issues.
Houston has worse talent than Portland, IMO, this season and last. That Houston was generally as good or better than Portland when they had Yao is a testament to his coaching. Whenever Yao went down, that team was in much worse straits than Portland has been, IMO. But Adelman still kept them competitive.
I disagree, especially in 2009-10. Nate coaxed 50 wins out of a team that would ordinarily have been lucky to win 41. Anyhow, we disagree. Adelman had some uber-talented teams in Sacto, and couldn't even crack an NBA Finals appearance. I think he is largely overrated, and has proven that he can't coach talented teams to an NBA title.
A coach may not have much control over individual matchups or the talent of his players, but I do believe he has a great deal of responsibility for how the team plays defensively. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the defense was atrocious for long stretches of the past two playoff series. There were multiple games where the Suns/Rockets got whatever shots they wanted. I want to see an aggressive defense with players routinely closing out on shooters. I don't want to see scrubs like Aaron Brooks or Von Wafer blowing up like they did in the Rockets series or the team routinely leaving a guy like Jason Richardson wide open like they did in the Suns series.
Camby isn't the tallest center in NBA history, so we may as well just start Mills there. It's true that neither Rick nor Sloan has won and NBA title. That doesn't change the fact that their post-season records are better than Nate's. Or does thinking Nate isn't the greatest coach in the league make me a "hater", or just a heretic?
How is this blind Nate-hate? I'm simply asking if people think this is make-or-break for him? I didn't say, "if we lose, fire Nate." I'm simply saying that I will be watching him closely to see what his game plan is for the Mavs and how he adjusts to Rick Carlisle. He's been ousted two years in a row in the first round. Whether or not you think he was at least partially to blame for those losses, it still puts pressure on him to get out of the first round. I was unhappy with the adjustments he made last year and I'm curious to see how he does against Dallas. I think Nate is to be commended for his work during the season, absolutely, and I think it's amazing what he's been able to do with what he has. Unfortunately the NBA isn't about the regular season or the Cavs would have two or three championships locked up. This isn't the same sad-sac team from earlier in the season. We have G Wallace, Camby is back, and Roy is back (in about as good of health as he will be). We got an ideal matchup for this roster and now is probably one of our best chances to get out of the first round.
I agree that we have a great chance at advancing, but I don't see PA and the front office making this a referendum on Nate's tenure here. Honestly, I think he's done a great job this year, maybe from another year of experience...maybe b/c of the different assistants....maybe b/c of the "talks" Canzano gave him early in the season As I've said many times before, I've met Nate more than once and each time I've come away liking him personally more than the last time. But as an x's-and-o's coach, he'd made some very questionable moves in the past, or didn't make moves that seemed to be almost common sense. This year, though, he's been at the helm of a team that is getting more baskets at the hoop, less reliant on isolations and long jumpers, more takeaways and fastbreak opportunities, and getting LMA onto the block and abusing other teams' bigs. He went another year without his #1-pick-franchise-center, had his all-star hobbled for most of the year, and regardless of how it turns out he made it to the playoffs.
I'm definitely not questioning the guys character, nor am I questioning his desire to win or his ability to motivate his players. It's definitely his X's and O's and he hasn't shown a knack for out-coaching his opponents in the playoffs. At some point I would like to have a coach who can get the job done. If it's Nate, awesome, if not... I'd rather find out sooner than later.
I agree with most that this series isn't a make it or break it series for Nate, but I disagree if we get swept in 4 being blown out by 40 each game it would have no effect on his job. I know that is a bit of a exaggeration, but a sweep and none of the games being competitive would I think leave Nate on shakey ground.
The next coach to get fired before coaching one game of the extension he got the season prior, will be the first.
I'm just wondering if you are crying right now because Nate got a deserved extension. I'll never forget that you're the guy who posted that part of you hoped the Blazers would tank last year so you could be "right" about Nate. THAT was weak stuff, Nate. It made me think that you aren't a true fan of the Blazers, and are more concerned about being 'right'.
